Seeing as the last thread seems to have gone here is another...

The following shows the madness of spending money on roads to relief congestion instead of trams...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/166/166225_bumper_business_chokes_the_roads.html

Bumper business chokes the roads
Yakub Qureshi


JAMS: early morning traffic on the A57TAMESIDE has the biggest traffic growth in the country, figures reveal today.

A congestion blacklist published by the Department of Transport showed there were 36 per cent more cars and lorries on Tameside roads than in 1997 - the biggest increase in England.

Two other Greater Manchester areas, Oldham, in second place with 32.4 per cent, and Bury, 18 per cent, also recorded some of the sharpest rises in congestion. Tameside, Oldham and Bury were all above the national increase of 11 per cent.

Transport groups said the findings confirmed their worst fears about congestion in the region and blamed the delay of the Metrolink extension for increasing traffic jams.

Traffic bosses said they believed the bulk of the increase was due to the addition of the M60 Denton to Middleton extension, which had brought more traffic to area.

Coun Alan Whitehead, Tameside's executive member for technical services, said: "When there are good connections more people will want to use them. Regeneration has seen a lot firms moving into Tameside.

"People want to come to the great workshops of Manchester, and developments in places like Glossop, High Peak and Saddleworth means there will be additional traffic coming through Tameside."

Congestion

He believed the planned Metrolink extension, which was promised in the government's election manifesto, would help ease congestion.

Andrew Shaw, co-ordinator of Friends of the Earth Oldham, said: "There has definitely been an increase of traffic. The M60 has brought an associated increase in traffic throughout the borough and people are travelling more between their homes and work.

"The government is throwing a lot of money at the road network at the same time that it has reneged on its promise for the new Metrolink to Oldham and Tameside."

The Liberal Democrats, who requested the information, which dates from when Labour came into government, said motorists should be charged for driving into urban areas.

Tom Brake MP, the party's transport spokesman, claimed London-style congestion fees would cut traffic and fund better public transport.

He said: "John Prescott infamously remarked that if the government did not reduce road traffic it would have failed. These figures are the clearest indicator that it has failed."

What is the M60 Middleton/Denton extension? :?

The M60 as it is now known didn't used to be a complete loop, the eastern side was the major bit of it missing.

Used to be (anti clockwise) M62, M63, M66, and the link between Denton and Prestwich didn't exist. Basically, there was a huge chunk of the M66 totally missing.

I see. Thanks.

I thought for a long while that urban areas should be subject to a congestion chg, however im inclined to think that it would make little difference, no matter how good the public transport links are. I know plenty of people who could get the metro link to work but they dont. WHY? Because they cant be arsed. They love their cars and they love having their own space, so to hell with the environment and congestion and the rest. There are some mightily selfish and short sighted people on this planet and no matter how much you improved public transport most people would still choose to get in their cars. Every morning when i walk into work i see car after car with one person in, it drives me crazy. People believe it is their right to own and use a car now ( a bit like americans believe its their "right" to own a gun), whereas it should be considered a privalege.

I've worked in manchester centre for the last 5 years and have lived in a variety of places in that time, from as far out as Bramhall, to Chorlton and now in the city centre. I've used many different methods of public transport to get into the city, and have never found it to be a problem, despite the odd delay or cancellation. To say public transport needs fundamental improvement before it becomes a viable alternative is just a lame excuse for not wanting to give up your car.

Bravo :applause: i agree totally.

Car driver's are so bloody selfish it's unbelievable,
They think they have this god given right to drive into the city centre delay free, get a parking spot in an instant, free of course,because why should they pay to park.
And when they dont get this they moan like fuck.

They dont like going on the buses cos it takes longer,when it only takes longer because of selfish car drivers clogging all the bloody roads up.

And bloody school runs make me mad, big fat arsed mother's in 4x4 running there bloody kids to school when they could walk it in about 15 mins

I think though if Metrolink had more carriages and the extention goes ahead more people will get out of the cars , but until that happens selfish car driver's will be causing havoc on ours roads everyday until it does.

Once the metrolink extensions are built (bus services will also be improved by then), I see no excuse not to levy a £2-3 (£5 peak times) congestion charge in the city centre which can help pay for improved transport links around the conurbation.

Those who absolutely must drive will also benefit from having less cars on the road.

Motorway tolls could do the same for nationwide inter-city rail links.

Once the metrolink extensions are built? Fat chance.

Oh but you'll still get your congestion charging.

So rich public sector lovies have nice clear roads.

Jeez.

My theory on things...

Sky News are making out that Brown is changing when the spending revue is done - putting it back to 2007.

They are saying that in that spending revue there will be a massive increase in transport spending, I reckon that we'll build the Rochdale and Ashton lines with the £520m, the airport line coming from congestion charging piolt scheme or the increased dfT budget.

the actual costs of Crossrail will be between £15bn and £16bn!!!

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2005-07-19.1123.0&s=speaker%3A10153#g1205.1

Thats a total rip off. You could build a whole new city with that kind of money :(

It does seem a bit on the expensive side.

The interesting bit (as discussed earlier today on the Liverpool forum) is Darling seems to be making allowances for inflation in the calculations here for the costs - he quotes 2002 proces being £10bn, but 2007 figures as being £15bn to £16bn.

This is different to the Metrolink situation where we are stuck on 2002 prices of £520m for a 2007 start as well, this is a touch fustrating.

The interesting bit (as discussed earlier today on the Liverpool forum) is Darling seems to be making allowances for inflation in the calculations here for the costs - he quotes 2002 proces being £10bn, but 2007 figures as being £15bn to £16bn.

This is different to the Metrolink situation where we are stuck on 2002 prices of £520m for a 2007 start as well, this is a touch fustrating.

Your understated frustration speaks volumes there, Trammy. Yet more shame to be heaped upon Alisdair Darling's Department for Transport?

They've already been pilloried TWICE now by House of Commons Select Committee Reports over their utterly incompetent handling of various tram projects around the country and now this. Question should be asked in Parliament, Darling should be sacked and public transport given a similar status to health and education in the government's spending priorities.

Health budgets are being cut in an underhand fashion. My local hospital trust is facing a £5m reduction and is having to make plans to lose hundreds of staff, including nurses. We've had stealth taxes, now we're getting stealth cuts.

Health budgets are being cut in an underhand fashion. My local hospital trust is facing a £5m reduction and is having to make plans to lose hundreds of staff, including nurses. We've had stealth taxes, now we're getting stealth cuts.
Farsight, none of the NHS trusts have had funding cuts so if I was you I'd start asking your NHS trust questions about why they're diverting money to another hospital/facility.

That's same commuter train name as in LA do.

Indeed, the one in LA doesn't seem to have the same funding problems as it's UK namesake either.

Indeed, the one in LA doesn't seem to have the same funding problems as it's UK namesake either.

Yeah, Fund in Metrolink is alright but only problem with fuel because it will going be higher as gas price goes higher at same time. BART is one worse expensive transit with fare zone.

LA - from memory, the electric comes off the National Electric grid for Merolink - and as the UK is still (for the time being) relatively ok with gas supplies in the North Sea, our electric costs have not risen in the same way as other parts of the world.

Must be remembered that the cost of the alternatives will also be rising (probably faster) than for the electrically powered trams - petrol and disel are now both above 90p / litre (about £4 / gallon - $7.5 / gallon), which is historically very high.

It wouldn't surprise me if Serco (Metrolink operators) have a set price for electric - that could have been agreed well before the rise in energy prices.

A couple of years ago we had petrol strikes, it became very hard to get fuel for cars, the passenger numbers on systems like Metrolink rocketed, however, after a while it was becoming difficult for the drivers to get to the depot, to driver the trams.

LA - from memory, the electric comes off the National Electric grid for Merolink - and as the UK is still (for the time being) relatively ok with gas supplies in the North Sea, our electric costs have not risen in the same way as other parts of the world.

Must be remembered that the cost of the alternatives will also be rising (probably faster) than for the electrically powered trams - petrol and disel are now both above 90p / litre (about £4 / gallon - $7.5 / gallon), which is historically very high.

It wouldn't surprise me if Serco (Metrolink operators) have a set price for electric - that could have been agreed well before the rise in energy prices.

A couple of years ago we had petrol strikes, it became very hard to get fuel for cars, the passenger numbers on systems like Metrolink rocketed, however, after a while it was becoming difficult for the drivers to get to the depot, to driver the trams.

I see. Gas Price in CA is so expensive at $2.20 per gallon to $2.89 per gallon.

That is one of the problems a good proportion of the world has a problem with the US - you have huge gas (petrol) gusseling cars that are contributing far more than their fair share to global polution - and nothing is done to discourage people from using more and more petrol.

See Kyoto.

LA - from memory, the electric comes off the National Electric grid for Merolink - and as the UK is still (for the time being) relatively ok with gas supplies in the North Sea, our electric costs have not risen in the same way as other parts of the world.



Indeed you're right as usual Trammy. The power is fed from the local 11 kV three phase grid and transformed and rectified from a.c. to 750 V d.c. at substations. There's one underneath the brick viaduct as the tram rises up from St Peters Square to GMEX, before the turquoise bridge over Gt Bridgewater St. They will have a contract with an electricity supplier, and I guess will pay around 4p/kWh - around half domestic rates.

.

There should be a separate thread to discuss city-regional governance as its such an live topic throughout the country at the moment.

Thought Id post it in here as there is an extremely relevant passage relating to the present furore over Tram systems.

Cities scent new spending powers

Joey Gardiner, Regeneration & Renewal - 22 July 2005
New spending powers could be devolved to Britain's largest cities under plans being worked up by the Government and city leaders.


Sheffield City Council chief executive Sir Bob Kerslake told Regeneration & Renewal that the eight core cities were discussing with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister a "new settlement" which could see cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham given much greater financial autonomy.

Such a change would further cement the role of cities at the heart of the ODPM's economic development policy, which has already been enhanced by the Northern Way growth plan.

Kerslake said the deal, which would build on the pilots of Local Area Agreements, which offer councils increased flexibility over how they spend government funds, had not yet been signed, but was an "emerging dialogue" with the Government.

He said he wanted to see a system where decisions on new tram systems were made in the affected city rather than by central government, and where cities could "take charge" of the skills agenda.

He told Regeneration & Renewal: "This is going to be like Local Area Agreements, but will go further. We need some form of new understanding with Government. What can't be devolved needs to be aligned with city priorities."

He added that, if successful, the settlement could ultimately be extended to smaller cities and large towns.

The news follows comments made by local government minister David Miliband to Regeneration & Renewal earlier this month that councils in large conurbations could be offered joint funding pots (R&R, 1 July, p1).

Speaking at the Core Cities conference last week, Miliband confirmed that the Government was talking to the core cities about new powers, but said no final decision had been reached about what those would be. He said that this discussion will include a mini urban summit in each of the core cities - Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, Newcastle, Nottingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield - to be held by the end of the year. These would be used to identify what "new tools" city councils needed, he said.

Miliband said: "We're on a journey here, but there's no easy answer.

We need to see where devolution, where local people determine what and how things happen locally, and where decentralisation, where they just look at the how, is appropriate."

From the council's executive mintes. The wheels are turning, all be it slowly but in the right direction at least.

01 june 05:

Exe/05/78 Metrolink/Integrated Transport Strategy
A report of the Chief Executive was considered updating members on Metrolink and the Integrated Transport Strategy for Greater Manchester. The bid for essential maintenance/upgrade works to the existing Metrolink system as a first call on the £520m was submitted at the end of January. On 8th April an updated The ITS examines in detail the problems and issues across Greater Manchester and sets out proposals for improving outcomes by making existing resources work harder and through Best Value procurement. The document sets out thinking in relation to transport strategy across Greater Manchester on a segment by segment basis setting out an outline strategy for the next 15 years and a detailed plan for the next 5, including the four Metrolink lines.

A constructive dialogue has been established with the Department for Transport since the strategy was submitted and regular meetings are now taking place. A process of joint working based around the core work streams has been agreed in principle, which would intend to move the process forward to the point of agreeing the strategy for starting the procurement of Metrolink Phase 3. This includes an initial timetable and resource map to March 2006, outlining reporting structures and the definition of key early tasks. There is now a clearer commitment from the Government to Metrolink. The LTP strategy for Greater Manchester is built around the expansion of four lines. The question to be resolved with Government now appears to be how this can best be delivered. It had always been the intention that Phase 3 expansion would involve a cumulative approach to delivery within an overall agreed funding framework and the discussions, which are taking place reflect these requirements and involve determining the most efficient procurement strategy. It is now recognised that the original approach to procurement was not now the most efficient, resulting in increased costs. More efficient systems are being developed looking at the selection of one overall operator, with the individual lines being procured separately.

A procurement strategy options paper was included in the Integrated Transport Strategy. This is seen as a major step forward and more detailed working sessions on this are now underway. The strategy also emphasises the importance of achieving a high level of integration between different transport modes and on securing maximum benefit from investment in public transport. Amongst a number of options, the development of segment partnerships is being investigated as a means of engaging all key stakeholders in ensuring that transport planning is more effectively related to the delivery of a wider set of outcomes than has been the case in the past, with a clear focus upon gearing investment and measures to support, broader economic competitiveness and the social inclusion agenda.

Decision
1. To note that following the submission of the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) for Greater Manchester in April, constructive dialogue has been established with Government officials and a provisional joint work programme has been agreed as set out in the report.

2. To note that, following the General Election Alistair Darling MP remains Secretary of State for Transport, Tony McNulty MP has been replaced as Minister of State by Dr Stephen Ladyman MP and new Parliamentary Under-Secretary Derek Twigg MP will be responsible for light rail.

3. To note the request by the Chair of GMPTA to meet the Secretary of State for Transport with the Leader and Deputy Leader of AGMA.

4. To note that following further meetings on the funding bid for the Metrolink Phase 1/2 improvement programme, it is understood DfT officials intend to put a submission before the new Minister by the end of May.

5. To request that regular progress reports continue to be submitted.

Councillor Judge declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and left the meeting during its discussion.


29 June 05:

Exe/05/98 Metrolink Phase 3 - The Southern Corridor
A report of the Chief Executive was considered updating members of the conclusion of a review of the public transport options for the Southern Corridor and to establish the Executive's preferred way forward.

Following the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport not to approve funding for Phase 3 of Metrolink because of concerns about rising cost, extensive discussions have been taking place with the Department of Transport leading to a bid for essential maintenance upgrade works to Phase 1 and the submission of an Integrated Transport Strategy for Greater Manchester based on the three Metrolink corridors

The DfT, however, remain to be convinced about the affordability of light rail both generally and in respect of elements of the Metrolink Phase 3 programme, as is evident by the recent announcement by the Secretary of State on the future of Mersey Tram.

South Manchester is one of the most economically vibrant and active areas in the North West, whilst at the same time containing some highly deprived neighbourhoods. Both the airport and South Manchester economy are forecast to continue to grow over the next decade and it is vital that the benefits of this growth are more systematically targeted at and captured by local communities. The need for better transport links has been consistently highlighted as a contributory factor in terms of improving current levels of economic and social exclusion with improved connectivity being critical to delivering regeneration objectives in these areas. For this reason the Southern Corridor was proposed as a route for Metrolink within the Phase 3 expansion programme.

It became clear, however, that even prior to the announcement there were particular issues requiring resolution about the affordability of this element, with the key problem being that the overall financial and economic performance of this line was not seen to be optimised. This was brought into sharper focus by the fact that the line was not seen as attractive by bidders and was not a priority for them to build. Taking into account the consistent requirement by the Government that affordability must continue to shape the Department's policy in relation to light rail, a working group has been established to explore a range of potential public transport solutions for this corridor and compare these to the existing Metrolink proposals. The review tested the full range of solutions including stand alone and various combinations of bus, segregated bus ways, tram train and light rail. Alternative primary routes were also looked at. The review came to the conclusion, which has been independently verified that Metrolink offers the optimum public transport solution for the Southern Corridor. It outperforms by a considerable margin all other options and is the only solution capable of meeting both capacity and cost benefit requirements. The review corroborates the view, which we have long maintained that other public transport solutions are inferior and unsupportable. In all tests, the existing proposal for Metrolink between Trafford Bar and Roundthorn performed well but south of Roundthorn three alternative routing options were considered because of specific concerns about cost benefit performance on the existing routing The existing Wythenshawe loop option is the most comprehensive but also the most expensive of the three and the very high capital costs do not bring significant additional benefit. This could alter if Davenport Green was developed comprehensively for employment uses and there is a strong argument for safeguarding the western alignment if this were not pursued at present.

Of the other two options an eastern loop and a central line, the eastern loop is estimated to reduce capital costs by over £40m and is an excellent cost benefit performer, in fact one of the best of the whole expansion package. It also has the benefit of over the central line option of maintaining a large part of the existing route and therefore having no requirement for new powers.

We have welcomed the outcome of the review, which demonstrates clearly the essential need of Metrolink to Wythenshawe. It is clear, however, that the financial and economic performance of the existing proposal is such that in present circumstances it cannot continue to be seen as the best solution and we have agreed that option 2 should be progressed as a fixed component of the Greater Manchester's Light Rail Strategy for implementation as quickly as possible with the existing alignment of the Western loop being safeguarded. This will put the Metrolink extension to Wythenshawe which is the most cost effective of the three routes and the strongest in terms of deliverability.

We recognise furthermore that transport links need to be strengthened within West Wythenshawe and especially to the Hospital, where regardless of Metrolink, public transport links to and within the site need to be improved as an immediate priority. The Chair of the PTA and Chief Executive of the PTA attended our meeting and outlined discussions, which are taking place with Wythenshawe Hospital about improving public transport links and we have asked that the Officers work with the Hospital Trust and the PTA/E to help improve access as soon as possible. The Secretary of State has stated that he will make a decision imminently on the Phase 1/2 bid and it is the PTE intention to engage with the Department of Transport on a revised Metrolink procurement package over the coming weeks. It is critical that an early view is taken on the preferred Southern Corridor solution and a report incorporating our views on this will be submitted to the PTE on 28th July when it will be considering the options.

Decision
1. To note that in response to DfT's continuing concerns about affordability, a review of the Southern Corridor element of the Metrolink Phase 3 programme has been undertaken, which tested the full range of potential public transport solutions as set out in the report.

2. To welcome the review findings, which were independently verified, and confirm that Metrolink offers the optimum public transport solution for the Southern Corridor. Metrolink outperforms all other options and is the only solution capable of meeting both capacity and cost-benefit requirements.

3. To determine, that in the light of costs, benefits and opportunities related to these Metrolink options brought forward as a result of the review, Option 2, the Eastern Loop, represents in the present circumstances the preferred solution particularly having regard to certainty and affordability, and that the PTA/E be requested to continue to take all necessary steps to protect the alignment of the western part of the existing alignment, and to explore ways of improving connectivity to Wythenshawe Hospital and from the District Centre direct to the Airport in the short and longer term. The action to improve transport links to and within the Wythenshawe Hospital site to be progressed immediately in full collaboration with GMPTE and other stakeholders.

4. To note that a report on the Southern Corridor options, incorporating the views of the Executive, will be considered by GMPTA on 28th July and that AGMA Leaders will also be briefed on the proposals.

5. To agree, subject to a clear view being reached by the end of July, that the Chief Executive (in his capacity as Clerk to GMPTA) be authorised to work with the Director General of the GMPTE to commission a further detailed technical and financial appraisal of the preferred solution to be completed as quickly as possible in order to inform ongoing dialogue with DfT on the procurement package for Metrolink Phase 3.

6. To request that a further progress report be submitted to the next meeting of the Executive.

Has anyone noticed all the recent road/juction improvments taking place all over Manchester?

New junction layouts, lights, pedestrian crossings, road markings, bus lanes, etc, etc!

Wonder if theres a connection with the Metrolink bid?

Has anyone noticed all the recent road/juction improvments taking place all over Manchester?

New junction layouts, lights, pedestrian crossings, road markings, bus lanes, etc, etc!

Wonder if theres a connection with the Metrolink bid?
It's happening in all the towns that are down for metrolink lines from what I can tell. Massive junction changes in Ashton and I've noticed some works starting in Oldham too.

Sorry to be cynical earlybird. But that £17 billion is coming from somewhere.

London's transport system will also be upgraded over the next seven years with a £17 billion government investment strategy that will include a special rapid shuttle service that will ferry passengers at Games time from central London to the Olympic Park in just seven minutes.

Guess who I am...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/168/168812_metrolink_the_truth.html

Metrolink: The truth
David Ottewell


THE MANCHESTER Evening News can today unveil a dossier of secret documents that reveals the truth about the Metrolink extension.

Using Freedom of Information laws, we have obtained private letters and reports casting new light on the government's decision to axe the Big Bang - before massive public pressure forced them to put the money back on the table.

The M.E.N. can reveal:

The Department for Transport (DfT) was considering axing the Metrolink extension SIX MONTHS before it finally ditched the scheme.

Labour MPs privately warned Transport Secretary Alistair Darling of a "potentially disastrous" political fall-out in the run-up to the General Election.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) was proposing a cut-price scheme, delaying the line to the airport until private funding could be found.

Manchester's top councillor wrote to MPs to say senior civil servants had revealed the government wanted to stop investing in trams altogether - something the DfT has never admitted.

Alistair Darling announced in July last year that £520m for new Metrolink lines was being withdrawn over fears that costs were spiralling. The decision was greeted with shock and outrage on all sides.

Homeowners and public bodies had in the previous few months spent millions of pounds on property and infrastructure along the three proposed routes - to the airport, Ashton and Oldham-Rochdale - on the understanding they were still going ahead.

Details

But now the M.E.N. can disclose details of two reports sent to Mr Darling from the civil servant in charge of local transport, calling into question the future of Metrolink.

The first was sent as early as January 7 last year, asking the Transport Secretary what to do about the extension "in the light of further cost increases since it was approved for funding in December 2002."

The timing is described as "pressing". The second, from March 8, again asks Mr Darling "whether to approve all or part" of the Big Bang, which was the name given to the plan to build lines to Ashton, Oldham-Rochdale and south Manchester in one contract.

In both cases the DfT has decided to censor the civil servant's recommendation before releasing the documents to the M.E.N. But on February 17, the same mandarin wrote to then transport minister Tony McNulty ahead of a meeting he was having with Greater Manchester MPs.

"Our current public position is that we are reconsidering the scheme in the light of the major cost increase," he wrote.

The DfT continued to insist last night no final decision was taken until just before Mr Darling's announcement.

A spokeswoman said: "Considersation was given to the future of the scheme throughout, in particular whether it could be delivered on budget.

"When it became clear the costs had spiralled, we had to take the difficult decision to revoke approval.

"The decision was taken when it was announced in July."

The two reports sent to Mr Darling also make clear the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive was no longer planning to use the £520m to cover the cost of all three lines.

"The promoters' current proposals are for the Oldham-Rochdale line, the Ashton line plus the East Didsbury spur," said the March document.

Other papers in the dossier show how local MPs feared anger at the announcement could cost them their seats.

Decision

Eccles' MP Ian Stewart wrote to Mr Darling on August 8 on behalf of all Greater Manchester MPs, saying the reaction had been "possibly the most hostile reaction to a government decision which we have witnessed during our political careers".

He said: "The decision should, in our view, be the subject of urgent economic review if it is not to have potentially disastrous implications economically and politically."

There are also documents suggesting government officials were rethinking the future of trams nationwide - a charge repeatedly denied by the DfT.

A private letter from Manchester city council leader Richard Leese to all Greater Manchester's Labour MPs said: "We firmly believe, and senior civil servants have corroborated this, that there is a serious intention to marginalise light rail as a future investment option on the grounds of value for money."

Many papers - including minutes of meetings between senior politicians and ministers' letters - have been withheld because the DfT believes releasing them could "seriously impact on the policy-making process". The £520m funding for Metrolink was eventually put back on the table after a massive campaign, led by the M.E.N.

More than 40,000 people signed a petition we took to Downing Street, while thousands more gathered for a series of public protests. The GMPTE is working through proposals aimed at cutting the cost for all three lines, which rose to above £800m. Director general Chris Mulligan admitted last night that GMPTE had offered to go ahead with only two of the main lines, plus a spur to East Didsbury.

But he said that did not mean the airport line had been completely scrapped, just that it would be delayed until private funding could be arranged.

He said: "The DfT requested that we present them with several options. At the time, the passenger transport authority's preferred option was to proceed with the Oldham and Rochdale, Ashton under Lyne and East Didsbury lines. There were clear affordability issues with the South Manchester line which needed to be addressed - and which now have been.

"The South Manchester line is now the best performing of the full package. There was never any intention to drop the extension to Manchester Airport.

"This line was to be included in the Phase 3 contract.

"We intended to put together a funding package in partnership with third parties, including the airport."

The M.E.N. will be appealing over the DfT's decision to withhold parts or all of key documents.

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/168/168814_flats_demolished_for_tram_line_that_isnt_there.html

Flats demolished for tram line that isn't there
Clarissa Satchell
MILLIONS of pounds worth of work to prepare the way for Metrolink was going on while the government carried out its secret review into whether to axe the Big Bang.

People were forced to move out of their homes in Tameside, Oldham and Wythenshawe and £2.3m was spent on moving a school in Ashton under Lyne yards from its original site.

A main transmission pylon was relocated near Sale Water Park, a compulsory purchase order was served on a nearby farm and Sale Golf Club had to remodel several holes.

GMPTE had spent £200m preparing the way for Metrolink when the government announced the expansion plan was "not approved" in July 2004. Around £80m was spent on compensation and £120m on demolition and building work, with a further £100m committed for other works.

Thanks to a campaign spearheaded by the M.E.N., the government finally restored the £520m package originally promised at the end of last year and the scheme is once again moving forwards.

Demolished

But a couple forced to move out of their home while the review was underway said it was "disgraceful" there was no warning that the scheme could be axed. Elderly residents were forced to leave 24 flats in Wellington Road, Ashton, in March 2004, to make way for the planned line and the flats were demolished later that year.

Maureen Consiglio, 62, and her husband Salvatore, fought the proposals but were finally forced to leave, although they were rehoused by New Charter Housing.

Mrs Consiglio said: "I think it's disgusting. We were rushed out in the end but as it later turned out there was no need. Even now the land where the flats were is just standing empty, although at least they're saying now that it will come eventually. When, we don't know.

"It was especially unsettling for the older people to move so quickly and some of them don't go out any more because they don't know the area as well.

"When they announced Metrolink wasn't coming it was a big shock for us, all that upheaval for nothing. No one had ever warned us that might happen and nobody has ever said sorry to us."

It is understood that more than £300m has now been spent on preparation works.

Several contracts had already been signed when the government announced its decision last July.

Alistair Darling? :bash:

I can smell the shit from here!

What twats, you dont spend £300 million and then not finish the job.

Interesting that the MEN is going big on this.

From what is being said we are going to get a decision on how the three lines will be funded by the end of the year (I suspect in the final week prior to the xmas recess), and a schedule for when each line will get built.

When I last spoke to someone about this they were more adamant than ever this will go ahead - the £102m for upgrade work is a huge boost - confidence is very high.

As a guess, I suspect we will see work on the Rochdale line starting at some point in 2007.

P.S.

New trams arriving autumn 2007 through to early 2008 - order going in later this year
Track renewal - out to tender soon, starting late 2006, completed by early 2008
New ticket machines summer 2007 to early 2008

Plenty more of dates for stuff that I cannot remeber just yet

andysimo - the local PTE and councillors are putting so much pressure onto the DfT to approve all this work it will go ahead.

The government are going to find it harder and harder to reject a project which is actually going ahead very slowly - have a look at the new £35m bridge being built in Central Business Park, linking the heavy rail line, the proposed new tram line and a bus interchange - all good stuff when actually built - and building it in this way means that there will be no option but to put trams down that route.

It is taking some balls by the PTE etc, but it seems to be working.

See the £102m announcement, and compare it to Leeds and Liverpool's current situation.

I dont like it when it says "later in the year" because you know nowt will happen. We were ment to have a decision in Jan. Its now Aug. Dont believe everything you read most of it isnt true.

andy - I don't believe what I read - I believe what people tell me.

There was never going to be an announement about the new lines before the end off the year.

Very early on (about Sept or Oct last year) it was made clear that the priority was to get funding agreed for the upgrade to the existing infrastructure, and that this would happen before the autumn of 2005 - we have that, in early 2005.

The way it has been described to be is that they decided to push very hard for a quick (this is relatively quick in the world of UK light rail) for the upgrade money, whilst continuing the campaign for the 3 new lines for a year (from July 2004).

This year is now up, and they believe they have change the minds of the people in the DfT that need to be on board.

From what I hear, discussions are now starting about the practicallities of getting this done, e.g. the exact funding mechanism, how the system will be ran, how the tenders will be put out, all the very important, but quite honestly dull and labourious. From the discussions I have had, this process is now happening, the very very distant soundings I get are positive (I emphasis distant soundings).

The people I speak to say that this should be at a position by xmas to have a plan that can be made public - even to get to this date the PTE will need to get some 'firm' plans to the government by the middle of Sept.

Things are happening, just because it is not all reported in the media - for good reasons some of the time (much is commercially sensitive info to the bidding companies), be paitent, we have waited 5 years since the initial announement by Prescott, give is another 5 years, I'd expect one line up and running, and work progressing on another.

The moon is made out of cheese.

Taken from http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans...10153#g12745.r0

Alan Duncan (Rutland & Melton, Con) Hansard source

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the light rail schemes which have commenced construction since 1997.

Alistair Darling (Secretary of State, Department for Transport) Hansard source

The following light rail schemes have commenced construction since 1997:

Manchester Metrolink Phase II (to Eccles), 1997.

Tyne and Wear Metro Sunderland extension, 2000.

Nottingham Express Transit , 2000.

Docklands Light Railway extension to London City Airport , 2002.

Docklands Light Railway extension to Woolwich Arsenal, 2005.

Some advanced works have also been undertaken since 1997 for the following proposed schemes: Manchester Metrolink Phase III extensions; Merseytram; Leeds Supertram.

Site of Ashton's main Metrolink stop:

http://eb.cx/mn/metrolink.jpg

This area used to be home to about 20 families. Their homes were demolished for the tram. The thing had better be built after all this.

There seems to be a great deal of prep work all along the Phase III lines to Ashton and South Manchester. I've noticed signs, and even platforms and ticket machines at Manchester Airport and in Belle Vue, it's like the route amnd the infrastructure is there but there's no line yet.

There seems to be a great deal of prep work all along the Phase III lines to Ashton and South Manchester. I've noticed signs, and even platforms and ticket machines at Manchester Airport and in Belle Vue, it's like the route amnd the infrastructure is there but there's no line yet.
The whole of Lord Sheldon Way and Ashton Moss has been designed with Metrolink provisions in place. They've even built a lit, tree-lined boulevard leading from Lord Sheldon Way into the town centre...

anyone else see NW Tonight last night (was on the 10:30 news) the house in Sale that used to be worth £1m, then an electric pylon was moved for phase 3 prepiatory work to the end of their garden (not on their land), the house is now worth about £400k, and the trams won't be there for years.

Oooops.

My parents were reluctant to buy a house next to a future tram line in 1996 because that line was apparently going to be ready by 2000. Bought a house somwhere else instead. What a joke!

Eh?

What line was ever going to be ready for 2000?

Think some over enthusiastic estate agent there.

The mid 90's were about getting the Eccles line built, which happened in time for 2000 (ish).

P.S. Bad move, having a tram line nearby tends to increase house values considerably.

Its true I live in Sale we brought the house for £130,000 about 6/7 years ago its now worth about £550,000. You wouldnt be albe to buy a house down my road for less than £450,000.

I bought a house near Dane Road (relative shit end of Sale) for £60k 6 years ago, now worth over £180k - all the houses around me are now lettings, rich professionals are moving in who commute into town.

Have a look at the amount of flats / townhouses going up between Dane Road and Sale - for a small suburb it is quite amazing the number of VERY high value property going up (over £500k).

I would say the shite side of Sale is over towards Sale Moor near Jeff Jo School.

P.S. Bad move, having a tram line nearby tends to increase house values considerably.

Maybe it was due to start in 2000 then. The house was near a line but almost between stops, where the tram would've been at highest speed between these stops.

Anyway the house we bought isn't that much further away anyway, and has increased in value more than three-fold without the trams!

Very good article on http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/mlnn2005.html#28jly describing how decisions are made about whether trams are the best option.

Have a read, it shows that it is not just a case of 'I like the idea of a tram line, lets build one for civic pride' etc.

My auntie works at the new Fujitsu gaff at Central Park. Up until summer last year, metrolink was "on the cards soon". When Fujitsu signed to the unit, somebody from GMPTE actually came in and sold the metrolink to them saying it'd be ready for Fujitsu moving in.

Obviously a complete lie. I know of other people who were advised to buy a house due to the "imminent arrival" of Metrolink through their areas. Bunch of arse.

I would say the shite side of Sale is over towards Sale Moor near Jeff Jo School.

But when the tram goes down there (Wyth line passing between Sale Moor and Northern Moor) will this suddenly become scattered with yuppies? I'd quite like to see Sale Moor gentrified. I could lead a path of nephews, neices and other assorted younger relatives around and tell them that in my day these fine streets saw young men punched and spat at for going to other schools and they'd look at me with respect and awe.

dgnr - I work for Fujitsu to.

Not up at 'MAN37' yet though (Central Business Park).

Looking on our intranet it is apparent that Metrolink was one of the great selling points for the new location and the cancellation has caused somewhat of a problem.


Don't think saying was "on the cards soon" was exactly a lie, as before 19th July it was - as far as the PTE are concerned.

Fujitsu would have known that there was no chance of this being up and running for the move, since it looks like this line may now be built before Ashton (unlike before), it is quite likely that it will open about the same time as would have been the case anyway.

Anyone in Fujitsu believing that this would have been done for Sept this year (when the move completes I understand) had not tried to find out what was going on.

For those unsure about the timescales involved here, the following is taken from...

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/network.html


A revised plan, April 2005, indicates that separate contracts will be let to build each of the Oldham and Rochdale, Ashton–under–Lyne and the South Manchester and Airport lines. If the proposed timetable is accepted, work to build these lines, not necessarily in the above order, could start in early 2007 with the second line started later that year and the third towards the end of 2008. One operating company will run the whole network.


Remember, a line typically takes 2 to 3 years to build.

Metrolink, when will we know if these projects will definately happen, ie contract orders signed etc?

Zim - I'd imagine we will get detailed information about Rochdale by the end off the year - with it going to tender early 2006, with works possibly starting 2007.

If this is the case, I'd imagine that contracts would be signed autumn 2006 all things going well.

I'd imagine the other lines - Ashton running about 9 months behind this, and the airport line some 18 months after Ashton.

I honestly think that Rochdale and Ashton will go ahead with very little problems - 95% sure of Rochdale and 90% on Ashton.

Airport though requires funding issues sorted, and although I think it will happen eventually, I think it may not go to the schedule outlined above.

Cant we have the tram down oxford/wilmslow road.

there are so many busses at the moment, they create traffic jams amongst themselves!

Oxford Rd/Wilmslow Rd is perfect for metrolink, but underground (using cut and cover).

Funding for this just would never happen though. It would if Manchester was in a different country, but the logistics of moving it elsewhere would be just too great...)

Yeah, i cant imagine what would happen if they dug the road up! perhaps elevated would be a better option.

perhaps in 2020!

Give it 20 years when the centre of Manc has double the population that it has now and also has loads of skyscrapers which makes Manc look like a mini New York, you make get some sort of underground.

It would take a major shift in transport policy to achieve an underground metro line. We just don't do public transport in this country (not really) and what we do do, has to make a profit for someone. This is a fundamental mistake (oh no! I can feel a rant coming on)

On one level, I'm as eager as everybody else to see metrolink phase 3 started properly, and as frustrated that it hasn't already. But, the problem I have with it is that we couldn't have asked for a cheaper transport system. It's embarrassing, take Old Trafford station. This should be a showcase, an architectural delight (!) for the scores of visitors to Manchester on their way to and from Old Trafford LCCC and ManU. Yet it's a disgusting public toilet of a place. Just one example.

Manchester is a huge place with well over 2 million people, as we all appreciate, but Metrolink is a system that would be better suited to a much smaller city. You'd expect to see it in Mannheim, Stuttgart or Bristol. This is why it's hopelessly overcrowded. It's hopelessly inadequate.

No offence to anyone who works for metrolink. I'm commenting on public transport funding really, and not slagging off metrolink per se.

Why oh why does this Oxford Road / undreground / trams come up every 6 months - I cannot be arsed explaining for the 800th time why is ain't a goer - but forget it, not going to happen.

Why oh why does this Oxford Road / undreground / trams come up every 6 months - I cannot be arsed explaining for the 800th time why is ain't a goer - but forget it, not going to happen.

Suppose because it seems to make perfect sense. It's an incredibly busy artery and most users are already choosing public modes. Therefore a more efficient method of delivering the public mode (i.e. switching from buses to rail) makes sense.

Obviously we can't summon up the confidence in the UK to say to GMPTE:

1. Yes - here is the funding you need to do something that obviously makes sense.

2. No - you don't have to give in to the whinging bus companies along the route. Of course they would moan - wouldn't you! But that doesn't mean you have to change the plan.

3. Yes - people using the route will be happy to face disruption to their journeys, IF it is going to make more of a difference than all that crazy paving and tree plantation did in Rusholme.

http://chris.charlton.net/tube/metro_uni_line.gif

Right, for the last time.

The idea (in this country at least) is to attract people from cars to public transport, be that buses, trams, trains or underground, how many people along that route are going to be attracted out of their cars into a new form of public transport - not many.

Money would only be invested in areas where there is not already a good public transport provision - why invest somewhere that doesn't really need it (the buses do a perfectly good job) when other places are crying out for the cash.

Given that this would not be a good case for government funding - i.e. very low converstion from car to public transport, and the route already has an excellent public transport infrastucture funding for an underground or trams would be a nightmare.

Also, the route, there are far too many 'pinch-points' for a tram to go along there - are you suggesting a tram run along Wilmslow Road in Rusholme?

Given that there must be about a bus ever 1 minute (at least) down that route, would people really wait for a tram that is say every 6 minutes, to pay more, for an equally long journey - the tram ain't going to be overtaking many buses along Wilmslow Road - the road simply is not wide enough for segregated running, and if you are thinking about an underground forget it.

Why on earth would we spend the huge (and I mean huge) amounts of money that would be required to fund a route that is already extremely well serviced by buses?

I'd suggest that people promoting this route are simply doing so for the kudos effect, rather that to improve public transport - how many people would be attracted out of the car onto (slow) trams that don't already use the buses.

Last point, an underground requires about 10,000 passengers per hour along the corridor to make it anything like viable, how many people would be using this corridor for about 6 months of the year when students are not in town?


Seriously, forget grand transport projects that only have a benifit of raising the kudos of the city, leave that to the Brummies, if you want a good INTEGRATED public transport system in the Manchester region this is simply not part of it, the spending that would be required could be spent a million times better elsewhere.

Buses are a very important part of our transport system - don't forget that, trams have a place in Manchester's public transport, bu to be honest, buses will always have a bigger part to play.

Right, for the last time.

The idea (in this country at least) is to attract people from cars to public transport, be that buses, trams, trains or underground, how many people along that route are going to be attracted out of their cars into a new form of public transport - not many.
.

Try telling that to someone who spends an hour every morning doing just a few miles of Oxford/Wilmslow Road. It's a joke most week days - and I've spent many a night wondering why the hell I'm standing around waiting for a bus when a brisk 30 minute walk would have me in town without the disgusting stench of an Oxford Road bus on my clothes for the rest of the evening.

Then again, I've spent hours in my life (cumulatively) fannying about on the Eccles line wondering where the wonderful folk at GMPTE got their "every 12 minutes" line from - not to mention trying to work out garbled tannoy announcements.

And don't even get me started on those double-trams which always seem to miraculously appear an hour after rush hour. Grrrrr.

Aye. So bloody what if a tube down Oxford Road wouldn't make economic sense considering the buses? I remember something from not far back where Kurt was in full agreeance about how good public transport should be a right and not a privilege. And you harped on about how it's ridiculous that the Metrolink was almost canned due to "not being economically viable".

Make your mind up. You're either for a principal or against it. You can't just be for something because you develop a boner for trams.

Oxford Road has surpassed saturation point for traffic. Whenever I have the misfourtune of getting a 142 from Piccadilly to Withington it'll be half an hour before I see the Holy Name.

Kurt you can't say it's alright cos there are tons of buses, they clot the place up. UK North, Finglands, Bullocks, Stagecoach all vying for attention on this one stretch of road. Think about how filthy the air must be on Oxford Road when you have hundreds of cars and buses sitting there. A high speed underground line would be expensive, how about a much cheaper elevated metrolink line? Need one down Deansgate too, that's bumper to bumper 24/7 though at least it's not packed with kenyan Magic Buses that are older than your gran.

Though an Oxford/Wilmslow Road elevated line would probably fuck up St Peters Square if it were to join onto the other lines directly. We could replace Elizabeth House with some kind of elevated terminus.

An elevated line would never happen. Would absolutly ruin the city if we had these.

What about a very long travelator on the pavement?????

I do feel very cynical about transport in the UK. Local and National government seem to hate cars but like the money they can squeeze out of them, and are all talk and no trousers when it comes to public transport. Unless it's in London. Bah.

A Metrolink university line would be absolutely brilliant. Mind you I think it would good if there was more student accommodation near campus.

Why oh why does this Oxford Road / undreground / trams come up every 6 months - I cannot be arsed explaining for the 800th time why is ain't a goer - but forget it, not going to happen.
You sound like you have a moratorium on other people's views......I didn't realise that this was an official GMPTE/Metrolink website.
The reasons you give are well known. Just so happens that not everybody agrees, because we have a serious problem with transport provision and funding, nationally. Not only is funding inadequate, but so it the whole ethos of mobility in the UK.


I take issue with the statement that undergrounds have to attract 10,000 passengers an hour to be viable. In what way viable? Financially viable? Go and tell that to the Dutch/French. Amsterdam's sneltrams and Vancouver's Skytrain don't carry anywhere near that number.

Why oh why does this Oxford Road / undreground / trams come up every 6 months - I cannot be arsed explaining for the 800th time why is ain't a goer - but forget it, not going to happen.

That's what they said about space travel.... :)
eermmm didn't you only register this month? hmmmm...
Cynics don't make this world go round, they only give the optimists something to strive against.

Roll on Oxford Road line!

Good letter in the MEN today if i do say so.

Have a look at the Birmingham Transport thread those who propose an underground down Oxford Road - gives an idea of what you'll get for your money - i.e. £2bn for 1 line with 2 stops.

If this is something you are wanting to pursue then fair enough, but the reason I am not in favour, or the PTE, is because there are better places that this kind of investment could be spent.

It'll look good though, presentation and all that, and when you're on it you'll feel like you're in a big city.

Good letter in the MEN today if i do say so.

Have a look at the Birmingham Transport thread those who propose an underground down Oxford Road - gives an idea of what you'll get for your money - i.e. £2bn for 1 line with 2 stops.

If this is something you are wanting to pursue then fair enough, but the reason I am not in favour, or the PTE, is because there are better places that this kind of investment could be spent.

People aren't saying that a huge pool of existing cash should be sidelined for an underground line down Oxford Road. People aren't even saying that this should be the next thing that GMPTE should aim for once they've got Phase 3 sorted out.

What we are saying is that if the UK is serious about creating an integrated public transport system, then it should consider things like sorting horrendous clogged arteries such as Oxford Road in our major cities.

Your view, which seems to be that students and proles should carry on using the buses on Oxford Road forever is one view. Another view is that if Glasgow and Newcastle built its own underground systems decades ago - proving such a thing is possible - then why is the discussion of such a project in England's so-called "second city" branded ridiculous?

He tugs over trams. That's why.

Some claim his tugging in fact powers the Metrolink network.

Some claim his tugging in fact powers the Metrolink network.

If he powers the metrolink then you must power the internet... :laugh: :runaway:

Hamnet and others, my view is that an underground is simply not going to happen along Oxford Road, absolutely no chance, no matter how an attractive option it may appear.

Since the costs would be so high - and there are a few negatives about using this route, e.g. Didsbury has a tram line planned, an underground would have very few stops (due to costs), the patronage would be extremely seasonal - I was down in Fallowfield yesterday, it was dead, apart from when the students are here, how many locals would use that route, remembering the proposed tram line from Didsbury.

The reason I am 'negative' about this possibility is not because I don't think that it would be a 'nice to have' but simply as it has not got a chance in hell off happening during my life time (I am 29).

Fair play to those who say that route needs inproving, maybe it does during the student time, however, in reality, I don't think an underground will be seen as an option, but much more likely possibly using Wilmslow Road as a 2 way bus lane, and Upper Brook Street as a car road.

However, those promoting such as scheme should consider the costs of this scheme, and what possible benifits it would bring about.


P.S. Someone mentioned some cities that don't carry 10k passengers per hour on their undergrounds - I'd hazard a guess that the funding of public transport in those cities is not the same method as used in the UK.

P.P.S. If you really want to start to promote things like an underground, I'd suggest that promotion would need to start at a much 'lower' level, i.e. convience the general public of the need for investment in public transport, in such a way that governments actually start to listen - similar to the back on track campaign, but on a much wider scale - until such a time, I really cannot see the public accepting huge amounts of muney being invested on public transport - after all, at the moment people are whinging about high petrol prices, not the fact that they have shit public transport as an alternative - until this reverses hopes for an underground will remain that, just hopes, in my opinion.

But the Northern Line is dead outside zones 1 and 2 after morning and evening rush hour. Besides, the Wilmslow Road corridor is rarely dead. People in South Manc choose their bus ride on the bus company, not what bus comes first. Students generally get the Magic Bus or Ralph Bullock due to student fares. People wanting to be somewhere reliably quick get a stagecoach. People who aren't fucked get the Finglands. During the summer, Wilmslow Road's bus services are anything BUT dead. I've used the route since I first got a bus so regular experience comes into account.

And I believe people were getting annoyed with your holier than thou attitude as you displayed with your "why oh why" rant. Does the Tram King not like debate about other modes of rail transport?

Ok, I apologise for my rants, I have been working nights and have been knackered, no excuse, but all the same, I apologise.

No, I don't have a problem with other forms of transport, I think that an underground is very suited to many places, such as London, Lyon, Paris Barcelona. However, not Manchester. We simply (in my opinion) do not have the density of population, that generates the traffic required, that would mean an underground would be required.

As we have the very tight financial pressures on transport in this country I think we need to have to use a bit of judgement as to what is desirable, and was is actually possible.

Having been thinking about this, if you wanted to run a high volume mass transit system along this route, the option that would be much more affordable would be to branch of the Didsbury - Stockport line (near Didsbury Tesco's), come along A34 (very wide road and segregated running possible), across to Upper Brook Street (bit tight here and getting under the railway bridge at the round abouts may be a bit of a problem), all along Upper Brook Street (much wider therefore it would be possible for segregated running, along into the city centre, and possibly joining a second city centre line that runs from GMex, around Portland Street and over to Piccadilly Gardens somehow.

It may sound tram obsessed, but I honestly cannot see , in this country, a city like Manchester getting the type of funding that would be required to build an underground - and I cannot see this changing as the public don't seem that concerened, so long as they can get their petrol.

P.S. I don't think there is a hope in hell off the above happening either, however, it has more chance than an underground since the costs would be significantly lower.

Metrolink

I totally agree with you.
I do think there is a big Kudos thing about an underground, and that people associate one with a big City, hence the passion for one.
I wish we had one, why didn't the Victorians build one? Must of been busy enough then? You're right, in a city the size of Manchester, too expensive now.

But the Northern Line is dead outside zones 1 and 2 after morning and evening rush hour. Besides, the Wilmslow Road corridor is rarely dead. People in South Manc choose their bus ride on the bus company, not what bus comes first. Students generally get the Magic Bus or Ralph Bullock due to student fares. People wanting to be somewhere reliably quick get a stagecoach. People who aren't fucked get the Finglands. During the summer, Wilmslow Road's bus services are anything BUT dead. I've used the route since I first got a bus so regular experience comes into account.

And I believe people were getting annoyed with your holier than thou attitude as you displayed with your "why oh why" rant. Does the Tram King not like debate about other modes of rail transport?

Rallies to defence.....

Without wishing to sound patronising, It's good to see lots of optimism being expressed about trams/undergrounds etc. in Manchester, however I think M'link (Kurt) was simply trying to inject a dose of realism to some of the more far-fetched proposals being discussed.

The main thing to bear in mind when comparing London (& Liverpool, Newcastle and Glasgow) with non-underground cities like Manchester is that their systems (esp. London's) are legacy systems - they were originally constructed in a different (car-less) world to the one we live in today (I know Newc's system has recently been extended to Sunderland but this route is not mainly u/ground). It was possible to cost-justify building the London underground in the period 1890 - 1930 because there was no real alternative as people did not have private cars. Also bear in mind that the companies that built the lines went bust.

The trams were taken out before the war and shortly afterwards because more and more people could afford cars and wanted to use them, and as a consequence tram ridership decreased. The remaining passengers then had to pick up the fare increases further diminishing the attractiveness of public transport. It's only the saturation of car traffic and parking charges that have made public transport a realistic option again.

For instance I live in Zone 2 in London. My journey to work is about 3 miles. 10 trips a week, if I did it by car, would cost around £9 (30p/mile marginal cost). A travelcard is £21. Of course I get a travelcard because of congestion charging and lack/cost of parking, but this is my point - the sums stack up in London, but not as easily in Manchester where many people still drive into the centre to work or shop because it's often cheaper and/or more convenient.

Even in London a new underground line won't happen in my lifetime.......

But the Northern Line is dead outside zones 1 and 2 after morning and evening rush hour.

True but the morning rush hour starts at 6 and finishes at 11 then the evening rush hour begins at 1 and goes on till the death.

A line under Oxford Road would be well used if it went out as far as Alderley Edge and carried on up to Bolton.

Never ever going to happen.

Even in London a new underground line won't happen in my lifetime.......

With the exception, of course, of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2, DLR to Woolwich Arsenal...

Totalling in the region of a couple of billion pounds. Or about the same cost as completely rebuilding the entire city of Manchester three times over.

:|

With the exception, of course, of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2, DLR to Woolwich Arsenal...

Totalling in the region of a couple of billion pounds. Or about the same cost as completely rebuilding the entire city of Manchester three times over.

:|
A couple of billion to rebuild the city three times over? What are you on about? There is over 11 billion in active development in the city right now. It'd cost in the region of a couple of hundred billion to completely rebuild the place.

Chill, I didn't mean it litterally, but I just am amazed by how Londoners can oversee some huge billion-pound projects, while places like Manchester are dying for just one project of less than a billion pounds (such as the metrolink expansion).

Manchester doesn't need an underground, only a larger network of trams. It would be nice having one to the University, though with all the buses on Oxford Road perhaps it isn't that neccersary.

I heard that Glasgow is also getting an expansion to its underground?

For you lot with google earth, 53degree, 29minutes, 59.48seconds north, 2degrees, 13minues and 38.03seconds west - you know it makes sense :)

Taken yesterday!

Shudehill metro/bus/car park interchange!

Got ot be the best looking ^^ in the UK, espcially with a solar CIS in the background?!

Road was tarmaced yesterday!

Compare it to the beast at the MRI!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture035.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture005.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture036.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/Picture037.jpg

or alternatively...

53degrees, 31minutes, 53.19seconds north, and 2degrees, 16minutes, 39.80seconds west - a double tram on it's way to Bury.

I think these pictures were taken on a Sunday, autumn day about 3 years ago.

Shudehill has turned out to be really good. Definately the best multi-storey car park I've ever seen.

i was going to enter this into this weeks UPC, but it doesn't seem to have been updated.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/richardjamesbrowning/Mettunnel.jpg

i would love to see more views like this :yes:

hmmmm.....

Environment of our city leading to cleaner air, less road traffic accidents etc or Financial restrictions....?

If a realistic underground network (even just a line or two) can be built by other modern, developing cities in Europe in the not so distant past (Glasgow and Amsterdam for example) why not Manchester?

Surely COST is not an excuse, it was not for the London Underround in the 1800's, not for the Dubai Metro in 1999 and NOT for us here in our fair city today where an an expansion to Metrolink - possibly underground to reach all areas of the city is needed in due time. We should never ever be so cowardly and give in to the politicians who would rather spend money on the undoubtibly DOOMED concept of building new roads and motorways over what could be clean, fast, reliable, safe and intergrated transport for everyone.

No more roads, phase out cars, less of the 'light', crammed, cheaply done stuff supposed to be a Metro system and long live the rails!

i was going to enter this into this weeks UPC, but it doesn't seem to have been updated.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y122/richardjamesbrowning/Mettunnel.jpg

i would love to see more views like this :yes:
Thats a good pic :yes: The station looks a lot better there than I remember it.

With the underground thing, it's not like we need a network. A city loop would suffice, linking to existing and future metrolink stops would be superb. London has shitloads of different tram/tube type things so it must be viable in some respects. But anyway.

Shudehill is superb. I'm very very happy with it. Would've been nice if the glass covered the top floor but I also like how it's not. It gives the whole form of the thing a different view. Instead of a glass box, there's a nice bit of clean concrete and steel to give you idea of 2 structures - the carpark and a lovely glass veil, as if lowered over the building carefully from a crane.

Bit off a nothing story in the MEN today...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/170/170892_2m_spent_on_shelved_trams_link.html

£2m spent on shelved trams link
Clarissa Satchell

TRAMS: Part of the plans were dropped.
TRAMS: Part of the plans were dropped.
MORE than £2million has been spent buying property and land to make way for a shelved Metrolink line.

The M.E.N. has discovered that Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive has spent £2.25 million buying nursing accommodation from Wythenshawe Hospital, as well as several plots of land along the proposed route.

They were intending to demolish the flats to make way for the new line, which would have formed a loop to the airport.

But that part of the line has now been chopped from the plan to cut costs, reducing the loop to a single route passing through Wythenshawe town centre.

GMPTE insists that they still want to build the line some time in the future, but that could not be considered until after the other three lines are finished - and that is expected to take at least 10 years.

The £2.25m makes up part of the government's £520m contribution to the expansion plan. So far, the PTE says it has spent about £200m on preparatory works and has been promised a further £58m to upgrade the existing system.

Devastated

Bosses, staff and patients at Wythenshawe Hospital were devastated by the decision to scrap the line to the hospital, which was also supposed to stop at a new business park called Davenport Green and at Newall Green.

A GMPTE spokesman said: "In total, advance works and property acquisition along the airport line have cost around £8.25m. Specifically, advance works and property acquisition along the now-deferred western section of the Wythenshawe loop total £2.25m.

"However, we must reiterate that plans for this section have not been discarded - in fact, members have asked the GMPTE to retain and protect powers for the Western loop for possible future development."

A spokeswoman for Wythenshawe Hospital said: "We can confirm that the land was bought by GMPTE with the intention of building the loop line, but further details of the deal have to remain confidential."

The PTE is continuing negotiations with the government about delivering the new lines to Ashton, Oldham and Rochdale, and Manchester Airport.

Was your home or business demolished or your land bought up to make way for a Metrolink line? If so contact the M.E.N. on 0161 211 2180, oe email us at the Newsdesk.

Suppose because it seems to make perfect sense. It's an incredibly busy artery and most users are already choosing public modes. Therefore a more efficient method of delivering the public mode (i.e. switching from buses to rail) makes sense.

Obviously we can't summon up the confidence in the UK to say to GMPTE:

1. Yes - here is the funding you need to do something that obviously makes sense.

2. No - you don't have to give in to the whinging bus companies along the route. Of course they would moan - wouldn't you! But that doesn't mean you have to change the plan.

3. Yes - people using the route will be happy to face disruption to their journeys, IF it is going to make more of a difference than all that crazy paving and tree plantation did in Rusholme.

http://chris.charlton.net/tube/metro_uni_line.gifFor such a line, a simple cut and cover method could be quite effective. Even better make it fully automatic - slightly more upfront costs, but overall cheaper and looks more modern. Taking the above line though, extending it to Salford Central would probably make more sense. Also knocking off a few of the bottom stations might be more economical or the line would come to grade and fulfill the rest of the route.

<underground>
Salford Central Station | #
Opera House
St Peter's Square | M
Oxford Road Station | #
Aquatics Centre
University
Royal Infirmary
Whitworth Park
Rushome
Plattfields
<underground>
Fallow Field
Withington
Didsbury Village
East Didsbury#


Another cut+cover automated line could be:
Great Cheetham Street
Bury New Road
Victoria Station |M + #
Victoria Street
John Ryland Library
Opera House | M
G-Mex/Deansgate | M + #
Stretford Road
Withington Road
Whalley Range


Building of skyscrapers and other developments around these lines should be the focus to ensure that ridership is high.

Rochdale & Oldham Extension Map
http://img342.imageshack.us/img342/2616/metrolinkoldhamrochdaleextensi.jpg




South Manchester & Manchester Airport Extension Map
http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/3156/metrolinksouthmanchestermanche.jpg




East Manchester & Ashton-Under-Lyme Extension Map
http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/16/metrolinkeastmanchesterashtonu.jpg




East Didsbury & Stockport Extension Map
http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/7518/metrolinkeastdidsburystockport.jpg




Trafford Park, Trafford Centre & The Lowry Extension Map
http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/7821/metrolinktraffordparktraffordc.jpg

Future Metrolink Map


Current Network
- 37km
- 37 stops

Future Network
- 105.3km
- 117 stops

Growth
2.8%
3.1%




http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/9581/futuremetrolinkmap6pq.jpg

Where did you get that picie from Nick? Not seen that one before - it is obviuosly slightly out of date - the western section of the airport route has now been cancelled from phase 3, and some of the station names e.g. North Manchester Business Park, have changed their names.

A PDF off the Metrolink website.

A pdf with the correct names on - note it still includes the western section of the airport loop though...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_railways/documents/downloadable/dft_railways_024247.pdf

For those who have not seen last Decembers announcement by Darling to get the money re-instated (note - no other city managed this)...

Taken from...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_034735.hcsp




Statement to Parliament by the Transport Secretary committing £520 million of public funds to Manchester's transport network and regarding the Metrolink. Delivered: 16 December 2004.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Alistair Darling):

In July this year I told Parliament that because of excessive cost increases I would have to withdraw funding for the Phase III extensions to Manchester Metrolink.

Looking at the proposals, it has become increasingly clear there are real and persistent problems with the costs of the extensions. The public sector funding requirement has almost tripled since we first approved the project. Nevertheless, I have decided to commit over half a billion pounds, the sum previously agreed to fund Phase III, to Manchester's transport network. Manchester will also be able to bid for additional funds from the new Transport Innovation Fund. It is now up to the transport authority to come forward with proposals for how this funding is used.

Looking at the history of the Metrolink proposals shows the problems it has had with huge increases in public funding requirements:

* July 2000 public sector funding was approved with an up front budget of £282 million, for three lines to: Oldham and Rochdale, Ashton and the airport, plus some upgrading of the existing system.
* December 2002, this budget had to be increased to £520 million (including £60m local contribution). We made clear that there would be no more money from the Department. The Manchester authorities accepted they would meet the costs of any further increases.
* December 2003, Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) returned to ask us for still more money, but for a reduced project. The three new lines were reduced to 2 ½ , with the line to the airport replaced with a shorter spur to East Didsbury.

The public sector funding requirement was going up and up - partly because of private sector pessimism about light rail, and partly because of failings in the original cost estimates. There was no guarantee that costs would not continue to rise. This led to my decision last July to withdraw funding for this project, and to ask GMPTE to work with us to look at alternatives that would benefit Manchester, but at a better price.

Following this decision, a working group was set up with GMPTE and chaired by Tony McNulty. Its purpose was to see whether light rail could be made affordable in Manchester and to consider alternatives. I also appointed my own financial and technical consultants.

The potential cost to taxpayers of the proposed extensions is now clearer:

* confirm that at least £600 million public sector up front funding would be needed to build just 2 lines - Oldham-Rochdale and Ashton. Our judgement is that there is a strong chance that costs would be even higher.
* told Tony McNulty on 7 December that about £900 million of up front funding would be needed for delivery of the original three lines over the next ten years - a tripling since the original approval. There is no guarantee this would not increase further.

In the light of this, I have considered the options for the way forward. GMPTE wants me to agree to their continuing with their current procurement for the three lines. That would mean committing to upfront public sector funding of £900 million, when only four years ago we capped the figure at £282 million. I cannot do that. No Government could ignore these huge increases - a three-fold increase in just four years. And accepting this price would consume too much of the money that will be available for transport including in the North-West in future years. In addition, a scheme for substantially less than three lines would need a new procurement or risk legal challenge. I have therefore told GMPTE that the current procurement should not be revived.

Nor can I agree to GMPTE's alternative of starting a new procurement to enable construction of the three lines to be phased over a longer period. This would not address the fundamental problem of cost escalation.

I am however confirming that the £520 million budget is still available for Manchester, subject to GMPTE developing a satisfactory plan for these areas. This represents a major investment in Manchester, enabling a package of measures to address the transport problems in these parts of the city, which may include light rail improvements.

We have already provided some £170 million of the £520 million. Around £80 million was for GMPTE to buy the concession for the operation of Metrolink. This has continuing value to generate revenue for GMPTE and give them greater control over the tram network. The rest has been for advance works and buying land, some of which may still be required for the package that GMPTE now develop.

GMPTE are able to supplement this budget, both from their own resources and by bidding for funding from government through the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF). The TIF is available for authorities which propose innovative and coherent schemes to tackle congestion and encourage modal shift which could act as 'exemplars' for others facing similar challenges. This provides a real opportunity for Manchester to look at its transport policy across the piece and develop a bold integrated package.

The budget I am committing today provides the opportunity for a major transport investment package for these areas of Manchester. It is now up to the Manchester authorities to make the most of this opportunity, and to come forward with proposals that will deliver the transport improvements that these areas need.

It's a joke most week days - and I've spent many a night wondering why the hell I'm standing around waiting for a bus when a brisk 30 minute walk would have me in town without the disgusting stench of an Oxford Road bus on my clothes for the rest of the evening.

Couldn't describe it any better Hamnet. The majority of these museum pieces (often seen in the background of tv series 'Heartbeat') are totally filthy - pratically an embarrassment to friends and family who visit our 'world class' city.
Last time I caught one of these, some little f*ckers had set fire to the top deck - one down I suppose.

Metrokurt - your point about the student area's becoming deserted:
Manchester is a different place from a even a few years back. Withington (for example which is not so student heavy) now has a larger propotion of people staying on over the summer with the effect you barely notice term time had finished.
Ok there are no '100 plus' passengers waiting to board next to the library in Withington of a morning, but generally it's pretty much play as usual.

I've recently returned from a trip to Berlin (Prisc - it is a great city - perhaps more on that later).
The transport (as you would expect in efficient Germany) is second to none.
We used the U-Bahn most of the time we were there - literally ran like clockwork.
You only dip down a few steps (great when you have a pushchair to tour around the city!) to hit this underground system. Most of the U bahn trains were old stock, not that this mattered, they were clean and modernised (all had electronic screens in each cabin for example - showing crap but welcome all the same).
Every station felt safe (at all hours) and easy to use - the one ticket for all modes of transportation should be bleedin standard.

I accept that Berlin is a much larger and importan city than our own (though to be fair they are skint at the moment, not that you would know from the vibe and look of the place), but it angers me to return our own (and we are luckier than others) medieval means of getting around.
Car is king, but it ain't as fun/enviro friendly/social as buses/trams/trains etc.

North, I think you have hit the nail on the head, in this country car is king, and until the cost of petrol becomes prohibatively expensive, such that people actually start realising the need for a decent public transport system, we are stuck with second rate shite over here.

From memory, Berlin has 35 tram route, several U-Bahn lines and a host off trolley buses, and bus routes - you can buy a ticket to travel on all public transport in the Berlin region for about €2 or €3.

It'll come back and bite this country, when the cost of petrol does reach $100 a barrel, then our economy will suffer much much more than our continental friends since they have much more of an infrastructure in place to cope with less car use.

Oxford Road has surpassed saturation point for traffic. Whenever I have the misfourtune of getting a 142 from Piccadilly to Withington it'll be half an hour before I see the Holy Name.

Kurt you can't say it's alright cos there are tons of buses, they clot the place up. UK North, Finglands, Bullocks, Stagecoach all vying for attention on this one stretch of road. Think about how filthy the air must be on Oxford Road when you have hundreds of cars and buses sitting there. A high speed underground line would be expensive, how about a much cheaper elevated metrolink line? Need one down Deansgate too, that's bumper to bumper 24/7 though at least it's not packed with kenyan Magic Buses that are older than your gran.

Though an Oxford/Wilmslow Road elevated line would probably fuck up St Peters Square if it were to join onto the other lines directly. We could replace Elizabeth House with some kind of elevated terminus.

Just to re-iterate the points about the buses.

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

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

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

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

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

They're not going to sort that fucking mess out!

I don't think Oxford Rd/Wilmslow Rd is an essential thoroughfare for cars, with Upper Brook St and Princess Parkway both more or less parallel to it.

What would work is an on-street high frequency tram leaving Picc bus station (connections rest of Metrolink network), going south to Didsbury village (connections to Stockport/South Manchester metrolink).

Let's call it phase 5, phase 4 being Stockport.

Of course, I'd love a metrolink (cut and cover)underground, but this (as Metrolink says) wouldn't get funded. Unless there's a massive shift in all kinds of things, including being forced out of our cars.

To increase viability, then some trams could go all the way to Stockport, some down Palatine Rd to Northenden/Northern Moor? By that time though, I'll be a pensioner.

Harpurhey Ward 076728/MO/2005/N1 18/08/2005 Former Railway Sidings Between Oldham Road And Northampton Road/ North Of The Existing Sharp Facility In The Region Of The Existing Heavy Rail Line Moston RESERVED MATTERS Proposed metrolink finback bridge and associated phase 3 metrolink advance

Metrolink!

Have you seen this yet? Planning app, dated 19/8/05. Looks like their still ploughing on with phase 3 prep work! :)

i think someone should sumarise the present position on metrolink as i for one have lost track of whats happening

Harpurhey Ward 076728/MO/2005/N1 18/08/2005 Former Railway Sidings Between Oldham Road And Northampton Road/ North Of The Existing Sharp Facility In The Region Of The Existing Heavy Rail Line Moston RESERVED MATTERS Proposed metrolink finback bridge and associated phase 3 metrolink advance

Metrolink!

Have you seen this yet? Planning app, dated 19/8/05. Looks like their still ploughing on with phase 3 prep work!

^^ Oh my god. I don't think jrb actually reads this forum sometimes although fair enough, I did stick it in the main Manchester thread.

:)

Oh my god. I don't think jrb actually reads this forum sometimes although fair enough, I did stick it in the main Manchester thread.

I'm not surprised I missed it then Sleepyone! :bash:

'I don't think jrb actually reads this forum sometimes

I do! :yes:

The finback bridge was part of the Central Park Gateway project.

This was the road tunnel under the existing live railway line, the interchange itself, the finback bridge for trams over the mainline rail track, public realm and 'the seed' sculpture in the 'squareabout' between One Central Park and Fujitsu.

Balfour Beatty were the main contractors and are justifiably proud of the sexy (in civil engineering terms) project. It's just a shame that the metrolink part of the project is being mothballed until the Rochdale line is ready.

MEN story on the Central Business Park bridge (I start working there soon, better get these trams going there asap)...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/172/172034_the_bridge_that_just_dropped_in.html

The bridge that just dropped in
Clarissa Satchell

BEFORE: The bridge is constructed road-side.
BEFORE: The bridge is constructed road-side.
A NEW Metrolink bridge weighing 4,000 tons has been swung into place across a railway line.

A tram station is being built at Central Park, a new business park, in Newton Heath. And to link it to a tramline, engineers needed to design a bridge over a railway slicing through the site.

Building the bridge over the line would have meant months of disruption to rail passengers, so it was built next to the railway line then swung into place in one night.

The railway line from Manchester to Rochdale was closed overnight from Saturday to Sunday as the 130-metre bridge was rotated into place on a series of steel plates, using a 125-tonne jack.

The bridge, which has been funded by £36.5m of public money from Manchester City Council, GMPTE and the European Regional Development Fund, will form part of a new tramline to Oldham and Rochdale as part of the Big Bang expansion of Metrolink. It will sit between Monsall and Dean Lane stops - just minutes from the city centre.

AFTER: The 4,000 ton monster swings into place.
AFTER: The 4,000 ton monster swings into place.
Shock

Under the Big Bang plans, three new lines were to be built linking the network to Oldham, Rochdale, Ashton and Manchester Airport.

The government initially promised a £520m package for the plan, but Transport Secretary Alistair Darling made the shock announcement it was `not approved' last summer after the price rose to around £900m.

Following a campaign by the Manchester Evening News, the government restored the cash and talks are under way between transport bosses and the government on how the expansion will now go forward, with an announcement expected later this year. Work on major projects such as the Metrolink bridge has continued in the expectation that the Oldham and Rochdale line will be built.

The bridge has a twisting design because it has to pass over the railway but then quickly drop under a road bridge.

It was built in a joint venture between Balfour Beatty and German contractor Bilfinger Berger.

Barry Jessop, contracts manager for Balfour Beatty, said: "Most of the hard work had been done beforehand and it was a fairly simple manoeuvre, but it is certainly a unique project and we were very happy to complete it within the rail closure.

"Had we built the bridge over the railway it would have meant a series of closures, which is why we built it next to the line.

"It is a unique bridge because of its very curved shape and because it is so large. Technically the project has been a once in a lifetime experience for the team because it is so challenging and unusual."

The bridge was built `upside-down' with the support on the top of the bridge and has another metre to go before it is in its permanent position.

Mr Jessop said they were hoping to fix the bridge in position in the next few weeks.

There are no further plans to close the railway line while this takes place.

Central Park, off Oldham Road, has been developed by New East Manchester to bring business into the area.

Software firm Fujitsu has opened offices at the site and a new research and employee centre, supported by MANCAT and the University of Manchester, is under construction.

Article in this months Tramways and Urban Transit about the progression off phase 3 - basically it just confirms that DfT and GMPTE are in discussions relating to how phase 3 will progress - we should have much more detail by the end off 2005.

Given the preperation work continuing so fast, Rochdale to have trams in 2008 is my prediction, Ashton 2009, airport 2011 / 12.

Cornbrook is opened...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/172/172501_all_change_at_metros_new_stop.htmlAll change at Metro's new stop
Clarissa Satchell

IT was the destination you couldn't buy a ticket to, but now Cornbrook station is firmly on the Metrolink map.

Passengers can now get off and on at the stop on the Bury to Altrincham line after a £250,000 redevelopment.

A new entrance has been built at the station, close to developments Timber Wharf, Boxworks and Moho, and ticket machines on the network have been altered to include the station.

Manchester Central MP Tony Lloyd, who lobbied for the station, said: "It has always struck me and residents as bizarre that passengers couldn't access it from ground level.

"If they wanted to use the Metrolink they would have to go into Manchester first, even though there was a stop on their doorstep."

Isolated

Transport bosses wanted to open the station to passengers when the system was first built 12 years ago, but police feared it was too isolated.

Deputy Chief Constable Alan Green said: "We are not too happy with the approach to the station in particular. We would have liked to have seen even more improvements.

"It is quite secluded and more CCTV, lighting and human presence would be helpful."

CCTV cameras and extra lighting have been installed and a secure park and ride car park is planned.

Cllr Roger Jones, chairman of GMPTE, said: "It's the perfect site for a park and ride into the city."

oooops...

From MEN online...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/172/172661_trams_halt_in_power_chaos.html

THOUSANDS of commuters were hit today by a major power failure on the Metrolink tram system.

Travellers were stranded on trams across Greater Manchester for nearly two hours after services were brought to a standstill.

According to Metrolink, seven trams containing passengers were running at the time of the failure. They were stopped immediately and signals switched to red as a precaution.

Delays affected the whole network, including the Eccles and Altrincham to Bury lines.

Engineers

Engineers were called in to tackle the problem and managed to restore power to the network by 8am. By the time services were resumed, many stations were packed with a backlog of passengers.

The cause of the power failure, which is believed to have happened in the central Manchester depot, is being investigated by Metrolink bosses. A spokesman said: "All the trams that were out were stopped and all the signals were switched to red.

"Nobody could get anywhere. Engineers were at the scene from 7am and went out to individual carriages.

"Services resumed at 8am, although the network was very busy.

"The whole system was affected, but there were not that many passengers on board trams at the time the fault occurred, as our trams start running at 6.30am. We do not know the cause of the fault at the moment, but we are investigating."

United Utilities said it had no reports of a fault regarding its supply and a spokesman said the power failure was a matter for Metrolink.

Managed to get the campaign mentioned on 5 live, the following mail just got read out...


Whilst you talk about the price off petrol, it should be remembered how little the public as a whole in this country care about providing alternatives.

How many times was public transport mentioned during the election campaign?

How often does the local campaign in Manchester to get the local tram system expanded get mentioned in the national news?

We are simply a nation that hasn't cared about the alternatives in the past, so when the price of fuel has gone up as it inevitably was going to we are going to get what we deserve.


Pauline McColl and oil man had a quick comment that the price off electric hasn't gone up as much as the price off petrol recently.

I hate to get pedantic metrolink but I'm going to have to make an exemption in this case. I usually ignore most grammatical bad habits and put it down to just a bit of cyber-slang, but I've never seen 'of' substituted for the completely different 'off' before.
I'm sorry ML but somebody had to point this out to you. Maybe you're such a super-fast typist and lazy at the same time? :runaway:

Just bin sortin my trip to London for Fri and found...

"Victoria Tube station set for £500m major upgrade"

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-centre/press-releases/press-releases-content.asp?prID=492

To think all the hoo-f****in-har we have to deal with to get a few trams running. Probably not terribly new or shocking news I know, but it does frustrate.

I hate to get pedantic metrolink but I'm going to have to make an exemption in this case. I usually ignore most grammatical bad habits and put it down to just a bit of cyber-slang, but I've never seen 'of' substituted for the completely different 'off' before.
I'm sorry ML but somebody had to point this out to you. Maybe you're such a super-fast typist and lazy at the same time? :runaway:

Sir Miles, why don't you piss of ;)

I hate to get pedantic metrolink but I'm going to have to make an exemption in this case.

I probably would have said I'm going to have to make an exception in this case.

In this context, it's slightly more correct.

:laugh:

I probably would have said I'm going to have to make an exception in this case.

In this context, it's slightly more correct.

:laugh:
Ouch!.....I've got a sneaky feeling metrolink is just biding his time waiting for the opportunity to pounce. I should of* kept me trap shut.

* another one that bugs me....

I probably would have said I'm going to have to make an exception in this case.

In this context, it's slightly more correct.

:laugh:
You're spot on Jongeman but can you claim to have gone to a school that was 'approved by Her Majesty the Queen' :yes:

Letter in the MEN today from Chris Mulligan (big PTE cheese), he is responding to a letter from someone else that I didn't see.

Basically, confirming commitment to Oldham / Rochdale line, saying technically possible, should have more definate details by year end, and interestingly, they are going to open the line in phases.

Firstly the trams will run along the old line passed Oldham, whilst the street running through Oldham is constructed, when the street running is finished, the trams will start going through the town centre - will allow an earlier opening off the line.

Would imagine it could also open prior to the Rochdale street running being finished.

27 July 05:

Exe/05/101 Metrolink

A report of the Chief Executive was considered providing members with a progress report on Metrolink Phase 3 and the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy (GMITS). Following the work which has been done with the Department for Transport over the past few months, the new Minster for Light Rail visited Manchester on 30th June and announced that the DTF's contribution to the Phase 1/2 upgrade bid (£58m of the total £102m) had been conditionally approved.

The package will deliver improvements to capacity and system reliability through the provision of eight additional trams and infrastructure works including DDA personal safety works, track upgrades and new ticket vending machines. It is anticipated that the track renewal of the Bury line will start in Summer/Autumn 2007 with the new vehicles being delivered in Autumn and Spring 2008. A constructive dialogue is still continuing with the DfT on the Phase 3 programme including the procurement strategy for Phase 3 which, subject to GMPTA approval on 29th July, will include a focus on the revised proposal on the Southern Corridor.

The Transport Innovation Fund will be a critical component of the resources needed to deliver the Greater Manchester Integrated Transportation Strategy and LTP 2 and, although in his initial announcement on the fund in early July, there was a strong emphasis on road pricing, the Secretary of State has made it clear in response to questions in the House of Commons that the Metrolink Scheme is not dependant on the introduction of congestion charging or road pricing. As referred to elsewhere in the report on LTP 2, officers have been working with GMPTA and AGMA on the development of corridor partnerships as a key mechanism for taking forward delivery of the Integrated Transport Strategy.

By engaging all key stakeholders with a focus on direct support to the broader economic and social inclusion agenda, the approach not only strengthens local governance and accountability arrangements but will also facilitate access to the fund which is designed to deliver the bold creative transport solutions required by the Government. The first partnerships will be established on the Phase 3 Metrolink Corridors and the Leigh Busway Corridor. Phasing of future corridor partnerships will be determined at a later stage. The full LTP 2 due to be submitted in March next year will be informed by a fully agreed approach to the development of the partnerships and before then a great deal of work needs to be carried out in relation to the four priority corridors. A timetable has been agreed which will see the first meetings of partnerships to consider terms of reference and initial strategy proposals in September, with meetings to sign off the strategy and performance indicators and targets in December.

Decision
1. To welcome the Government's conditional approval of a £102m funding package that will deliver a major upgrade on the Phase1/2 system over the next three years comprising new trams, ticket machines, station improvements and track renewals.

2. To note that constructive progress on the Phase 3 programme continues to be made in partnership with the Department for Transport and that the Secretary of State has now issued initial guidance on the Transport Innovation Fund (TIF).

3. To agree the approach to the development of corridor partnerships to take forward the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Strategy (GMITS) and the timetable for implementation as set out in this report and delegate authority to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair, GMPTA/E and AGMA Transport Chiefs to begin immediately the process of establishing the initial partnerships in the priority corridors to inform the development of Greater Manchester's Local Transport Plan 2 (GMLTP2).

(Councillor Judge declared a personal and prejudicial interest as an employee of GMPTE)

The light rail system (Metrolink) is successful and popular, but limited in its extent and integration between transport modes is weak. The expansion of Metrolink on all the currently identified additional routes is therefore essential to regeneration and increased output of the conurbation and will be the most effective way of achieving the levels of modal shift which are required on the relevant corridors. The direct economic benefits and potential contribution of the growth of Metrolink to the city region are clear. Metrolink Phase 3 will establish transport links between new jobs and excluded communities with 200,000 people in the most deprived neighbourhoods benefiting from the enhanced accessibility provided by Metrolink. It will enable major business and investment opportunities to be realised, particularly outside of the Regional Centre, providing 28,000 jobs and an equivalent contribution of £1.8 billion to GVA over the period to 2020. Metrolink will also make a major contribution to the delivery of sustainable transport infrastructure and the vital inter-modal links needed in an international city region.
I think a contribution of £1.8 billion to the economy is reason enough for them to fund phase 3 in full.

I read an article in the Daily Express this morning about local railways being under threat from Darling. Sorry, I can't find it on Google.

Farsight - there have been rumours recently that the DfT are going to give the powers to run local rail services (along with the money) to the local PTE's.

Their is some opinion that the PTE's will close the train lines and use the money elsewhere.

2005 passenger figures are out, see

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_040093.hcsp

pdf at the bottom, page 16 - look at that increase over 10 years!!!!

Remember this is a system running at over 100% capacity for a good proportion of the day.

Stolen from....

http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/past_present_future.pdf



HISTORY
Introduction
Within a matter of only weeks of its opening, Metrolink became a huge success for Greater Manchester. It brought, not only to the Greater Manchester area, but to the United Kingdom as a whole, a new concept in public transport in the form of the country’s first modern street operating light rail system. In its wake followed the construction and opening of the Sheffield Supertram system, West Midlands Metro and Croydon Tramlink, along with research in many other towns and cities looking at the viability of light rail.
􀂾 Infrastructure and assets of the system are owned by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.
􀂾 The system was operated and maintained initially by Greater Manchester Metro Limited, a private company whose shareholders comprised GEC Alsthom Transportation Projects Ltd., John Mowlem and Company plc, Amec plc and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive.
􀂾 In 1989 this consortium was collectively awarded a contract to design, build, operate and maintain (DBOM) Phase 1 (Altrincham to Bury) of the new light rail system. This contract included a two year period to design and build the system.
􀂾 A phased and high profile opening in took place 1992 culminating in a Royal opening by Her Majesty the Queen on 17 July 1992.
􀂾 1997 saw a new contract awarded to the present concessionaire Altram (Manchester) Limited which included the financing, design and build of the new line to Salford Quays and Eccles along with the operation and maintenance of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the system. Altram (Manchester) Limited the new consortium comprises Ansaldo Transporti, Serco Investments Limited, Laing Civil Engineering and 3i. Serco Metrolink, a wholly owned subsidiary of Serco Limited, took over the operations and maintenance of the system on Monday 26 May 1997. The concession to operate Metrolink includes a comprehensive contract which dictates high levels of reliability and frequency.
􀂾 In March 2003, Serco Investments bought out its partners and Altram (Manchester) Limited is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Serco Investments Limited.
􀂾 The timetable used to introduce Metrolink to Greater Manchester included a 12 minute off peak service Monday to Saturday, but within a matter of weeks of opening passenger demand saw this increase to 6 minutes for a large part of the day.
Metrolink is unusual, because it incorporates features of both heavy rail and of trams. Whilst it has the discipline and speed of a traditional railway on the segregated lines from Altrincham and Bury, its design allows for flexibility of a tram through the city. The line from Cornbrook to Eccles via Salford Quays extends these benefits further by fully integrating with street running traffic along a large part of the route. This versatility has resulted in a high speed, frequent and convenient mode of transport which quickly won a phenomenal loyalty from customers. Metrolink is a hybrid (neither tram nor heavy rail) but it was quickly christened by the public and has since become affectionately known as a tram.
Page 2 of 5
2
CURRENT ROUTES
Phase 1 of Metrolink was the beginning of what is seen as an expanding network. The line comprises of:
􀂾 9 stops located on each of the Altrincham and Bury lines
􀂾 7 stops in the city centre
􀂾 15.9 km from Bury to Victoria
􀂾 10.4 km from Altrincham to GMex
􀂾 3.8km of city centre track.
Whilst the segregated line utilises existing ex British Rail stations, the city centre route has bespoke stops serving the major facilities including shopping, the commercial centre, theatres, China Town and the main line railway stations located at Piccadilly, Victoria and Deansgate (GMex).
Phase 2 serves the new commercial development at Salford Quays with its prestigious office blocks and growing leisure industry. It carries on to the town of Eccles in the North West serving the residential area along Eccles New Road.
􀂾 The route is 6.5km in length.
Page 3 of 5
3
SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES
Significant Dates in Metrolink’s History
􀂾 November 1984 GMPTE submitted Light Rapid Transit Bill in Parliament.
􀂾 March 1987 the first light rail vehicle carrying passengers in Greater Manchester operated for 3 weeks at Debdale Park. July 1987 Government Grant made available subject to private sector involvement.
􀂾 January 1988 GMPTE authorised to invite tenders for phase 1 (Bury to Altrincham via the City Centre). February 1988 Royal Assent received. June 1988 Project launched under the name of Metrolink. September 1988 Shortlist of 8 consortia for contract announced. November 1988 Parliament Bill deposited for extensions to Oldham and Rochdale, Didsbury, Trafford Park and variations of Salford Quays.
􀂾 March 1989 Service diversions began in Manchester City Centre and 3 consortia were selected for the second stage of tendering. September 27, 1989 Announcement of successful consortium – GMA Group (GEC Mowlem, AMEC and GM Buses). October 24, 1989 Michael Portillo Minister of State for Transport gives final approval for Metrolink. December 1989 Work commences on main GMA contract.
􀂾 March 1990 construction of street track section begins and the vehicle moke up is delivered. April 1990 Royal Assent received for Parliamentary Bill for Salford Quays. May 1990 Public open days for vehicle prototype mock-up. June 5, 1990 Design, Build, Operate and Maintain (DBOM) contract signed with Greater Manchester Metro Limited. June 6, 1990 Roger Freeman MP Minister for Transport lays the first new street tram rails in Great Britain at Long Millgate.
􀂾 August 1991 the end of British Rail operation to Bury with the last Bury electric train ran Crumpsall to Bury.
􀂾 April 6, 1992 Metrolink opens for passenger service from Bury to Victoria. April 27, 1992 First street operation in the United Kingdom when passenger operation commences through Manchester City Centre to G Mex from Victoria and enters the Guiness Book of Records as England’s only Street operated Light Rapid Transport System. June 15, 1992 Metrolink opens for passenger service from G Mex to Altrincham. July 17, 1992 The Queen officially opens Metrolink. July 20, 1992 Metrolink Phase 1 is complete as operation to Piccadilly Rail Station commences.
􀂾 October 21, 1996 Transport and works order made for Eccles extension from Broadway to Eccles. November 8, 1996 Altram (consortium of Serco Limited, Ansaldo Trasporti, Laing Civil Engineering and 3I) is announced as the preferred bidder for Phase 2 of the contract.
􀂾 April 25, 1997 work begins on Salford Quays and Eccles extension. May 26, 1997 Serco Metrolink take over operation of the Bury to Altrincham line.
􀂾 January 20, 1998 Construction work begins outside the entrance of Piccadilly Metrolink Station to enable trams to cross over the tracks before entering the station. April 21, 1998 Beams lifted into place over the Manchester Ship Canal.
Page 4 of 5
4
April 27, 1998 Piccadilly Crossover on London Road becomes operational. August 3, 1998 Minister of Transport Dr John Reid launches Integrated Transport Policy. August 6, 1998 First street rail on Salford Quays and Eccles line laid by Glenda Jackson MP. August 10, 1998 New Market Street island platform becomes operational replacing High Street and former Market Street stops. August 1998 Transport and works order for the Ashton-Under-Lyne route made.
􀂾 December 6, 1999 commencement of operations to Broadway.
􀂾 July 21, 2000 start of operations to Eccles
􀂾 January 9, 2001 the Princess Royal officially opens the Eccles line. April 2001 GMPTE issue bid documents for Phase 3.
􀂾 March 31, 2003 Shudehill opens for service. April 28, 2003 Transport Minister John Spellar MP officially opens Shudehill.
Page 5 of 5
5
SUMMARY OF FACTS
􀂾 The total network is approximately 37km route
- Bury to Victoria 15.9km
- Victoria to G Mex 3.1km and 0.7km (Piccadilly Spur)
- G Mex to Altrincham 10.4km
- Cornbrook to Broadway 3.0km
- Broadway to Eccles 3.5km
􀂾 There are 37 stops
- 17 former British Rail Stations
- 17 new, open plan stops
- 3 shared mainline stations (Victoria, Piccadilly and Altrincham)
􀂾 32 Light Rail Vehicles
- 26 T68 (purchased in 1991)
- 6 T68a (purchased in 1999)
􀂾 Daily patronage of around 52,000 passenger journeys. Annual patronage of 18.8m passenger journeys
􀂾 Research has suggested that at least 2 million car journeys have been taken off the road each year along the Metrolink corridor

Thanks Metrolink.

Annual patronage is now up to 19.7m / year, the data above is slightly out off date.

As a matter of interest, do know what the figures are for Notts, Tramkurty?

Notts carried 8.5m in the 1st year, above expectations I think.

Just to run more salt into the wounds, there are also articles in the magazine about Lyon and Dublin, Lyon will have constructed 5 lines in 10years (from concept to fare paying passengers) soon, and Dublin is adding a further 6 lines to the new 3 line network over the next 10 years - they'll have gone from 0 to 9 lines in about 15years!!!

Metrolink, do you or anyone else know anything about new phase 3 trams, and also plans to upgrade the existing ones on the Bury - Altrincham line? I thought that the original plan was to add a middle section to increase capacity.

I've just been looking for info on the LRTA website, and I reckon that Nottingham's and Dublin's trams are more modern and sleeker than ours, which I've always thought look a bit truncated and dated even. ( I know.....never bloody satisfied!)

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

jrb - they are trialing something similar to those in Bradford - from what I hear they are shite, they feel like they are toppling over all the time apparently and the ride quality is terrible.

Jonge - we will be placing an order for 8 new trams for the Alty / Bury line early next year.

They will be similar to those used in Koln - search google for picies, there are loads - fantastic trams, the best high floor trams in production in Europe.

The other 55 that will be purchased for the other 3 lines will all be the same model.

I wonder what the numbering convention will be? I suspect that the next 8 will be 1027 - 1034, with the next 55 3001 - 3055, since the 8 coming first are essentially phase 1 trams and the next 55 all phase 3 trams.

I don't believe you get enough credit for what you do metrolink. This is invaluable information and a good light rail network is very germane to the development of GM. It's probably one of the main reasons M/cr is leading the pack. Your efforts are well appreciated, thanks.

....awright...I'm a right crawling bastard....so what?..... ;)

SMP - I think my use of the royal WE has given you the wrong impression.

My full time job has nothing to do with GMPTE etc, and have never been paid for any work for phase 3.

However, I have 'worked' towards phase 3 (unpaid), and know a few people very heavily involved (at very high levels).

So the thanks shouldn't go to me, but those people who spend their enire time working very hard on this project.

Cheers metrolink for that info.....those Cologne trams are really smart.

Can't wait for when the ph3 expansion is complete. The system will give a real boost to the social cohesion of Manchester. It will probably be enough to get the middle aged and wealthy out of their cars.

jrb: I know you're only the messenger, but anyhow....

Half tram half bus my arse. That's a bus.
Special right of way corridor? That'll be a bus lane then.

London gets billions spent on rapid transit systems, everwhere else has to fight for a few crumbs, and now some smartass is trying to fob us off with this? Jeez.

London gets billions spent on rapid transit systems, everwhere else has to fight for a few crumbs, and now some smartass is trying to fob us off with this? Jeez.

I have a vague recollection of having read that the plan was to sort out London and the SE and then turn the attention back onto the 'provinces'.

We'll have to wait a long time for that proposed metro-frequency suburban network. The bridge linking Picc and Deansgate, and the freight line from Gorton towards Victoria are perfect for a Berlin-type S-bahn network.

It was repoted on a B'ham thread that they want 7bn to sort out the WM's infrastructure, so I would imagine that a similar figure is needed for Manchester.

Anyway, I agree with you...half tram, half bus my arse too. They'll be suggesting a return to pony and trap next.

I recieved the governments response to the Transport Committee's report into light rail the other day, I haven't read it all - bit heavy going and rather long.

But the long and short of it is the government (and presumably the PTE's) will not be making announcements about projects going ahead unless they WILL be going ahead after all the problems that we have had recently.

This is very good news for the £102m promised earlier this year as it suggests the government are very confident that the PTE will be able to deliver it, and would also explain the wall of silence at the mo relating to Phase 3 discussion, the last I heard is there would be some announcement prior to xmas, even if that is only to give a timetable for when things will be built etc.

Just as I said not to expect any news for ages (not news really)...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/178/178781_darling_pledge_on_metrolink.html

Darling pledge on Metrolink

CERTAIN: Alistair Darling.
CERTAIN: Alistair Darling.
METROLINK extensions WILL play a major part in a transport deal aimed at avoiding US-style gridlock in Greater Manchester.

This pledge was given today by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling during a fact-finding mission to the city to meet transport and business chiefs.

"I say explicitly trams will be part of the solution Manchester needs. I'm sure trams will play a major part," Mr Darling told the Manchester Evening News.

Behind the pledge is the grim warning from transport experts of a 26 per cent increase in traffic in the area over 20 years.

As talks continue on the Metrolink extensions, Mr Darling says the offer of £520m from the government is still on the table - £102m has been approved to modernise trams and track and there is the prospect of millions more from the transport innovation fund.

Anti-tram

But the minister made it clear the extensions of Metrolink must be part of measures to improve transport not only by trams but buses and trains. Asked if it was true civil servants in the Department of Transport were anti-tram, Mr Darling said: "I am the Secretary of State and what matters is what the Secretary of State thinks.

"Our position is for any transport system to be effective, you have to address the other traffic pressures, and it has to be affordable. If Greater Manchester does do something more to stop people coming into the city in their cars, that will increase the number of people using the trams and that in turn will reduce the cost of them.

"The difference between now and a year ago is both us and the PTE are working very closely together and trying to develop something that will actually work.

"I'm confident that what we'll have at the end of this process is a plan that addresses all of Greater Manchester's needs."

Any views on this Metrolink? Sounds promising!

Thats both Blair and Darling giving Metrolink the nod, or is it even more spin?

From todays MEN!

Darling pledge on Metrolink

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ContentResources/704.$plit/C_17_Articles_178781_BodyWeb_Detail_0_Image.jpg

METROLINK extensions WILL play a major part in a transport deal aimed at avoiding US-style gridlock in Greater Manchester.

This pledge was given today by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling during a fact-finding mission to the city to meet transport and business chiefs.

"I say explicitly trams will be part of the solution Manchester needs. I'm sure trams will play a major part," Mr Darling told the Manchester Evening News.

Behind the pledge is the grim warning from transport experts of a 26 per cent increase in traffic in the area over 20 years.

As talks continue on the Metrolink extensions, Mr Darling says the offer of £520m from the government is still on the table - £102m has been approved to modernise trams and track and there is the prospect of millions more from the transport innovation fund.

Anti-tram

But the minister made it clear the extensions of Metrolink must be part of measures to improve transport not only by trams but buses and trains. Asked if it was true civil servants in the Department of Transport were anti-tram, Mr Darling said: "I am the Secretary of State and what matters is what the Secretary of State thinks.

"Our position is for any transport system to be effective, you have to address the other traffic pressures, and it has to be affordable. If Greater Manchester does do something more to stop people coming into the city in their cars, that will increase the number of people using the trams and that in turn will reduce the cost of them.

"The difference between now and a year ago is both us and the PTE are working very closely together and trying to develop something that will actually work.

"I'm confident that what we'll have at the end of this process is a plan that addresses all of Greater Manchester's needs."

It does sound positive, however, as my last but one posting said, the government are not going to announce anything until it is definite.

I'll post more from the DfT reply over the weekend.

Our position is for any transport system to be effective, you have to address the other traffic pressures, and it has to be affordable. If Greater Manchester does do something more to stop people coming into the city in their cars, that will increase the number of people using the trams and that in turn will reduce the cost of them.

he clearly doesnt know what hes talking about. How can more people use it in peak hours? Has he got a tram on the Alty line in rush hour?? It is not possible for more people to use the system without bigger and better trams fist. 120% of capacity over a year!!! He needs to get the facts before making speeches.

Gavin - to be fair, he has agreed funding to buy another 8 trams to increase capacity.

But yes, he needs to realise the current situation with the massive over crowding we currently suffer (on the Bury line as well).

When I saw we're not going to announce anything definite until it's definite the phrase Yes Minister popped into my head. But I'm perhaps too used to being cynical, and that would be unproductive. Thanks for all this Metrolink, good stuff, sounds well positive.

More pressue on the Gouverment for the Metrolink money!

Metrolink cash plea

The panel L-R Chris Fisher, MP Paul Rowan, Helen France and Peter SkeltonANY failure by the government to back the £520m extension of Manchester's Metrolink tram network could do the city massive harm.

So said the panellists at this year's Manchester Evening News property lunch and question time held at the Midland Hotel.

The annual event, sponsored by law firm Cobbetts and the Anglo-Irish Bank, heard claims that the trams were essential to the growth of all the Greater Manchester boroughs.

Panelists including Rochdale MP Paul Rowen, Deloitte transaction services director Chris Fisher and the executive director of the North West Development Agency, Helen France, said that without the trams the benefits of the BBC's decision to move up to 2,000 staff to the city would be lost.

Damaging

Mr Rowen said: "Metrolink is the key to major sites like Rochdale Kingsway - without it we won't be able to spread the benefits by drawing in workers from places like Oldham - and if the new tram lines don't get built the impact with be huge and damaging because so many investment decisions now hinge on the Metrolink going ahead."

"If you are going to regenerate Greater Manchester you need a fast efficient transport system and Metrolink is the best. It's about whether Manchester gets treated equally. The authorities are spending hundreds of millions of Crossrail in London, and they least they can do is spend a fraction of that on providing proper public transport in Britain's second largest connurbation."

Panelist Peter Skelton, head of the Manchester office of surveyors Lambert Smith Hampton, said: "Failure to build the Metrolink would send a very negative message. We need it to be built to spread the benefits of major investments like the relocation of the BBC to Manchester."

"Handled correctly, the arrival of the BBC could mean that Manchester becomes identified as the capital of the digital media world, and the hundreds of small firms that would be created in that sector would naturally look to the towns around Manchester for their base."

Are the business leaders right? What do you want to see happen to Metrolink? Have your say below.

Passenger numbers are out...

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_030625.pdf

Have a look at the table on page 2 - the number of passenger km's compared to the number of trams shows the problem we have, each of our trams carries people significantly further than any other system.

Right, the reply from the DfT to the select committes report this spring... Firstly they welcome the report and recognise the benifits of light rail, e.g. reliable, quick and attractive at getting people out of their cars. They say that in some circumstances light rail is the best option for transport, e.g. high traffic corridors. DfT want to work closer with local authorities to develop innovative solutions to public transport, including light rail.

Light rail is relatively expensive, the costs must be justified. If local authority can justify on cost, and when compared with other possibilities then light rail should be built. Must be ued by local authorities to reduce congestion and reduce pollution.

All proposals must be part of an overall integrated stratergy, local authority must show it is the best solution fo the local circumstances.

The paper goes on to mention the Transport Innovation Fund which will support local schemes in the future.

DfT is working with UKTRam and PTEG Light Rail (PTE Group) to develop ways of makes projects cheaper.

In response to the individual recommendations...

Recommmendation 1 - the DfT should build expertise and share with promoters

The DfT accept this and want to start sharing knowledge with local authorities better, the document goes onto describe how this is being achieved.

DfT recognise they need to give more guidence, and will be working more actively with local authorities.

Recommendation 2 - DfT should work with rganisations like UKTram to drive down costs.

DfT welcomes UKTram, UKTram is working on several streams to try and reduce costs I won't go into them here

Once UKTram comes up with a best practice, DfT will make these specifications a requirement for any new scheme to get approval.

Recommendation 3 - DfT should give clear guidence, and work with local authorities to help get approval for schemes

DfT will later this year publish guidence as to what is required for approval

DfT is minded not to approve light rail that does not show how it will be integrated with other public transport

Light rail must tackle congestion

Lots of talk about the Transport Initiative fund, and local authorities can work with DfT to develop integrated schemes that will qualify for this money

DfT will support schemes that will get modal shift such as road pricing

TIF will grow from £290m in 08/09 to £2.5bn in 2014/15

Recommendation 4 - The time taken to consider a scheme and for it to gain approval is too long, must give consistent decisions

The DfT says recent experience has taught it that DfT should only give approval once all the costs / risks / benifits etc have been thoroughly researched and costed - DfT have to be happy with the figures provided I suspect this relates to Liverpool

DfT has issued new guidence on the approval process, they hope this will speed up the process (this is rather long winded, and to be honest not very interesting) - basically, the DfT will double and treble check everything before granting permission - much more likely if a scheme gets aproved it will actually happen.

Light rail schemes must pass the Office of Government Commerce Gateway process.

DfT recognises it must consider the business case much faster, and is increasing resources for dealing with light rail projects, discussing with the promoters at a much earlier stage

As they are expensive schemes DfT has to be sure of the benifit

Recommendation 5 - DfT to consider the situation with utility diversions

DfT is working with promoters to find out if the utility companies are asking for too much to be moved prior to the construction work - the utility companies may no longer be the only group allowed to move the utilites.

Reccommendation 6 - PTE's to get more control over buses etc to allow more integration

If a PTE considers they are unable to provide integrated buses / trams then they should approach the DfT and the situation will be considered!!!!!!!!!!

It goes on to say competition is not always bad, e.g. in Sheffield buses can provide access closer to homes, whereas in Nottingham, people have the option of direct buses to town, or feeder buses to the trams

DfT considers that PTE's have sufficient powers over their buses to provide integrated services.









This is a seriously edited versio, the full thing will be on publications.parliment.uk soon I'd have thought

From todays MEN!

Congestion fee threat to city

A FORM of congestion charging could be imposed in Manchester if traffic levels continue to rise.

According to a transport strategy for the city submitted to the government, extra investment in public transport should be complemented by "an increasingly hard-edged approach to demand management including if necessary a move to some form of charging mechanism."

It is understood that while this is unlikely to involve London-style congestions "zones", it could mean a levy on businesses with city centre car parking spaces.

The proposal is included in a new integrated transport strategy by the executive body of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority (GMPTA). The strategy has recently been submitted to the Department for Transport.

Coun Roger Jones, chairman of GMPTA, told the MEN: "Even though a lot of people are opposed to congestion charging there is no doubt Alistair Darling thinks that a number of cities are going to implement it.

"We want improvements to public transport first. But when traffic coming into Manchester gets too much we will need to control it.

"You have got London-style charging where you would put a ring around Manchester, whether the city centre or a larger area or it could mean business contributions."

Wrong

But Sarah Johnson, transport policy executive at the Chamber of Commerce, said it would be wrong to target businesses.

"It would be unfair to single out businesses. A workplace levy would be damaging for small businesses who would have to shoulder the cost or pass it on to employees, causing potential staff problems."

The Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, or PTE, is the body that implements the policies of the GMPTA and has already commissioned a congestion study that will map out hotspots across Greater Manchester and would form the basis for any charging scheme.

Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has said that the government is seeking to set up a pilot scheme which would see if a form of congestion charging could be linked to new Global Positioning Systems (GPS) built into many modern cars.

Mr Darling said: "GPS technology will be commonplace in 10 years' time and it is something we need to explore in relation to road charging."

What the fuck is this? Pay even more to drive your car, and we'll generously give you a tenth of your own money back so you can buy an extra tram? Why is this being dragged into the equation now? What else will be dragged into the endless prevarication?

I tell you, I get so annoyed. London gets tubes, railways, you name it, fucking billions. Everywhere else gets buses and Yes fucking Minister.

I've said this time and time again. You cannot charge people the congestion charge if you are not going to offer other ways to get into the city. You cant just offer buses because they arnt quick and also they also get stuck in traffic. If your going to get stuck in traffic you may as well do it in your own car with your own space instead of having your head in someone elses arm pit.

Traffic is going to rise if we dont get longer trams and more lines to other places in the City. Darling must be one stupid Mother f***** if he cant see that giving Manchester the new tram lines will cut traffic by a massive amount.

It's time our councils took this by the scruff of the neck. If everyone in GM gave, on average, £1 per week towards a Metrolink fund we'd have over £130,000,000 towards our trams in just one year.

I've said this time and time again. You cannot charge people the congestion charge if you are not going to offer other ways to get into the city. You cant just offer buses because they arnt quick and also they also get stuck in traffic. If your going to get stuck in traffic you may as well do it in your own car with your own space instead of having your head in someone elses arm pit.

Traffic is going to rise if we dont get longer trams and more lines to other places in the City. Darling must be one stupid Mother f***** if he cant see that giving Manchester the new tram lines will cut traffic by a massive amount.

Sadly Andy, that is exactly what Darling is.

The man is one of the worst transport ministers this country has had and there is some stiff competition for that dubious honour.

This will be worth keeping an eye on given the demands the DfT seem to of various light rail schemes around the country.

Local authority calls for light rail funding pledge

Joey Gardiner, Regeneration & Renewal - 21 October 2005

The London Borough of Barking & Dagenham looks set to block the proposed 11,000-home development at Barking Riverside, a key scheme for the Thames Gateway growth area, unless it receives a commitment from the Government over funding for an extension to the Docklands Light Railway.


The council is currently considering a planning application for the site from the developers, a partnership between housebuilder Bellway Homes and government regeneration agency English Partnerships, submitted last December.

Sidney Kallar, lead member for regeneration at the council, said: "There is no sense agreeing to anything without the Government's commitment on the DLR extension. If we start building homes before the DLR comes in, the (residents of the new scheme) will be car owners straight away, and we'll never change that."

Previously the council had indicated that it would be prepared to accept up to 6,000 homes on the 60ha site prior to confirmation of the DLR extension.

Ralph Luck, Thames Gateway regional director at English Partnerships, admitted that the council is asking for confirmation of DLR funding before progressing the application. "Barking and Dagenham would like some form of commitment to the DLR," he said. "We're working through the issues with them now and hope to have something agreed soon."

It is estimated that the DLR extension would cost the Government £200 million.

The Greater London Authority this week denied a media report that it is blocking the development.

rta today between a tram and road vehicle near Exchange Quay, Eccles service was seriously affected for quite some time (resumed about 3:30pm), hopefully damage will not be too bad and the tram can continue to be used, otherwise the shortage will get even worse (a tram lost a wheel when a lorry hit it outside Victoria last week).

why should we pay £1 when people pay enough tax already for projects like the metrolink - again i bet london gets it with a click of a finger... :@

£1 / person / week is a frigging huge amonunt, for a family of 4 that is over £200 a year - about 20% increase on the average council tax bill.

I'm not saying necessarily £1 flat rate, I'm simply showing how easy it'd be to raise the capital. Firstly, £130m would be enough for a whole new line, so I think one line every two years would be enough. This equates to 50p per week per person. This could be implemented on an income-linked basis, meaning richer people pay more. We could reduce it to the point where people below say £12k a year pay nothing. As for the comments about "why should we pay it when we pay other taxes", well people in London have to pay a supplement to the GLA on top of council tax.

GLA? Nah i wouldn't want to pay 50p i have half a bottle of off milk in the fridge! i'm a student you see :S

I was stood at St Peter's sq tram stop for almost an hour last night.
Metrolink said a combination of an RTA and buses on Mosley St was delaying the service. Good job United were not playing Chelsea.

I think the problem with blokages on the line should be addressed. When the phase 3 lines are (hopefully) built traffic on the line should be sorted.

I sometimes wonder if bus drivers are encouraged to edge over the line in slow moving traffic. Then when the lights change for the tram there is a bus blocking it's passage. The lights change and one bus is replaced by an other.

I've seen 3 or 4 cycles of traffic light changes happen before a tram can pull away. I think the council should install cameras (like speed cameras) and fine traffic blocking the line.

If there was slow moving traffic at a rail level crossing, I bet buses wouldn't venture on to the line until the was a safe gap on the other side.

I know people that are new to the city centre and salford where there is Metrolink street running get confused. But buses are there day in day out.

Buses deliberately blocking trams? That's awful.

Hmmn. Maybe trams need little pop out spikes to scrape the buses that are deliberately getting in the way. And a cowcatcher or snowplough blade on the front. And optional machine guns and rocket propelled grenades... easy, easy!

But a camera might provide interesting viewing.

yeah its happened to me many times too. A simple camera to see who's blocking the box would be cheap as chips. Why it hasnt been done I dont know. Ideally South Manchester needs a new interchange like the new Shudehill one so that the shithole that is the Piccadilly Gardens bus station can be put out of its misery once and for all.

Good stuff...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4385122.stm

Free tram rides for train riders
Metrolink tram
Trams run from Victoria and Piccadilly stations
People travelling into Manchester city centre by train can now use the tram network at no extra cost.

Passengers who catch a train from a station inside Greater Manchester are also able to use their ticket to travel between eight Metrolink stations.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (GMPTE) said it wanted to make it as easy as possible for people to travel in the city without a car.

The executive is trying to promote environmentally-friendly transport.

All passengers need to do is show their train ticket to tram inspectors.

The ticket must state "Manchester Ctlz" as the destination.

Metrolink services that can be used for free run between Victoria, Shudehill, Market Street, Mosley Street, St Peter's Square, G-Mex, Piccadilly Gardens and Piccadilly.

GMPTE's service delivery director, Denise Lennox, said: "Metrolink has been a massive success for Manchester and it's important that people coming into the city centre from elsewhere in the county are able to benefit from it.

"That's why it is free for all Greater Manchester rail passengers to travel on the tram to any stop in the city centre zone between Victoria and G-Mex."


Some thoughts...

1) I suspect this was made much easier by the PTE owning the consession now (having bought it as a part of the lead up to Phase3) meaning any negotiations about compensation to the tram operators is simplified greatly.

2) Darling was up last week - he continually goes on about tram expansion will only happen when PTE's can show they are integrating their public transport - a well timed bit of publicity, no doubt he was made aware this was going to happen when he was in Manchester.

We're boxing him in Metrolink!

He's a rabbit caught in Manchesters Metrolnk lights! :)

I think he has sat down with the Manc people, realised they will not give up on the tram expansion and has basically been forced into a position where he is going to have to allow phase 3 to continue.

No doubt there will still be large hurdles in the way, but I have been believing for a very long time now this will proceed (in it's entirety).

The PTE have to be fair played a blinder, intially, they needed to get the public behind them, and I reckon the shouting and screaming, along with the MEN, really shook up Darling and co - especially when Bradley lost his seat in Chorlton / Withington that would have had a tram line.

I remember reading an interview when Chris Mulligan (PTE big cheese) basically said something along the lines of 'right, we now have the public behind us, we now have all the details that the DfT are asking for, we can prove phase 3 is the only answer to Manchester's transport needs in the areas under dicsussion, we are now going to sit down with the DfT, work very hard, ensure we do all that they ask from us, and give them all the correct answers and we'll get this built.'

As I've said previously though, I don't expect any really positive announcement until this is a dead cert - they don't want a repeat of phase3, Leeds, Liverpool, Portsmouth again.

Hopefully if it is positive news, people from other cities won't take umbridge.

I think he has sat down with the Manc people, realised they will not give up on the tram expansion and has basically been forced into a position where he is going to have to allow phase 3 to continue.

No doubt there will still be large hurdles in the way, but I have been believing for a very long time now this will proceed (in it's entirety).

The PTE have to be fair played a blinder, intially, they needed to get the public behind them, and I reckon the shouting and screaming, along with the MEN, really shook up Darling and co - especially when Bradley lost his seat in Chorlton / Withington that would have had a tram line.

I remember reading an interview when Chris Mulligan (PTE big cheese) basically said something along the lines of 'right, we now have the public behind us, we now have all the details that the DfT are asking for, we can prove phase 3 is the only answer to Manchester's transport needs in the areas under dicsussion, we are now going to sit down with the DfT, work very hard, ensure we do all that they ask from us, and give them all the correct answers and we'll get this built.'

As I've said previously though, I don't expect any really positive announcement until this is a dead cert - they don't want a repeat of phase3, Leeds, Liverpool, Portsmouth again.

Hopefully if it is positive news, people from other cities won't take umbridge.

Great post Metrolink!

Agree totally! The campaign by the people of Manchester really shocked Darling, Prescott and Blair in to a u turn!

Yep, thanks Metro. It really comes across like a game of chess having to box the government into putting our money where their mouth is.

Got interviewed about this by GMR yesterday...

If anyone listens to GMR I presume they'll be carrying some story about this today.


Fare dodgers could face £80 fines
Metrolink tram
Fare dodgers cost Metrolink about £1.3m every year
Passengers who repeatedly dodge fares on Manchester's tram system could now face fines of up to £80.

Metrolink is introducing an escalating scale of charges in a bid to tackle repeat offenders on the network.

Evaders cost the company £1.3m in lost revenue every year and help push up ticket prices, Metrolink said.

Managing director Phil Smith said the new measures would come down hard on repeat offenders and significantly reduce the number of fare dodgers.

In future, passengers caught without a ticket for the first time will be charged a standard £10 on-the-spot fine.

People who flout the rules for a second time will be charged £20, third-time offenders will be hit with a £40 fare and those caught a fourth time will be asked to pay £80 - or face prosecution.

Councillor Roger Jones, chair of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority, said: "It is totally unfair that law abiding passengers should have to share Metrolink with people who think they can play the system and get away with using the trams for free."

Metrolink Logo, Branding and Image
Does anyone else get infuritated by the lack of motivation by Serco Metrolink to keep the syetm and the concept looking smart? Personaly I was always pissed off about the plan for tranmas and the networkls colours to be Orange changing to that awful 'teal green' colour. Orange was Manchester's transport colour, anyone know the reasoning behind the change?

We all know how grim looking the stations are, it is unnaceptable for them to look so drab and under-invested in. The logo isn't bad but it's not too noticable, it needs to be sharper, stricking and simpler. Signs at tram stops should stand out more and be easily recognisable. Temporary notices and even timetables use the awful 'COmic Sans' font, how professional is that?! What on earth is going on in Metrolink's design department, do they even have one?

I noticed on the plans for Phase 3 that they had a new blue and yellow logo, but it's since dissapeared and not been implemented. It looked far better, I can't see why they'd want to keep the frumped 'Warped M' over that far better quality design.

Come on guys smarten up! We may have been given a cheapened somewhat sub-stabdard method of public light rail transport, but it doesn't have to look that way!

this is what I mean....

Tatty looking, oversized station signs - must be replaced! Stations smartened up. Look at what we have compared to the Docklands Light Railway, swish loking high-tech copmpared to dissapointing raised bus stops where you're lucky to find a bench whilst your getting soaked on the platform that should have a roof!
http://www.aidan.co.uk/md/ManMetroTramStPSq4726.jpg
http://world.nycsubway.org/img/logo/title-manchester.jpg

London...
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/dlr/images/stations/photos/bowchurch.jpg
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/dlr/images/stations/photos/poplar.jpg
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/dlr/images/stations/photos/customhouse.jpg


Make your mind up about a decent logo!...

http://www.cubpuppy.com/david/sky/metrolink1.gif
or...http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/manchester/images/logo.gif
or...
http://www.cubpuppy.com/david/sky/metrolink3.jpg

I agree about the colour scheme and logo, however, the stations are a mess due to the lack of money to spend on them - even with phase 3 money I doubt they'll be as smart as the London ones you have shown.

I agree and understand it's about money - same old story, it's just a shame that something so simple makes Metrolink look a but scruffy.

What does annoy me is that the best looking stations are the least used! - Pomona and Cornbrook in my opinion.

and the mess at Alty, the roof has been missing for what seems like years, simillarly with Victoria.

If you are of a certain inclination, you may find the following of some interest...

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/stage1/07.htm World Cities
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/stage1/08.htm Large Cities
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/stage1/09.htm Medium Cities
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/research/ebp/stage1/10.htm Small Cities / towns

We are in the large cities, but you'll notice, across all 4 reports, the UK tends to be up there with investment in roads, but right down at the bottom when it comes to spending on public transport.

It really is a shame, but it seems the population as a whole want it this way, look what happened when the price of petrol starts to rise, meaning they may have to use it a bit less.

Thoroughly depressing when you think about what those reports are actually saying.

That's interesting Metrolink. I have to say I struggled somewhat with the comparisons since it was relating Manchester with three European capitals and a Glasgow taken as the whole Strathclyde region. This jumped out though:

The UK cities have the lowest level of investment in public transport; typically a tenth of Vienna and Munich.Then when I looked at the world cities I noted the London figure for investment in public transport was 275. Plays 32 for Manchester!

Which in turn plays 7 in Leeds.

London raises large amounts of money from congestion charging, and revenues from fare paying passengers.

I have been able to identify the gap between Manchester and Leeds (we seem to pay twice as much per head in council tax towards public transport as they do in WY!!!), but I cannot find an acurate break down of where the TfL get their money from, I am no accountant, and their finances are significantly more complex than either GM or WY for that matter.

The point about what we are being compared to - well, this is what we want afterall, and many of us believe these are the cities we are competing with as opposed to the likes of Liverpool and Leeds, if we are going to compete with the likes of Vienna, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Munich and Milan then we need to start having similar integrated public transport systems to these places, at present, as those reports show, we don't.

I venture to suggest we don't because because all the investment goes to London. Note the proportion going to the UK capital v regional centres compared to other countries.

Investment in Public Transport (Euros per capita)
Vienna 464
Barcelona 326
London 275
Athens 221
Munich 221
Berlin 193
Stockholm 88
Paris 87
Madrid 82
Copenhagen 66
Milan 63
Rome 48
Manchester 32
Glasgow 23

Not too sure what these figures actually mean.

For example, say London takes £100m in bus fares every year, which in turn they spend £80m on buses, whereas, Manchester takes £10m in bus fares every year, spends that £10m, along with a £10m subsidy from the government, they have only invested £20m in public transport in that year.

London will have apparently spent 4 times as much on public transport than Manchester, but in reality, Manchester will have got £10m more from government.

I find the subsidy numbers quite interesting - some places subsidise up to 98% of the public transport costs!!!

By the bye, what happened to being able to catch a train to Paris or Brussels from Manchester?

One solution..... Monorail!
:jk:

Oooh yes please!

http://www.monorails.org/

Maglev,monorails....ain't gonna see them in UK for a long long time.

Then it will be probably in the SE only....

Slightly tenuous link between today and our trams:

Pomona the Roman goddess of fruit and trees.

An apple is the symbol of Pomona, so perhaps this is the origin of the tradition of bobbing for apples [on Halloween]: whoever bit into an apple first, would be married first the next year.


http://www.holidays.net/halloween/images/pmpblnk1.gif

This will make you all happy...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/a...1853842,00.html

Dublin is to get a new metro railway linking the airport with the
city centre, part of a multibillion-euro transport project announced
yesterday by the Irish Government.

New metro lines, tram lines and an underground transport hub at St
Stephen's Green in the centre of Dublin form part of a €34 billion
(£23 billion) project intended to reduce transport congestion and
make Ireland's outmoded transport infrastructure competitive with
the rest of Europe.

The Transport 21 scheme, unveiled yesterday by Martin Cullen, the
Transport Minister, is the biggest public works project ever
contemplated in the Republic. It drew immediate criticism from
opposition parties for its lack of detailed costing.

However, Brian Cowen, the Finance Minister, said that it could be
implemented on time and on budget. "We aim to get value for money
and bring in the project on time," he said.

The plan envisages that Dublin's commuters will get two new Luas
(tram) lines by 2008, while a metro rail line, to be completed in
2012, will connect St Stephen's Green to the airport in 17 minutes.

And don't tell me, I'm paying for it?

Why would you be paying anything for it?

Tax... I go to Madrid about twice a year and it's nice to see them developing their metro with my money. Nice little EU flag on every site contract sign.

Spending it well too.

^^ The UK would only be the second highest net payer in the EU even if the rebate were scrapped, so you can imagine how horrible Dutch taxpayers feel about the EU money game.

There are little EU flags on our system, since we got funding for ours as well...

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/funding.html

There are little EU flags on our system, since we got funding for ours as well...

http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/funding.html


Just to clarify EU funding, we pay in x amount and get some back and we have to be greatful for it.

I'm pleased for the Irish, good luck to them. What I would like is to see some of the money we pay into the EU go towards a Transport Treasure test, to be used building up our public transport in our cities, like Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool.

Why am I getting the impression that Manchester taxes go towards public transport in London and Dublin, and not Manchester?

London pays more than it's fare share of taxes. The trains down here are full to capacity, they subsidise themselves.

This was in the City Life magazine today. The magazine comes out on Wednesday with the Manchester Evening News 3nd edition. It cost £1:50. Anyway:

TRAIN IN VAIN
Manchester to Liverpool in under ten minutes-surely not?
A radical new train system that aims to link Scotland, Liverpool, Manchester and London is under consideration by the Transport secretary Alistair Darling - and one that aims to link Manchester to London in under one hour.
The 311 mph Maglev system - which would be only the second in the world after the train that links Shanghai to its international airport - floats above an electromagnetic rail (Magnetic Levitation - hence the name), thus enabling the train to reach speeds beyond even the rival TGV-style rail system that is also vying for the line. And developers UK Ultraspeed are putting forward the Manchester-Liverpool section of the line as the test site - a decision that could potentially alter the face of the region forever.

Wow. That would be wonderful, a bright shining future.

But uhhhn, back to earth. With Darling's name mentioned, I wonder if it's just some delaying tactic. Sorry.

Wow. That would be wonderful, a bright shining future.

But uhhhn, back to earth. With Darling's name mentioned, I wonder if it's just some delaying tactic. Sorry.

Exactly, more evidence of Darling talking a good game and doing nothing. How I wish he had brought some DNA stocks and shares as well.

I can't imagine Liverpool and Manchester ever being used as a test model.
If there ever was a Maglev in this country it would have to use German technology. The test bed is in China, that will establish if the technology is viable.

I don't thing there would be the demand between the two cities without stopping at stations in between to serve either Manchester or Liverpool traffic, this would not suit the Maglev concept.

It would have to be developed on a super high demand route into London. If the concept was successful and made a profit, there would be a greater chance the route would be expanded.

I think the best route would be heading north out of London towards Birmingham. That way the route could be incorporated into a North/South link in the future.

I just hope it happens somewhere. Under investment in Highspeed rail could be an advantage and the UK skips a generation straight to Maglev.

I remember seeing this on Newsnight a few months back. It would go from Heathrow to Birmingham, then Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh then Glasgow.

Utter pie in the sky.

I can't imagine Liverpool and Manchester ever being used as a test model.
If there ever was a Maglev in this country it would have to use German technology. The test bed is in China, that will establish if the technology is viable.

I don't thing there would be the demand between the two cities without stopping at stations in between to serve either Manchester or Liverpool traffic, this would not suit the Maglev concept.

It would have to be developed on a super high demand route into London. If the concept was successful and made a profit, there would be a greater chance the route would be expanded.

I think the best route would be heading north out of London towards Birmingham. That way the route could be incorporated into a North/South link in the future.

I just hope it happens somewhere. Under investment in Highspeed rail could be an advantage and the UK skips a generation straight to Maglev.

I see your points, but a counter argument could be that, as Maglev cannot use conventional tracks, the cost of a new route into London would be prohibitive due to land costs. Also a route from London to anywhere (Birmingham or north of it) would have to be at least 120 miles long to deliver any benefits whatsoever. A route from Manchester to Liverpool would be shorter, cheaper and quicker and easier (planning) to build. However you're right; the benefits wouldn't be anywhere near as great.

But it's not going to happen anyway in the next 50 years for simple cost-benefit reasons. The bean-counters in the DfT and Treasury will always have the argument that conventional rail delivers most of the benefits for a small fraction of the costs.

Probably cheaper to build a Shinkansen line

The new 31km Shanghai Shinkansen line cost around £500 Million (apprx $1.1 Billion US).

plant one of these down the middle of the Rochdale Canal

http://www.slawek.com/mono/aaa00600.jpg

Leeds gets a no from Darling. Shame.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolpda/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4403000/4403788.stm

I feel it was inevitable for Leeds.

The "value for money" argument doesn't seem to apply to the billions for London.

From the MEN :ohno:



Metrolink Commons row
Ian Craig


ROCHDALE MP Paul Rowen's bid to put Tony Blair on the spot over Metrolink's future was thwarted - because he failed to address the prime minister properly.

During Commons Question Time, instead of calling Mr Blair "the Right Honourable" he referred to him as "you" and the Speaker, Michael Martin, slapped him down.

That, according to Liberal Democrats, let the prime minister off the hook and a furious row broke in Parliament.



It is understood that Liberal Democrat whips are taking the matter up with the Speaker's office and Mr Rowen slammed "antiquated rules" which had prevented Mr Blair from giving a verdict on the proposed extension of the Metrolink to Rochdale, Oldham, and South Manchester.

MPs are expected to address other members through the Speaker and not talk directly to them, so are not allowed to use the word "you", but instead use their title.

Serious

"Parliament needs to grow up - this was a serious, important question that we need answering," said the Rochdale MP.

"For the Speaker of the Commons to do this has cemented his Christmas card from Tony Blair - he did him a serious favour. But he has let down the residents of Greater Manchester.

"I will not let him off the hook, though, and will be continuing to put pressure on the government to get vital answers."

After the Transport Secretary Alistair Darling blocked plans to extend Metrolink, the Manchester Evening News launched a major campaign.

In the end, the government agreed that £550million was still on the table, providing local transport chiefs can reduce the estimated cost of the extensions from £1billion.

Mr Rowen added: "I would encourage the people of Greater Manchester to write to Tony Blair asking him whether he was electioneering when he claimed just before the election that the Metrolink would definitely happen."

We had a brief Maglev thread on the Scouse Forum recently
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=258872 :cheers:

From the MEN :ohno:

Metrolink Commons row
Ian Craig

ROCHDALE MP Paul Rowen's bid to put Tony Blair on the spot over Metrolink's future was thwarted - because he failed to address the prime minister properly.

I was watching that, I wondered why he wasn't allowed to ask the question.

I was watching that, I wondered why he wasn't allowed to ask the question.

That's a shame that happened, but to be fair to the speaker, he wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't enforce them and there are plenty of people who want his job, so he has to be tough.

I've suggested in the Liverpool thread, that all the Labour MPs in Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester refuse to vote for the Government over their key bills until the cities get their light rail systems.

It seems that sort of direct action is the only way for Tony Blair to kick Alistair Darling up the arse and actually do something.

The "value for money" argument doesn't seem to apply to the billions for London.

No, but they were asking for way too much money all in one go were they not? They wanted to build the whole system in one go, rather than do it bit by bit as Liverool are trying to do. If Liverool get the cash for their line on, rove it to be successful, then they are far more likely to get the cash for further exansion. Manchester is doing it bit by bit as well, Leeds wanted to go from nothing to a three line system without proving that it could work.

And London is a different kettle of fish, it's the capital. Like it or not, it is the driving force behind the whole economy. If it needs something it'll normally get it.

And I've got a serious problem with my P key!

Poor old Weastey can't p, get your prostate checked mate :runaway:

Think the busses are starting to feel the heat from the trams

http://freake.demon.co.uk/sscpics/man064.jpg

That aint right.

I agree that cities should only build one line to test the water.
Building 3 lines in Leeds is a bit OTT and if problems arise after 6 months they will be stuck with them on 3 lines. Plus there is the resources budgeted for building such a project. If the three lines are being built the chances of the project going over budget are increased.

On a slightly different note. Which will be the first extention to Metrolink to be built. Which will have the most benifit?

Rochdale, then Ashton then airport (allegedly) :)

i remember talking about this ages ago... it was going on about how having this would increase GPD by 40% in manchester ??????

No way 40% GDP, maybe increase the growth by 40% (slight but important difference) i.e. instead of say 10% growth, it will be 14& say over 5 years.

But I may be wrong.

i remember talking about this ages ago... it was going on about how having this would increase GPD by 40% in manchester ??????

How can anyone come up with a figure like that. Doesn't that mean every man woman and child will see their income increase by 40%.

London isn't the driving force behind the whole economy Weasty. It rides on everybody else's back. Or should I say rides on everybody else's tubes/trains et cetera. Hence billions for London to wax world-city fat, and fuck all for Leeds.

How can anyone come up with a figure like that. Doesn't that mean every man woman and child will see their income increase by 40%.

It could mean that, but it could also mean bringing down unemployment (which needn't raise median/average income but does extend it to a larger population), possibly in combination with a population increase. Probably a bit of all three.

my bad! i meant growth.

London isn't the driving force behind the whole economy Weasty. It rides on everybody else's back. Or should I say rides on everybody else's tubes/trains et cetera. Hence billions for London to wax world-city fat, and fuck all for Leeds.

Why don't the people of Leeds club together and fund it themselves.

It could mean that, but it could also mean bringing down unemployment (which needn't raise median/average income but does extend it to a larger population), possibly in combination with a population increase. Probably a bit of all three.

I see your point. There must be an awful lot of unfilled jobs knocking around though to get to 40%

And London is a different kettle of fish, it's the capital. Like it or not, it is the driving force behind the whole economy. If it needs something it'll normally get it.

And I've got a serious problem with my P key!

However, the problem with having things so ecomonically centralised is that it's harder to control the economy - do you have a policy that stops the South from overheating or one that boosts the poorer Northern areas?
Schemes like Metrolink help encourage bigger companies away from the South and balance out the economy, making everyones life easier - especially the treasury.

So why the hell can't we have the money for Metrolink Mr Brown? It'll make your life easier!!!!

theyl say theyl do it, to get you believing that they will, and they just wont.

yes but we might get it now, or in 1 year, or in 2 years, or in3 years, or in 4 years... - kiss my ass.

Bit of comment about Leeds here.

http://www.yorkshiretoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=1299&ArticleID=1246476

Britain winning the 2012 Olympics. We might all be supposed to be rallying around this dream sporting event but it is going to drain money away from projects elsewhere in the UK as the Government makes sure that the infrastructure is in place for such a huge event to take place.;

Well said. Fuck the Olympics.

Lets all move to london - leave everything behind - knock it down and make it green - make london a MEGALOPOLIS with a 60,000,000 population and everyone will be happy - English heritage - keep the 'london centralness' & and well have everything we need - no fuss!

Found this snooping around on the web. Sounds interesting.
Site was last updated 26th Sep 2005, so its not a pre commonwealth games assumption.

Manchester Mayfield Station opened in 1911 as an overspill station for Manchester London Road (renamed Manchester Piccadilly in 1960) which was unable to cope with the huge volume of passengers. It was closed on 23rd August 1960 and after lying derelict for some years was converted into a parcel depot opening on 6th July 1970.....

When the depot closed the station once again stood idle for many years.....

As Piccadilly Station is once again running out of capacity there has been a proposal to reopen Mayfield Station. It will either be a terminus, as it was before, or lines will be extended through the station and join up with the existing line to Oxford Road.


http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/mezmail/manchester_mayfield3.jpg

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/mezmail/manchester_mayfield5.jpg

Gonna pop down to the Town Hall tomorrow to see how much of this is nonsense.

That's interesting, it would be good if they did refurbish it.

Some more photos are on http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/m/manchester_mayfield/index1.shtml

Cheers for that Mez, i do hope there is some truth in this , this area of Piccadilly is begging for redevelopment .

Cheers for that Mez, i do hope there is some truth in this , this area of Piccadilly is begging for redevelopment .

your'e not wrong there

Wow Manchester Mayfield?! I never knew that existed, it looks like it could be reburbished to it's former victorian glory! It seems so close to Piccadily that it could be viable some time in the future for it to re-open, if proximity is anything to go by then I doubt that matters lookong at the closeness of Stations in London, it could even be connected to the Oxford Road to Liverpool/North West/Glasgow line on it's own leaving Piccadilly to deal with ther rest of the country and Victoria it's share of the network. But in all truth I reckon it's more likely to either be bulldozed and sold off for property development or used for rail freight by a private investor unless investment in the Railways for public use changes considerably. Maybe it could take on the role of our once long forgotten *(yet promiosed!) Northern EuroStar hub - Paris to Liverpool or even Glasgow!... not in this decade though.

Yeah, what happened to the promise of being able to get a train direct from Manchester to Paris etc?

Isn't this the site of the (possibly dead) Ringway Express check-in?

I don't think there will ever be a direct service from Manchester to Paris.
It couldn't compete with flying, even with check in etc.
When regional Eurostars were planned, no one thought air fares would be so low with Easyjet, Ryanair etc. If you look at Japan, Highspeed rail is only effective up to about 350/400km then air travel takes over.

Maybe a home for that magnetic 300mph train that the leeds forumers talk about.

Yeah, what happened to the promise of being able to get a train direct from Manchester to Paris etc?

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

Ive always thought that Mayfield would be great for relieveing pressure on the island platform (13&14). It seems to be getting a bit worse for wear though, a large chunck seems to have been burnt out recently, while it seems to be frequented by underaged prostitutes and crackheads (and the occasional lost indie kid from the Star and Garter). Would love to see it restored though and the whole area spruced up.

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

I'm sure some people would use it, Manchester-Paris/Brussels is no further than Paris-Milan which has a popular train service. From city centre to city centre the timings wouldn't be too different to flying either. As for cost, how much is a Manchester-Paris flight? If London-Paris Eurostar can be had for £59 return, Manc-Paris should be around £100 return. There will also come a day when the government makes aviation pay its externalities like other modes of transport.

Yeah, what happened to the promise of being able to get a train direct from Manchester to Paris etc?
It was nowt to do with cost and how many people would use it.
They were going to build a new line, then changed it and decide to run them down the west coast manline. Within a year new plans had been put forward to improve westcoast line and run them tilting trains. The tilting trains could travel could travel faster than the two Eurostar trains sitting in Manchester. The Eurostar trains cant travel that fast down the westcoast main line because of curves in the track. It then became a pointless plan to run slower trains on a line which could run faster trains.

Thanks andy.

But don't the faster trains run slower anyhow?

I just get the same old same old impression that London gets its stuff, but everywhere else just gets empty fob-off promises that never materialise.

Thanks andy.

But don't the faster trains run slower anyhow?

I just get the same old same old impression that London gets its stuff, but everywhere else just gets empty fob-off promises that never materialise.

You old cynic you ;) Are you really saying that Manchester hasn't had much investment over the past few years

Tell me about it Jonesy. Yeah, I'm cynical about this sort of stuff. But I really do hope it all comes good on MetroLink.

Tell me about it Jonesy. I've said it before, I'm way too cynical about this sort of stuff. I really am hoping it all comes good on MetroLink and I can eat my cynical words.

Sadly Farsight, you have the right approach for coping with decisions from Alistair Darlings Department of Transport, only believe one of his promises, when something is actually built, which so far under his "reign" has been a new driveway to his house.

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

It would be great if they could re-open that station, as i do feel that piccadilly is nearing full capacity and that the city deserves and needs better. Ive noticed that there are quite a number of dis-used rail line that could possibly re-opened (not sure how easy that would be, but surely it is sensible). also, why are commuter trains on the main line to sheffield only 2 carriages long and people packed on to them? surely this puts people off, and reduces the number of people who can commute into/out of the city centre