TRANSPORT | Metrolink

[r02bapurdie]

I notice this in Oldham Chronicle that ticket prices at Derker and Shaw stops are wrong.

That’s not fare, Metrolink!

CHRISTMAS shoppers and festive sales hunters have been paying more than they bargained for at two new Metrolink stops.

With a selection of ticket prices being hiked up on Wednesday, passengers have been forking out the inflated prices at Derker and Shaw and Crompton stations for more than a week.

The Chronicle discovered the machines for the network-wide Family Day Saver tickets — which should be currently £6.20 — are charging a bumped-up £6.70.

Also, four adults who want to travel together outside peak hours anywhere on the Metrolink service should only pay £10. But our findings show the machines at the stations which opened over a fortnight ago are currently charging £10.50 for the Group Day Saver — the price which is supposed to be introduced on Wednesday.

Joe Millington, a commuter who was travelling from Shaw to Manchester, on December 21, bought the Group Day Saver fare.

He said: “I thought there was mistake which I understand, until one of the Metrolink team came up to me and informed me that Metrolink knew about the issue on the two new stops on the line, but hadn’t done anything to rectify the problem.

“I know that theincrease isn’t much, but on hundreds of tickets it will be mounting up and Metrolink will be making a lot of money on it.”

The fares for the Saver tickets were the correct price at Oldham Mumps — but like everywhere across the Metrolink service, they will be increased.

A spokesman for Transport for Greater Manchester said: “We were pleased to be able to open the Shaw & Crompton and Derker stops earlier than expected — in mid-December rather than early 2013 as planned.

“As a result, the ticket machines at these two stops are programmed with 2013 prices for some network-wide tickets, which normally cost the same wherever you buy them on the tram network. The Metrolink website is showing different fares for these tickets and we apologise to any customers who have experienced confusion about prices as a result.

“As a gesture of good will to our new passengers, anyone who holds one of these tickets, purchased at one of these stops, can contact Metrolink Customer Services for a refund in difference between the website price and the fare charged.”

Network-wide ticket prices on the rest of the Metrolink network will come into line with those charged at the Shaw & Crompton and Derker stops from Wednesday.

To apply for a refund between the Metrolink website price and the ticket paid for, ticket-holding passengers should contact Metrolink Customer Services with details of the journey, using the online enquiry form at www.metrolink.co.uk or by calling 0161 205 2000.

On Wednesday, passengers will see a 20p increase for peak-return and off-peak return fares from Oldham Mumps to the City Zone — with a peak-return ticket rounded off to a fiver.

Fares will increase “to meet operating costs and support ongoing investment in stop improvements, new trams and expanding the network.”, according to Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM).

Members of the TfGM Committee, which oversees Metrolink, have considered the network’s annual ticketing review in light of the introduction of smartcards on to the network during 2014.

Ticket income is used to run and improve the Metrolink network and to pay towards the £1.4 billion expansion that will make it the largest system of its kind in the country.

Child fares will be frozen and 51 per cent of individual fares will not change.

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/ne...fare-metrolink

I notice it said is "To apply for a refund between the Metrolink website price and the ticket paid for, ticket-holding passengers should contact Metrolink Customer Services with details of the journey, using the online enquiry form at www.metrolink.co.uk or by calling 0161 205 2000." but I think that u would need to keep that ticket to proof that u been on Metrolink but how many people would keep that ticket as probably lots of them who buy ticket from Shaw and Derker stop have throught them in bin by now mean surely they can't get refund.

[WatcherZero]

They had the same higher fares when the St Werburghs line opened, they dont want to be seen to be raising prices only a month after opening so it opens with the following years prices.

[kriis101]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

They had the same higher fares when the St Werburghs line opened, they dont want to be seen to be raising prices only a month after opening so it opens with the following years prices.

My thoughts exactly... otherwise in January, when the prices rise it gives the MEN even more ammunition against Metrolink!!

[Kofieye]

Originally Posted by Manchester77

I know I'm thinking of short term capacity enhancements for lines while we don't have full TMS implementation. We need it on most of the network for 6 minute services as LGN has pointed out. It's not ideal as I said but it would provide an attractive style in new areas yet still give some service in existing parts. It's VERY cynical and yes people will not be happy.

I'm sorry but this made me laugh!!! Not in a mean way but just funny.
The short term refers to a period of time in which at least one factor input is fixed. In this case, trams. What would you suggest? Rip the seats out?

Edit: Now that I've gone and scoffed at that, you know... it would do the job!

Originally Posted by sentinel100

The should aim to run an efficient network, which means operating the appropriate number of cars to meet the demand on the route at the particular time of day. Which probably means more doubles than we see today, but certainly not all services.

Sadly, the aim is not efficiency. We can see that it's not really effective transport either, because its not really reliable, nor constructed that way. It's sure as hell not speed. There is no direct push for sales revenue. Brand loyalty is atrocious. We know best of all that its not expansion!

So what is the aim? There's only one left, that I can think of. And it's pretty good at it

[Kofieye]

Originally Posted by Jongeman

Very few people from Stockwell and Brixton have got any idea where Seven Sisters is, and the only knowledge they have of it is that some Victoria line trains terminate there........(and not Walthamstow)

St Werbergh's Rd might have been better named as South Chorlton.

Likewise, I have no idea where any of those places are geographically, but I would know that they're all on the Victoria Line. As is the case, for me, with a great, great many places in London. haha!

[Manchester77]

Originally Posted by Kofieye

I'm sorry but this made me laugh!!! Not in a mean way but just funny.
The short term refers to a period of time in which at least one factor input is fixed. In this case, trams. What would you suggest? Rip the seats out?

Um no....
Perhaps you should lay of the New Years champagne as I explained everything in detail throughout other posts so......

[SF07]

Coverage of the fare increases in the MEN (along with the trains, although the Metrolink bears the grunt in the headline):

Passengers' fury as Metrolink tram fares rise an average of 4.2pc to help pay for ‘big bang’ work

Tram and train passengers in Manchester hit out today over inflation-busting fare rises.

Metrolink fares will increase by an average of 4.2 per cent as passengers help pay towards the cost of new trams and the ‘big bang’ expansion of the network.

Train passengers are also being hit by a separate fare rise as rail firms increase season tickets by more than 4pc.

Details of the new fares, revealed today, show some tram passengers will see the price of their season ticket increase by more than 5.8pc, while others will see their fare unchanged.

A peak Metrolink return from Altrincham to the city centre will now cost £6.20, while the same fare from Bury will be £5.90 and from Eccles £3.70.

A peak return from St Werburgh’s Road to the city will remain unchanged at £3.70, while the same fare from Oldham will be £5. The 20p increase in the peak return fare to Oldham comes less than seven months after the line opened.

Annual season tickets from the city centre to Bury and Altrincham will now cost £960, while the same ticket to Oldham will increase from £760 to £800.

The increase comes after tram fares went up by an average of 6pc in January 2011 and an average of 6.4pc in January 2012 – when some fares hiked by 9pc.

Transport for Greater Manchester said child fares would be frozen or go down, and 51pc of individual fares would remain unchanged. Inflation currently stands at 3pc.

Passengers vented their fury on Twitter.

Jacob D'Rozario posted: "It's a joke considering travelling to work every morning is like being on a cattle truck" and Scott added: "You don't mind when the service is improved but I'd hazard a guess, its just more money for the same."

HRMSoftware posted: "Already notably more expensive than London's Underground. Where is the incentive to leave your car at home?"

Another Twitter poster said: "Disgusting. London Zone 1-2 month pass is slightly more but you can use bus & tube & train on it with better service" and Paul McGarraghy added: "Scandalous! The Metrolink service on the Bury line is already abysmal, prices were too high before today - not value for money!"

Metrolink is due to be rolled out to Ashton-under-Lyne, East Didsbury and Manchester Airport as part of a ‘big bang’ tram expansion. It also includes new routes through Oldham and Rochdale town centres and a second city-centre crossing. The tram line to Oldham opened in summer 2012.

The Droylsden line is set to open in February, with the extension to Rochdale soon after. The expanded network will be served by a fleet of 94 new yellow trams following a decision to replace all 32 of the old grey-and-blue vehicles by 2014.

Oyster-style ‘smart’ payment cards are also set to be introduced on the network in 2014.

The M.E.N. revealed earlier this year how the network could be split into London Underground-style zones, which will come into force when the smart cards are introduced. Tram stops will be allocated to a zone depending on how far they are from central Manchester, with pricing structures based on the zones.

Andrew Fender, chairman of the TfGM Committee, said this year’s fare review took a step towards a ‘simpler and more consistent’ price structure for when smart ticketing is introduced.

FARE INCREASES AT A GLANCE ...

Peak return:

Bury to city: £5.60 to £5.90 (+5.35pc)
Eccles and MediaCity to city: £3.50 to £3.70 (+5.71pc)
Altrincham to city: £6 to £6.20 (+3.33pc)
St Werburgh’s Road to city: £3.70 (unchanged)
Oldham Mumps to city: £4.80 to £5 (+4.16pc)
Annual ticket:

Bury to city: £930 to £960 (+3.22pc)
Eccles and MediaCity to city: £530 to £545 (+2.83pc)
Altrincham to city: £950 to £960 (+1.05pc)
St Werburgh’s Road to city: £590 (unchanged)
Oldham Mumps to city: £760 to £800 (+5.26pc)

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereven...-big-bang-work

[VDB]

How can the government possibly justify trying to get people out of their cars on onto public transport when they don't even bother subsidising public transport? I realise it's still probably far cheaper to take the tram into the city, but I simply cannot afford public transport anymore; not since I went from being a 'child' to an 'adult' (my ticket from Eccles went up from £1 to £2.70, despite the fact I haven't put on any weight and I still use up one seat)

Public transport in London is dirt cheap because it's subsidised, and as a result their public transport is very well used.

Of course no where outside of London is subsidised; that would be against our country's mantra of "no one exists outside of London"

[NQ Lee]

I won't be renewing my season ticket when it expires. I think I will go back to the X50. Like others have said, I actually wouldn't mind paying the increase if the service was half decent.

I came back from spending 2 days in London on 30th Dec. I had travelled on many different tube trains/lines during that time and despite many engineering works going on I never waited for a single tube train for more than 2 minutes.

The system was a joy after having used Metrolink for the last 6 months.The platforms were mostly clear of rubbish despite being incredibly busy and the announcements and information dispaly were all up to date and clear.

I came back to Manchester and had to wait 30 minutes for my Eccles tram. It eventually arrived into platform with no informationa at all and just sat there for nearly 5 minutes, doing nothing. The platforms were littered with Mcdonalds wrappers and spilt drinks. The tram eventually started moving and literally crawled along at a snails pace the whole way.

When we arrived at Harbour City the driver muttered something that nobody could hear properly because of all the drunken women that were screaming on the tram. The tram then turned right into Broadway ignoring the Media City stop altogether. We walked back to Media City in the rain having both paid Metrolink more than £1400 in season tickets this year alone.

I realise that sometimes problems arise on public transport systems but I just don't feel the passengers are receiving a fair service at present. When you complain nobody ever listens and the service just keeps getting more and more expensive. This is really not the way to encourage people off the roads and onto public transport.

[heatonparkincakes]

Can I say that in the inky part of the media this is what happens.

Reporter writes and submits copy to sub editor.

Sub editor erm edits copy and then applies headline.

Then editor endorses what sub editor has done.

So with in mind, I am curious why the headline for today's story shouts that the increases are to pay for the Big Bang. Yet I can't see that as a direct quote from TfGM or Metrolink.

If so then:

A. If true, then with a precept on the council tax, have the big bang costs increased?

B. If true, will this mean the remaining extensions (Man airport/Port Salford) will happen ?

C. If untrue, then explain MEN

D. If untrue, then explain TfGM.

[kriis101]

The increases were preplanned to pay off the loans that TfGM/Metrolink took out to pay for the Phase3 extensions.

[LNGCats]

The increase, as it will be by 1% above inflation is indeed paying partially towards the expansion.

The cost must rise by this amount each year going forward to cover the cost of the extensions.

This 'news' will be repeated every year we're alive.

The council tax Levy and additional fares from new passengers also contribute to the huge cost.

Odd you know so much about the print media Mr D Cakes.

[Fernando Partridge]

Originally Posted by VDB

How can the government possibly justify trying to get people out of their cars on onto public transport when they don't even bother subsidising public transport? I realise it's still probably far cheaper to take the tram into the city, but I simply cannot afford public transport anymore; not since I went from being a 'child' to an 'adult' (my ticket from Eccles went up from £1 to £2.70, despite the fact I haven't put on any weight and I still use up one seat)

Public transport in London is dirt cheap because it's subsidised, and as a result their public transport is very well used.

Of course no where outside of London is subsidised; that would be against our country's mantra of "no one exists outside of London"

I'd wager that even if the government did provide some subsidy towards this, the fares would still have to go up to cover the increase in running costs annually.

It's unfortunate, but, I don't think this increase, considering the fact that 60 odd new trams have been purchased and the massive expansion of the system, is too bad.

Compare it with a similar increase on say, the Northern Rail fare between Rochdale and Manchester and you'll see what I mean.

[pr1berske]

Originally Posted by VDB

How can the government possibly justify trying to get people out of their cars on onto public transport when they don't even bother subsidising public transport? I realise it's still probably far cheaper to take the tram into the city, but I simply cannot afford public transport anymore; not since I went from being a 'child' to an 'adult' (my ticket from Eccles went up from £1 to £2.70, despite the fact I haven't put on any weight and I still use up one seat)

Public transport in London is dirt cheap because it's subsidised, and as a result their public transport is very well used.

Of course no where outside of London is subsidised; that would be against our country's mantra of "no one exists outside of London"

I've often been slapped down "In another place" for saying exactly this.

The anti-Northern bias in this country is a good century old or more but in recent years it's become far, far worse, and perhaps the differences in transport provision is a very good indication of that. The poverty in transport "up here" compared with London is deliberate neglect.

Of course a London media would never recognise this, so we're left with 1984-era bone shakers whilst the south gets all the money and then some.

[Manchester77]

In fairness the NSE area did need all the new trains as they were operating 60s/70s slammers built with 30s/40s under frames from ex-southern EMUs

The level of investment NSE got in the 00s, the LM and NE regions need now

(NSE aka London one Southeast)

[1015sparky]

Thought I'd take a trip to Shaw today while I'm on earlies. Just left Failsworth and it's lovely to finally get some speed up on the line!

[heatonparkincakes]

Originally Posted by LNGCats

The increase, as it will be by 1% above inflation is indeed paying partially towards the expansion.

The cost must rise by this amount each year going forward to cover the cost of the extensions.

This 'news' will be repeated every year we're alive.

The council tax Levy and additional fares from new passengers also contribute to the huge cost.

Odd you that I am in the media so often and don't know how newspapers are run

Cheers and fixed.

[heatonparkincakes]

The bias against the north has existed since the Harrying of the North.

Sometimes it's geographical position is advantageous ie industrial revolution, trade with the Colonies, development of modern pop alt culture, missing V bombers, rugby league, lack of Heart FMs, etc.

And other times it isn't. Ie reformation and pilgrimages of grace, Viking bombers, Thatcher, de industrialization, ignored and derided by the centralized media, economic policies that favour the City of London, the rain and Bernard Manning and so on.........

Back on track.
I argued during the c charge debate that the poll should have had asked

Do you support a better transport network for GM?
If so do you wish it to be funded by:
A. A congestion charge
B. A combination of gradual fare increases and a small precept on the council tax?

If so none of this typical MEN nonsense would happen.

Back off track.
PS Kurt, in the old 80/90s days of the northern editions of the Daily Mail and Express local (whisky sodden) journos used to "post" copy that would have a distinct non Mail/Express manner such as Unemployment's doing this and that.

And then the sub editor would plonk a big Tory headline like "Dole scroungers VHS boom." which would swerve the tone of the article.

Back on track

I always like the idea of Chorlton St Werburghs. Has a ring about it.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by VDB

How can the government possibly justify trying to get people out of their cars on onto public transport when they don't even bother subsidising public transport? I realise it's still probably far cheaper to take the tram into the city, but I simply cannot afford public transport anymore; not since I went from being a 'child' to an 'adult' (my ticket from Eccles went up from £1 to £2.70, despite the fact I haven't put on any weight and I still use up one seat)

Public transport in London is dirt cheap because it's subsidised, and as a result their public transport is very well used.

Of course no where outside of London is subsidised; that would be against our country's mantra of "no one exists outside of London"

Not true. There only one train company in the UK getting more from the Government than they take. So you are being subsidised. In fact part of the problem is these fare rises are because the Government want rail users to pay 75% of the cost of rail compared to 50% it was paying 10 years ago. So please don't play the only London is subsidised card as its as true as a MEN story and unworthy of a poster like yourself to utter.

[mackenziesoley]

Originally Posted by heatonparkincakes

Back on track.
I argued during the c charge debate that the poll should have had asked

Do you support a better transport network for GM?
If so do you wish it to be funded by:
A. A congestion charge
B. A combination of gradual fare increases and a small precept on the council tax?

If so none of this typical MEN nonsense would happen.

Quite. Manchester rejected charging cars, well that would have brought money to fund transport. London didn't and now gains from that. If you want the same level of funding then this attitude of we get nothing needs to end and you need to start getting business to invest as well as local government.