SkyscraperCity Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
61 - 80 of 51,625 Posts
Its party time here

But before there is any fantasy maps, can people please consider

a. some of the old disused lines have been built on, especially the radcliffe lines

b. that lines to hospitals are ok, sensible for today, but within a genration half of them will have been considerably downgraded as health practices change.

c, and mark, prestwich hospital is long long maud gonne.

d. ah a middleton via victoria road and pass the convert would be interesting
 
He was not saying that people will not need medical treatment, rather the method of delivering it is already changing.


Manchester Super Hospital anyone? Alty General all but closed close to me. No maternity wards in all of Salford.

Medical provision is going through a revolution at the moment, not exactly the time for huge transpot expenditure to a hospital that may be shut in 10years.
 
Yeah had there been any joined up thinking or something vaguely progressive and eco friendly, then the modernisation of hospitals from the mid 80's would have also been constructed around easy public transport access.

Unfortunately as we live in a land dominated by failed uncontained consumption lead free market economics, you have what we have.

What I mean to those who may have misunderstood is that the core aspects of hospitals of various assessments and treatmenst that are emergency or need a bed will retain.

So Accident and Emergency, maternity, medical and surgical wards and some very technical assessments will remain in the hospitals.

Pretty much everything else can be transfered to a range of poly clinics and local GPs, if and when the structures and technology comes about.
Eventually we should have the sufficient technology to access services via what comes after the internet and personal devices that aids the natural homeostatis of the body and thus alerts us to illness far before the conscious mind recognises it.

That would not need a hospital, unless it was serious.


Thus there will be an level of need for high cost public transport links to these public facilities.
 
It ain't just the punters - it's the staff too. Legions of them. And the high intervention / acute style of medicine that will remain in the secondary and tertiary sector is very labour intensive.
Also on the basis that wealth = health the hoped for increase in healthy lifespan will escape the North, and especially the North East sector of Greater Manchester.
sorry - not many skyscrapers there...
 
It ain't just the punters - it's the staff too. Legions of them. And the high intervention / acute style of medicine that will remain in the secondary and tertiary sector is very labour intensive.
Also on the basis that wealth = health the hoped for increase in healthy lifespan will escape the North, and especially the North East sector of Greater Manchester.
sorry - not many skyscrapers there...
I think another factor with public transport links to hospitals is that you get a more diverse range of people using them than just about anywhere else. You get people who work there, so get the same bus/tram/train every day. You get long term day patients or whatever, who are the same, as are people who just happen to live nearby. But you also get a set of people who are only going to use that transport in the short term, whilst they're receiving treatment, or whilst they're visiting someone who's receiving treatment. Plus, where relatively specialist services are involved, people may have come from the far side of the city, or even from elsewhere in the country.

So unlike other services, the likelihood is that every day, a decent number of the people getting public transport to a hospital will never have travelled that route before in their life. Add to this the fact that they may be in a delicate state of mind already (visits to hospitals are rarely cause for celebration, whether you're a patient or a relative/friend), and there are a few issues there that are perhaps not quite so prevalent on your general commuter routes.

Whether any of that gets taken into account is another issue altogether, of course.
 
It may be a hopeless task, but it might help to retain a degree of realism.

a. the key issue is commuting, if we are going to fund Metrolink from borrowings against passenger revenue, then the system has to maximise commuter flows, and must provide the strongest possible support to employment in the city centre.

b. there will be no scope to subsides fares - if we are looking for Council Tax to underwrite loans for consturuction, then this means that fares will have to cover operating costs.

So there is no point in proposing routes that will not generate sufficent demand to pay their way.

So a few numbers;

- the latest total current peak-period (7:30-9:30)commuter flow into Manchester City centre is 85,067. This is split; cars 32,958 (of which 50% come from outside GM); walking (most of whom are car drivers parking outside the centre) 7,203; bus 20,242; rail from within GM 14,400; rail from outside GM 3,550; metrolink 6,048; cycle 435; motorbike 231.

- The proposals are predicated on employment increasing in the regional centre (there would be no point in building extra capacity if not). A 1% per year increase over 20 years would imply an additional 17,000 commuters.

- The total peak-period capacity of Metrolink after the completion of Phase 3b will be 30,000. Not all of this will get to the regional centre - so the total effective capacity in the centre will be about 27,000. Against this, rail capcity of 2,261 is likely to be removed (relating to Oldham and Ashton). Netting off the existing flows the extra capacity will be 18,691. The current system runs between 85% and 95% of capacity at peak periods, so we may expect an effective increase of at least 16,000.

- the rail lines are also proposed to increase capacity by up to 7,000 with additional coaches. I am not sure whether the loss of the TIF bid is going to reduce this.

- then there will be an increased capacity on the two BRT llines. Assuming 8 buses per hour from Leigh, this may be expected to provide for about 1,500 commuters, while the Oxford Road BRT (if we suppose 24 buses per hour) could provide around 4,000.

So the total additional capacity in the system should be between 27,500 and 30,000.

Netting off the 17,000 increase in employment, we may expect the existing 37,000 bus or car trips from within GM to reduce by around 12,000. Leaving 25,000 bus or car trips, that migh be replaced by higher quality public transport.

Which rules building out any sort of Metro - to cover its operasting cost a Metro need to carry at least 60,000 peak hour commuters.

Tram-train is more of a possibility. The Marple and Glossop lines between them carry 2,539 commuters, and there are around 2,000 regular car commuters from that direction.

Otherwise, probably the best option would be futher extension of the BRT network - perhaps to Middleton, Bolton, Trafford Centre, Stockport and Denton.
 
It may be a hopeless task, but it might help to retain a degree of realism.

a. the key issue is commuting, if we are going to fund Metrolink from borrowings against passenger revenue, then the system has to maximise commuter flows, and must provide the strongest possible support to employment in the city centre.

b. there will be no scope to subsides fares - if we are looking for Council Tax to underwrite loans for consturuction, then this means that fares will have to cover operating costs.

So there is no point in proposing routes that will not generate sufficent demand to pay their way.

So a few numbers;

- the latest total current peak-period (7:30-9:30)commuter flow into Manchester City centre is 85,067. This is split; cars 32,958 (of which 50% come from outside GM); walking (most of whom are car drivers parking outside the centre) 7,203; bus 20,242; rail from within GM 14,400; rail from outside GM 3,550; metrolink 6,048; cycle 435; motorbike 231.

- The proposals are predicated on employment increasing in the regional centre (there would be no point in building extra capacity if not). A 1% per year increase over 20 years would imply an additional 17,000 commuters.

- The total peak-period capacity of Metrolink after the completion of Phase 3b will be 30,000. Not all of this will get to the regional centre - so the total effective capacity in the centre will be about 27,000. Against this, rail capcity of 2,261 is likely to be removed (relating to Oldham and Ashton). Netting off the existing flows the extra capacity will be 18,691. The current system runs between 85% and 95% of capacity at peak periods, so we may expect an effective increase of at least 16,000.

- the rail lines are also proposed to increase capacity by up to 7,000 with additional coaches. I am not sure whether the loss of the TIF bid is going to reduce this.

- then there will be an increased capacity on the two BRT llines. Assuming 8 buses per hour from Leigh, this may be expected to provide for about 1,500 commuters, while the Oxford Road BRT (if we suppose 24 buses per hour) could provide around 4,000.

So the total additional capacity in the system should be between 27,500 and 30,000.

Netting off the 17,000 increase in employment, we may expect the existing 37,000 bus or car trips from within GM to reduce by around 12,000. Leaving 25,000 bus or car trips, that migh be replaced by higher quality public transport.

Which rules building out any sort of Metro - to cover its operasting cost a Metro need to carry at least 60,000 peak hour commuters.

Tram-train is more of a possibility. The Marple and Glossop lines between them carry 2,539 commuters, and there are around 2,000 regular car commuters from that direction.

Otherwise, probably the best option would be futher extension of the BRT network - perhaps to Middleton, Bolton, Trafford Centre, Stockport and Denton.
This seems realistic to me. One thing I would bring up is the number of passengers coming into the city centre for retail and leisure purposes. Whilst I make no claims about how these users compare in number to commuters, it strikes me that they must be taken into account. There are certainly some routes that are relatively commuter-light, but see heavy use by shoppers or late-night revellers, and are often at their fullest at the weekend or in the evening. Or there may be cases where commuter numbers are not quite high enough to justify a particular type of transport, but heavy weekend use might push it into viability.

Anyone got any idea of what the statistics might be for retail and leisure passengers?
 
Pre Metrolink work Edge Lane Droylsden

Good Idea for the thread MarkO.

I origanlly posted these on Metrolink thread but appropriate here too (i think).


The Before




Taken from:
http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=4192950




Get ready for the road works!





Looks if this still has to come down:






The houses have already gone:





Looking up Manchester Road towards Droylsden (on the left):




Looking up Manchester Road towards Droylsden (on the right):




Artist's impression when complete:



taken from:
http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=4192950
 
This seems realistic to me. One thing I would bring up is the number of passengers coming into the city centre for retail and leisure purposes. Whilst I make no claims about how these users compare in number to commuters, it strikes me that they must be taken into account. There are certainly some routes that are relatively commuter-light, but see heavy use by shoppers or late-night revellers, and are often at their fullest at the weekend or in the evening. Or there may be cases where commuter numbers are not quite high enough to justify a particular type of transport, but heavy weekend use might push it into viability.

Anyone got any idea of what the statistics might be for retail and leisure passengers?

The detailed traffic survey tends to select peak (7:30- 9:30) and off-peak (10:00 - 12:00) for its surveys. There are a few 24 hour totals, but not in such detail.

However, it is commuter traffic that earns the money. After 9:30, the concessionary fares qualify, and hence these passengers are not earning the system anything like so much profit. Effectively, commuters will pay a premium (over bus fares) for the extra reliability and speed of the tram. Students and older people won't (in general). They are less pressed for time, and so tend to use whichever mode is closest to them, and cheapest. Light rail stands and falls on whether it can provide a service that is attractive to commuters, at a price they are willing to pay.
 
The detailed traffic survey tends to select peak (7:30- 9:30) and off-peak (10:00 - 12:00) for its surveys. There are a few 24 hour totals, but not in such detail.

However, it is commuter traffic that earns the money. After 9:30, the concessionary fares qualify, and hence these passengers are not earning the system anything like so much profit. Effectively, commuters will pay a premium (over bus fares) for the extra reliability and speed of the tram. Students and older people won't (in general). They are less pressed for time, and so tend to use whichever mode is closest to them, and cheapest. Light rail stands and falls on whether it can provide a service that is attractive to commuters, at a price they are willing to pay.
In this analysis, how does the airport line stack up, Nerd?
I understand its rationale, bringing in workers from the south of Manchester, but its no way for, say, a Rochdale resident to get there. Surely even the airport doesn't generate commuting like the city centre - similar to Wythenshawe hospital - except that hospital travel doesn't have the same timing constraints that a flight does (assuming flexible visiting :lol:).
 
this is on the Evening News website, includes a mention of the Trafford Park line still....

Counting transport plan's cost
Simon Donohue

May 20, 2009

THE transport revolution will cost each council tax payer around £2 per year - or an average of £68.36 over 30 years.

It will bring in a whopping £649m towards the scheme's £1.53bn price tag.

Furthermore, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities has sought to allay fears that projects planned for the current financial year will be scrapped.

But it is likely that some safety schemes will be revised, including Greater Manchester's part in the government's action plan to reduce road deaths.

The £68.36 figure is an average one, based on a three per cent increase in the transport levy payable as part of the council tax.

An increase of three per cent will be applied for each of six years, after which no further increase will be applied, although overall bills will continue to rise in the usual way.

The increased levy is expected to be applied for a total of 30 years.

A document drawn up in advance of the meeting at which the AGMA deal was discussed spelled out the possibility that some schemes planned for the current financial year could be reduced or scrapped as a result of money being redirected.

A spokesman for Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive says: "The funding commitment from the Local Transport Plan does not come into effect until the next financial year - 2010/2011 - so does not affect any schemes planned for this year.

"In the vast majority of cases, LTP projects are planned on a year-by-year basis, and we will be working with each of the district authorities in the coming months to review their plans for next year.

"We do not anticipate that any specific schemes will miss out on funding. It is more likely that authorities will have to prioritise projects."

It will be up to individual authorities to decide how much council tax their residents will pay.

What the plan will mean to you

Bolton

THE town's new interchange will see Moor Lane bus station relocated and replaced with a state-of-the-art gateway at a new site next to Bolton railway station, providing a new integrated public transport hub behind Great Moor Street and Newport Street. A park and ride scheme is proposed for Horwich.

Salford

THE biggest single change will be the Leigh-Salford-Manchester Busway. Buses will be guided at up to 40mph on a 7km path along a former rail route between Leigh and Ellenbrook.

New paths will be built for cyclists, walkers and horse riders. Buses will then be given priority along a 9km section of the A580 between Ellenbrook and Swinton.

A new nearside bus lane will be built between Ellenbrook and Moorside Road, Swinton, with a bus lane created on the existing three lane carriageway between Moorside Road and Irlams o `th' Height.

It is proposed that Irlam will get a park and ride site.

And the downside? Car journeys on parts of the A580 could be more difficult.

Rochdale

WORK is already under way to take Metrolink as far as Rochdale railway station.

Funding has now been earmarked to extend this line down Drake Street to a new transport interchange in Rochdale town centre. Park and ride schemes are proposed for both Littleborough and Rochdale.

Oldham

THE process of taking Metrolink through the town is proceeding and funding has now been earmarked to build a new loop line to Oldham town centre, from Werneth to Oldham Mumps, with new stops at Westwood, Oldham King Street and Oldham Central (Union Street). Park and ride schemes are proposed for Derker, Shaw and Crompton, Oldham Mumps and Hollinwood.

Bury

OPTIONS for reducing congestion between Ramsbottom, Bury and Heywood are being explored, including the development of the East Lancashire Railway, although that would be subject to additional funding being identified. Park and ride schemes are proposed for Whitefield and Radcliffe.

Tameside

CONSTRUCTION is continuing on a tram line to Droylsden. A new Metrolink line will run between Droylsden and Ashton under Lyne, calling at Audenshaw, Ashton Moss, Ashton West and Ashton-under-Lyne.

A park and ride scheme is proposed for Guide Bridge.

The Ashton northern bypass (stage 2) will complete the ring of relief roads around Tameside town centre by extending the Ashton northern bypass (stage 1) through to the Arlington Street link in the north of the town.

And the downside? Campaigners against the Mottram - Hollinworth - Tintwistle bypass are delighted that the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities proposes only construction of the Mottram bypass but are angry that the scheme, subject to a Public Inquiry, is being publicised as a "fait accompli".

Emma Lawrence, co-ordinator of the Save Swallow's Wood group, accuses AGMA of suggesting that the road plan will not be subject to planning and regulatory scrutiny.

Not only will the road cut through unspoilt wood land, but there are fears that it could increase traffic flow.

"We will continue to fight," says Lawrence. "All of our suggestions for alternatives have been ignored in favour of simply encouraging even more cars."

Trafford

FUNDING has been earmarked for a state-of-the art interchange in Altrincham centre. Connections between tram, train and bus services will be improved. Park and ride schemes are proposed for Flixton and Altrincham. Subject to additional funding being identified, a new Metrolink line would be built from the Pomona stop on the existing Eccles line to Trafford Park.

Manchester

WORK is proceeding on a tram line to Chorlton. The East Didsbury line will call at Withington, Burton Road, West Didsbury, Didsbury Village and East Didsbury. A park and ride scheme is proposed for Prestwich.

Funding has been earmarked for a new line to Manchester Airport, calling at Barlow Moor Road, Hardy Farm, Sale Water Park, Northern Moor, Wythenshawe Park, Moor Road, Baguley, Roundthorn, Martinscroft, Haveley, Benchill, Crossacres, Wythenshawe town centre, Robinswood Road, Peel Hall, Shadowmoss, Woodhouse Park and the airport.

A second tram line will run across Manchester centre to help ensure efficiency across the expanded network.

Cross-city bus proposals include introducing more bus priority measures to make journeys to the universities and hospitals on Oxford Road quicker and more reliable. This will include new links from north and west Greater Manchester and improve the quality of buses serving the area.

Stockport

THE South East Manchester multi modal study relief road involves the construction of a new dual carriageway linking the airport roundabout at the end of the M56 spur to the A555 at Handforth, and from the A555 at Handforth to the A6 at Hazel Grove. The Stockport interchange - which is subject to additional funding being identified - would see an ultra-modern transport hub built in the town centre, connecting buses and trains.

The Stockport town centre access scheme - also subject to additional funding being identified - would include various highways and public transport improvements to reduce congestion, improve bus journey times and reliability, and improve walking and cycling opportunities around the town centre. Park and ride schemes are proposed for Davenport and Hazel Grove.

Wigan

THE town will benefit from the Leigh-Salford-Manchester rapid transit busway. The Wigan inner relief road involves a new route between the A49 Saddle junction and Frog Lane and would complete the inner relief road. A park and ride scheme is proposed for Hindley.

Greater Manchester-wide

NEW park-and-ride spaces would serve a mix of rail and Metrolink routes. The proposed sites are spread across the region and would serve Metrolink stops and train stations, providing a fast onward journey to the city centre.

At most locations, an increase in spaces is proposed, with improvements to safety and security at sites that are currently under-used. It is likely to be free to park with passengers paying to travel.

A total of £50m has been earmarked to complement funding from Network Rail and other sources to deliver station improvements across Greater Manchester.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1116134_counting_transport_plans_cost
 
In this analysis, how does the airport line stack up, Nerd?
I understand its rationale, bringing in workers from the south of Manchester, but its no way for, say, a Rochdale resident to get there. Surely even the airport doesn't generate commuting like the city centre - similar to Wythenshawe hospital - except that hospital travel doesn't have the same timing constraints that a flight does (assuming flexible visiting :lol:).
Airports are funny in transport management terms; in that they operate round the clock, and so have much lower proportion of employees travelling in the peak period. There are (I believe) around 22,000 persons employed in and around the airport site. Almost all employees arrive by car, and there is staff parking for 5,000 spaces (i.e. each firm operting in the airport is entitled to one space for each four employees) - which tend to be a mile or more distant from the airport facilities, and hence staff have to use a shuttle bus to get to their cars. There is also a lot of employment nearby - perhaps another 3,000.

For all the most recent expansion planning applications, the airport have assured the planning authorities that they would shift employees substantially into public transport; and if they could, it would be a big bonus for them, as they might then cut the staff parking - and use it either for passenger parking (very high revenue) or develop it commercially.

But the trouble is that public transport access to the airport is poor. The direct rail line provides a good service from the city centre - but at the cost of severely restricting the number of stopping services along the Styal line. The Metrolink could potentially solve the issue - especially if there is scope for park-and-ride that could be used by airport staff travelling from outside GM.

I suspect that your hypothetical Rochdale resident might be expected to take train to Victoria, Metrolink to Piccadilly, and train to airport - which would take less than an hour. Going all the way by Metrolink would take a lot longer.
 
If blue sky is the deal then (and I'm repeating myself here):
Branch to Royal Oldham Hospital possibly extending to Royton which would then reconnect via the old branch to the Rochdale / Oldham loop lie.
...
If the land where the old Royton Branch hadn't been so heavly built on then may be the line could have realistically gone to the hospital instead of running from Shaw to East Dids, with the Rochdale going through Shaw, Shaw would still have seen a better service than the current trains.

Map of the old Royton branch & pics of the buildings in place of the station:

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/




If blue sky is the deal then (and I'm repeating myself here):
...
Divert the Eccles line to Hope (getting silly now).

...
I was certainly surprised the Eccles line didn't stop at Hope hospital as it is a major teaching hospital with a number of specialist units.

Does anyone know why it didn't get a stop?
 
61 - 80 of 51,625 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top