MANCHESTER | Metrolink Tram

[MarkO]

Yeah, well said Apoc89

Just for accuracy by the way, had not forgotten Edinburgh (what's happening there is wonderful news too - despite the funding issues, Princess Street has been aching for the return of trams since the day they were so stupidly torn up) but I didn't put it in my list above because of Edinburgh's status as the Capital City of Scotland :-)

[micro]

Originally Posted by MarkO

Provincial Germany
Full metro's: Munich, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Bielfeld, Bochum, Bonn, Cologne, Duisberg, Dortmund, Dusseldorf, Essen, Hannover, Stuttgart, Nurnberg, Wuppertal

Hi Mark, most of those are not full metros but trams/LRTs like Manchester's. Only sections of them are underground and/or separated from streets. Only Munich, Hamburg and Nuremberg have genuine full metros besides Berlin. Wuppertal's monorail can count as an above-ground metro, and one line in Frankfurt (U4) is fully separated. But that's it.

[Motortownman]

Originally Posted by micro

Hi Mark, most of those are not full metros but trams/LRTs like Manchester's. Only sections of them are underground and/or separated from streets. Only Munich, Hamburg and Nuremberg have genuine full metros besides Berlin. Wuppertal's monorail can count as an above-ground metro, and one line in Frankfurt (U4) is fully separated. But that's it.

And Wuppertal has been closed down completely for safety fears! Not like germany that.

[Blackpool88]

Originally Posted by MarkO

Now the UK list to compare in the same manner:

Provincial Scotland
Full metro's: Glasgow
Trams: None

Provincial Wales:
Full metros: None
Trams: None

Provincial England:
Full metro's: None
Light Metro: Newcastle
Trams: Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham

Even taking on board all the differences in funding, urbanization, the attitude to public transport, historical reasoning, european contributions etc etc etc...you just cannot look at the facts above and say there is really any excuse for Britain having fallen so far behind in provincial urban transit.

Thats my argument really!! Not much we can do about it, just lamenting the situation (pretty much the same argument could be made about Hi-Speed rail), and am hoping, hoping, hoping the Manchester Metrolink experience will finally get governments and the Treasury etc to turn around and commit to more long term investments outside the capital!

How could you forget Blackpool!!

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Blackpool88

How could you forget Blackpool!!

And how can you ignore the role the heavy rail systems play in these cities?

Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds all have extensive and frequent rail services, some as frequent as metros at 5-15 minute intervals (Liverpool, Glasgow Electrics).

[Manchester Planner]

Originally Posted by Blackpool88

How could you forget Blackpool!!

Quite!

And as has just been written, many of the British cities/urban areas have pretty good heavy rail systems, such as that found in Birmingham/West Midlands.

[lightrail]

Some UK systems that rely heavily on the National Rail network to provide frequent "metro" rails services.

West Yorkshire PTE (Leeds)


source: www.projectmapping.co.uk

Greater Manchester PTE (Manchester)


source: www.emta.com

Merseyside PTE (Liverpool)


source: mappery.com

Strathclyde PTE (Glasgow)


source: strathclyde PTE

[tampasteve]

Fantastic maps, and a great point. Very similar idea to the systems in Australia (though it seems not underground for the most part?). I like it, and without them the rail network is not really a full picture. When I was living in Wales (Treforest) the local rail system was invaluable to get around, I cannot and could not have lived there without a car without it.

Steve

[Manchester Planner]

Yup, here's the Cardiff and the Valleys railways:

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system...sValleyspm.pdf

Recently re-opened lines: Ebbw Vale and Rhoose. The Ebbw Vale line is planned now to be extended too.

[Manchester Planner]

Liverpool even has a couple of real underground stations/railway lines...

[Republica]

A lof of what is on the above maps are long distance commuting stations, or other cities ie. intercity routes.

And many of them have very poor frequencies, and are also shared with other intercity services.

[MarkO]

Thanks for the maps but if you dont mind me saying, it seems some of you are slightly missing the point!

Those cities do have very good suburban rail systems yes, but so do most of the other european cities listed.

The point of that original post was that unfortunately most British provincial cities have much less (or no) light rail or metro compared with european provincial cities of a similar size! :-)

Hope that makes it clear now!

[WatcherZero]

Grand new Gmex/deansgate Metrolink interchange station proposed to be operational by 2014, Manchester Central.

Start from around 5:15


Ignore the speaker confusing Oxford Road and Deansgate stations.

[harryj79]

Originally Posted by MarkO

Thanks for the maps but if you dont mind me saying, it seems some of you are slightly missing the point!

Those cities do have very good suburban rail systems yes, but so do most of the other european cities listed.

The point of that original post was that unfortunately most British provincial cities have much less (or no) light rail or metro compared with european provincial cities of a similar size! :-)

Hope that makes it clear now!

The lack of progress/spending on public transport in the UK has been for two main reasons since WW2. Initially (in the 1950's and 60's) the feeling was very much that public transport was a thing of the past, and that cars (personal transport) were the future. When somebody pointed out that everybody having a car (or two) may not be sustainable to Dr Beeching and co. they would simply make vague comments about people being able to use buses, but these would of course be stuck in the same queue as everybody else's cars. Remember this was the age when motorways were being built and opened every year and people were soaking up American culture, which revolved around the car.

It took less than two decades for it to become painfully apparant to people that there wasn't enough space, or resources, for everybody to travel everywhere by car in the long term. In short, that it simply wasn't sustainable. However, by this stage Thatcher was in power, and it would be fair to say that she was no great fan of public transport. In all these wasted years when Britain's transport system should have been evolving, it fell behind. Decades behind. Things have slowly improved since then (such as Manchester Metrolink and other light rail systems), but we are still not spending as much as so many other countries.

Because Britain is so far behind, it will require a large amount of spending to bring the public transport infrastructure up to date. Government claims there are three ways of doing this:
1. Increase taxes.
2. Cut spending on schools and hospitals.
3. Leave it as it is.
Sadly in recent times the third option is always the one that has been picked. It would be unfair to say there have been no improvements to public transport, but they have been few and far between when compared with countries like Germany.

That in a nutshell is why Britain is so far behind. Hostility towards public transport, followed by a lack of will power to spend the money needed to improve it. Of course, I believe that public transport could have been improved over the last couple of decades without tax rises, or cuts to schools and hospitals, simply because there is so much public sector waste, but successive governments have only seen the three options I listed above.

Perhaps projects like Manchester Metrolink do suggest that better times lie ahead for public transport in Britain, though I fear that this may not be the case. David Cameron has said his priority for government is the NHS, Tony Blair said his priority was education. While I would never like to take away from the huge importance of these sectors, it means that transport often doesn't get a look in. Couple that with the fact that Tony Blair's government had loads of money, and Cameron's (if he wins the election) will have none; the future of public transport in the UK doesn't look that great.

Sorry to be so long winded and pessimistic, but that's just the way I see it.

All the more reason to celebrate what we are getting!

[underdev2]

That is a good summary indeed, like you say Central Governments since the first world war up until recently have all been pro road or at best lukewarm to public transport.

On the other hand local governments particularly urban ones have seen the clear disadvantages of simply building more roads to keep up with demand and have always been pro public transport. Remember Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield have been wanting to build Metro or light rail since the 70s with local support and its worth noting actually they did start building initial lines during the pro road Thatcher era (with limited support yes, but still!).

I am however a little confused by your suggestion that Britain can invest in public transport without raising taxes or using money from other services. Forgive me but its a bit like saying 'we can invest in public transport without investing' ?! Britain already has some of the highest rail and bus prices in europe and to make passengers pay significantly more would only have the effect of limiting passenger growth.

Ultimately britain will have to face up and learn to pay for investment in public transport like many places in Europe who pay out of general taxes or local levies as Paris. Or even North America were people can be persuaded to actually vote for higher taxes and levies to pay for investment in new light rail and/or metro extensions.

[underdev2]

Originally Posted by MarkO

Thanks for the maps but if you dont mind me saying, it seems some of you are slightly missing the point!

Those cities do have very good suburban rail systems yes, but so do most of the other european cities listed.

The point of that original post was that unfortunately most British provincial cities have much less (or no) light rail or metro compared with european provincial cities of a similar size! :-)

Hope that makes it clear now!

I completely agree with you MarkiO ! I have to say some people may be confused and has to be said a little envious of your location ! lol!

Indeed many UK cities outside London do have heavy suburban rail lines but to compare them to full Metro or light rail networks would be completely wrong.

Firstly these suburban lines are not fully comprehensive networks covering all or a majority of the cities urban area, and the only city which comes close to this would be Glasgow. Even here though there are gaps and limited connections when compared with other European cities and to class Leeds MetroTrain service as urban rail is frankly complete nonsense (look at the map, how many stations in zone 1, Oh just 1!). Its more regional rail than anything and Leeds more than any other large city has huge areas without any rail based transport.

The other fact is that 'suburban rail' in the UK can be more accurately described as 'commuter rail' doing a reasonable job of getting people into work and back home during the morning and evening peaks, Monday to Friday but these are not 'hop-on hop-off' or 'turn up and go' services. In many cities (even in London actually) frequency can be as low as trains every30mins that is clearly NOT metro !

[future.architect]

The good people at Metrolink have decided (at last!) to put some comprehensive information on their website.

http://metrolink.co.uk/futuremetrolink/index.asp

the site contains lots of information about the new lines and other projects. Much of this information was unpublished before now.

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by underdev2

Ultimately britain will have to face up and learn to pay for investment in public transport like many places in Europe who pay out of general taxes or local levies as Paris. Or even North America were people can be persuaded to actually vote for higher taxes and levies to pay for investment in new light rail and/or metro extensions.

The second phase of the current extension project is being paid for either through regional road funding which has been diverted into Metrolink or through loans which will be repaid through increased local taxes.

Most areas have been unwilling, or with our local governments' very limited tax raising abilities, unable to pursue similar options.

[harryj79]

Originally Posted by underdev2

I am however a little confused by your suggestion that Britain can invest in public transport without raising taxes or using money from other services. Forgive me but its a bit like saying 'we can invest in public transport without investing' ?! Britain already has some of the highest rail and bus prices in europe and to make passengers pay significantly more would only have the effect of limiting passenger growth.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. What I meant is that there is so much public sector waste, that I'm sure you could spend far more than we currently do on transport without having to raise taxes. It's not a matter of the government not taxing enough, rather that they are just spending it on some rather daft things. Also, I didn't suggest that we could spend more on public transport without using money from other services, just from other key services such as schools and hospitals.

Of course this may all be irrelevant now, because the government doesn't have much money to spend at all.

[MarkO]

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

Grand new Gmex/deansgate Metrolink interchange station proposed to be operational by 2014, Manchester Central.

Nice one Watcher - looks pretty impressive (though anyone actually going to Manchester Central from the south would more likely get off the tram at St Peters Sq and walk to the entrance from there, but lets not piss on their fireworks just yet!)

Cheers also to harryj and underdev for "getting it".

(look at the map, how many stations in zone 1, Oh just 1!).

Precisely! The idea of using any kind of rail based rapid transit to move about the central area was (with notable exceptions mentioned) completely missing from UK provincial cities until start of the modern light-rail era. Meaning as posters have said, that UK cities have a long way to go to catch up with Euro equivilants.

Just to join in with the optimistic mood of FA etc: I do think what's happening with Metrolink is going to change things. I would not be surprised if a future government having seen the popularity of inner city commuting via tram DOES allow provincial cities more freedom to select LRT as part of the transport solution for their cities.

And the recent progress on the Greater Manchester City Region http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1026943 and the Leeds City Region http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1098261 might well be just what's needed to drive that progress further.

(For those non-UK readers or anyone else that doesn't know the daft history of UK under-investment: one other reason why there is less Metro outside London is that provincial cities and urban conglomerations have had less and less power over their own areas - worse still since the abolition of Met. Counties by Thatch in 86 - so this is the first step back towards region-wide transport powers, a la TfL.)


Lets face it: was the strength of the old PTE's in Tyne/Wear & Merseyside that really pushed thru the Metro/loopline there (effectively the only new sections of underground built in England). I'm pretty hopeful that when the new authorities are up and running (GMCR already established!!) it will let lose a whole flood of possibilities for MCR and LCR that will not just benefit those cities but point the way forward for many other places outside the capital! The worm may have people! Let's rejoice in that at least!!