TRANSPORT | Metrolink

[Accura4Matalan]

We should get something like the Porto trams.

[roverman]

It's time to ditch Metrolink and spend taxpayers money on a transport system that gives value for money. We all got carried away in the 90's on a wave of sentiment over the return of trams. We associate them with pleasant , sophisticated European cities. The difference is that those cities never got rid of their trams and so are not now having to spend billions re-locating utilities and setting up all the associated infrastructure. Also, they have proper trams, which are street-friendly with low floors and not requiring monstrous platforms to be built, blocking their city pavements. Metrolink is a train trying to be a tram. The vehicles are large and cumbersome, they bleat their way through the city at little more than a walking pace, and when one breaks down it stymies the whole system. They are OK when out on the rail tracks where they are best suited - but we could have just kept the local rail trains which used to ply the Bury and Altrincham lines, and have used the Metrolink millions to subside higher frequency rail services. These could then integrate at the city rail hubs with the excellent MetroShuttle free buses. More wasted Metrolink millions could have (and still can if we see sense) on new technology Diesel/Electric or LPG/Electric buses running at high-frequency on prime routes into the city. If we insist on scrapping suburban rail services then we could use the lines as dedicated busways for these vehicles - that would slash journey times. Buses require no special infrastructure, they are relatively cheap to buy and operate, they needn't block the system when they brake down, and are infinitely flexible as to the routes they can operate. Buses have acquired a bad name because of the de-regulation / privatisation bunkum, where loads of cowboy operators run clapped out buses to the same places and clog up Piccadilly Gardens in a haze of diesel fumes. Please lets not waste more money on trams - they were great in 1890 when there were no cars on the roads - they are still OK in a city with an existing extensive network where traffic has grown up around them. To start now in Manchester trying to establish a significant network of tram routes is a crass mis-use of scarce resources. Plan and implement a properly thought out, integrated, modern bus network; control private cars in the city by selective road charging - cross subsidised to the buses; and change the face of our city. Say 'toot toot' to Metrolink.

[skit_uk]

The bus system is at capacity, the train lines and stations are rammed and the roads are at standstill.

Nearly all major cities around the world require cars trains buses and undergrounds/trams, manchester is no different.

[Metrolink]

The difference is that those cities never got rid of their trams and so are not now having to spend billions re-locating utilities and setting up all the associated infrastructure.

Wrong - 20 odd cities in France alone are developing or have developed 2nd generation trams from scratch.

Also, they have proper trams, which are street-friendly with low floors and not requiring monstrous platforms to be built, blocking their city pavements.

Many many cities have high platforms - normally for the same reason we have them.

You insinuate trams are too expensive then suggest we should be having low floor trams - far far more expensive from where we started from.

I take it you've had traffic and transport consultants in to help you come to the conclusion buses would be either cheaper or better than the trams????

Funnily enough, the GMPTE found that trams (along the 3 proposed routes) are far better value than buses - and MUCH to the DfT's disappointment (they're going to have to spend the money now - it appears - since even THEIR report showed trams to be by far the best option - money wise - and passenger wise).

Have a read of http://www.publications.parliament.u...8/37805.htm#a7 it gives a comparision between the cost of buses and trams.

An example of where buses do not compete very well with trams - as I have recently mentioned in this thread, the current phase 1 fleet have now completed over 1m miles (each), they will continue on and probably end up doing at LEAST 5m miles each. These trams cost about £1m each when purchased). Now given that trams have at least double the capacity of a bus - hence for every tram you need two buses, and buses wear out much much faster than trams and hence need replacing much more often, the long term price of buses is far far from what you'd imagine.

Think about this - how many miles can a tram travel on it's steel wheel before it needs replacing, compare this to your bus. Yes, the upfront costs are significantly higher, but in the long term, with higher passenger numbers, and more long term equipement the cost idfferential disappears over time.

Final thought for you Roverman - if trams are such a bad idea, and buses such a great idea, why are the buses that travel between Alty and Manc practically empty in comparision to the trams - the same is shown on practically EVERY tram line not only in the UK but all over the world - the public vote with their feet and chose the tram over buses.

P.S. You'll find my name in that transport committee report - LR 14 on page http://www.publications.parliament.u.../378/37811.htm

[Metrolink]

P.S. Parliament not sitting today so no announcement will come today.

[Metrolink]

Interesting...

http://www.transportbriefing.co.uk/story.php?id=3332

RAC calls on government to improve public transport
Filed 28/06/06

Britain's second largest motoring organisation has released the results of a survey showing that motorists are increasingly in favour of road-user charging and has called on the government to commit to improving public transport.

The RAC says that 68% of motorists are now prepared to accept "draconian" measures to tackle congestion and are prepared to embrace road pricing schemes in return for reduced motoring taxation and improvements to public transport and the road network.

The organisation's Report on Motoring 2006 - an annual in-depth index of the views of UK motorists - reveals that 79% of motorists perceive that congestion is getting steadily worse and support for the concept of road pricing has risen 6% in two years, reflecting increasing frustration with congestion (from 19% to 25%). Nearly half of motorists (44%) support a road pricing scheme using telematics technology.

The research suggests that motorists are clear about the deal they want: 67% require a trade off on motoring tax; 63% expect investment in existing roads and 43% say improvements in public transport are crucial.

Using the findings of the report, the RAC is now calling on the government to commit to improving public transport as well as offering financial trade-offs to motorists in order to make a persuasive case for road pricing.

Debbie Hewitt, managing director of the RAC, said: "Motorists are sending a clear signal to government that road pricing is a more palatable solution than it has been for the growing problem of congestion - but they are looking to strike a deal. Government must act now to seize this opportunity to win over road users. Motorists themselves are telling us that there is wide scope to gain their support but it is critical that policymakers adopt a fair basis for charging, review the impact on current motoring taxes and promote the technological benefits of a road pricing system for the idea to become a reality."

The rates for charging under any national road pricing scheme have yet to be decided by the government but feasibility studies, such as one conducted by Morpace International, suggests charging up to £1.34 a mile on the busiest roads at peak times. The RAC says that two thirds of motorists believe that annual mileage is the most effective method of calculating payment.

With Global Positioning Systems likely to underpin any charging scheme, the report says that advanced technology presents an excellent opportunity for government to win motorists round. The organisation says road pricing would be received even more positively if the technology used also offered motorists a number of driver-friendly features. Anti-theft tracking was found to be the most highly valued facility with 87% of motorists supporting this. Other attractive features include providing alternative route information to help avoid hold-ups (80%), and a panic button that would raise the alarm in an emergency (77%).

[rolybling]

Originally Posted by Metrolink

Wrong - 20 odd cities in France alone are developing or have developed 2nd generation trams from scratch.




Many many cities have high platforms - normally for the same reason we have them.

You insinuate trams are too expensive then suggest we should be having low floor trams - far far more expensive from where we started from.

I take it you've had traffic and transport consultants in to help you come to the conclusion buses would be either cheaper or better than the trams????

Funnily enough, the GMPTE found that trams (along the 3 proposed routes) are far better value than buses - and MUCH to the DfT's disappointment (they're going to have to spend the money now - it appears - since even THEIR report showed trams to be by far the best option - money wise - and passenger wise).

Have a read of http://www.publications.parliament.u...8/37805.htm#a7 it gives a comparision between the cost of buses and trams.

An example of where buses do not compete very well with trams - as I have recently mentioned in this thread, the current phase 1 fleet have now completed over 1m miles (each), they will continue on and probably end up doing at LEAST 5m miles each. These trams cost about £1m each when purchased). Now given that trams have at least double the capacity of a bus - hence for every tram you need two buses, and buses wear out much much faster than trams and hence need replacing much more often, the long term price of buses is far far from what you'd imagine.

Think about this - how many miles can a tram travel on it's steel wheel before it needs replacing, compare this to your bus. Yes, the upfront costs are significantly higher, but in the long term, with higher passenger numbers, and more long term equipement the cost idfferential disappears over time.

Final thought for you Roverman - if trams are such a bad idea, and buses such a great idea, why are the buses that travel between Alty and Manc practically empty in comparision to the trams - the same is shown on practically EVERY tram line not only in the UK but all over the world - the public vote with their feet and chose the tram over buses.

P.S. You'll find my name in that transport committee report - LR 14 on page http://www.publications.parliament.u.../378/37811.htm

Trams are also better for the environment

[ihategrammar]

Roverman, it's all well and good suggesting that all we need is very good buses, but the fact is that a city the size of Manchester needs an integrated transport network that consists of trains, buses and trams. Buses alone are not enough to shift the amount of people that need to be moved around the city. For a start, even on routes where modern, low floor buses are run at high frequencies along dedicated bus lanes they fail to achieve sufficient modal shift from car to public transport when compared to Metrolink. The local heavy rail network earmarked for Metrolink conversion is pretty much life expired, and the subisidies involved to finance heavy rail operation render any significant improvement on lines such as the Oldham Loop unlikely in the extreme. I come from Timperley and yes, the suburban heavy rail services that used to operate on that line were fairly reliable and very popular, but they still only attracted half the amount of people that Metrolink does. It would have been almost impossible to run heavy rail services on that line every 5 minutes due to congestion at Manchester Piccadilly, where, let us not forget, the trains passed through platforms 13/14 which are the station's busiest and already resemble rush hour in Calcutta at peak times.

I agree that the buses should be better organised, but only in combination with other public transport improvements, such as Metrolink. In every major city that I have visited, the buses support a mass transit system, which, at the end of the day, is what Metrolink is. Even in cities with a small LRT system the buses are organised so that they feed into tram termini, and I cannot think of an example of a large city where buses alone are used to any great effect.

To suggest that we have a nostalgic obsession with trams is simply not true. I lived in Saarbruecken in Germany for a year, and they were busy extending their own LRT system which consisted of a converted heavy rail line and a section of street running. Their bus network was incredible, but the powers that be recognised the economic benefits that LRT would bring, as even the fastest buses would have taken well over an hour to cover just half the route. They too used to have a traditional tram system which had been closed down, and I believe that the local transport authority used Metrolink as an example of what could be achieved. The difference is that Saarbruecken is about the size of Stockport, yet has a comparable transport system with a city several times its size.

If a city of 250000 people thinks that even the best regulated buses and trains aren't enough, I don't see why an urban area of over 2.5 million should.

Just a few thoughts for you to mull over....

[spacepostman]

I've come to the conclusion that the BIGGEST single problem faced by Metrolink is that it was planned way back in the good old days when Manchester actually had a Public Transport Authority with some more clout, when they were to be in charge of our Manchester Branded (I know I keep going on about it) ORANGE trams... then the Conservatives said enough and sold our buses, trams and more recently train services off to private companies such as Serco meaning there are no cheap 'One-Day-Travelcards' like thye have in London, and the building of new lines etc doesn't have to be dictated by Central Government.

Hope is not lost...! Since the Mayor is now in charge of Transport for London and the opposite has pretty much happened in the capital, GMPTE are pushing to have the same model replicated here so hopefully one day we'll get that underground system. Like all these have here: http://urbanrail.net/eu/euromet.htm

[Metrolink]

Space - that's my great hope too (not the underground) that one day we'll have a mayor (or cabinet) with very strong powers that runs our local public transport, and has the power to run it in a way that Red Ken does in London.

With the current setup we're always starting massively handicapped.

[LocksRocks]

Originally Posted by Metrolink

Space - that's my great hope too (not the underground) that one day we'll have a mayor (or cabinet) with very strong powers that runs our local public transport, and has the power to run it in a way that Red Ken does in London.

With the current setup we're always starting massively handicapped.

I Mayor is teh only way, one person making decisions who is fully accountable. Cabinets would drinks tea, have power stuggles amoung themselves and wrestle with their own egos.

[roverman]

OK, I've read the responses and the very interesting parliamentary study on comparatve costs and advantages of light rail vs. trams. I concede that my post was based more upon perception than researched fact. The comment from someone about congestion at Piccadilly station was well made and one that I had not considered.

As the report suggests though, trams are not the only answer and there is still a need to improve bus services. I live along the Wilmslow Road corridor in South Manchester where we enjoy (if that's the word!) a very high frequency bus service into the city. The frequency makes it attractive but the ridiculous level of competition on the route is wasteful. Many buses run at less than half full. Fewer, better quality buses, preferably with a two-person crew could cut journey times and atrract more passengers. The second crew member could handle tickets and be on hand to help passengers who are infirm, unsure, or simply give a greater feeling of safety and security to vulnerable passengers. Obviously it increases the operating cost but potentially increases the productivity of the vehicle. Has this been evaluated?

The report does not explain why buses would carry 74% of the passengers yet only take 34% of car journeys off the roads. I haven't worked that one out.

[All]

Manchester is trying to compete with a number of European cities yet has only one and a half tram lines. Amsterdam, Milan and Munich both have extensive underground and tram systems, and Barcelona has a five line underground. Great cities have great public transport!

[ihategrammar]

Roverman, I completely agree with you about the buses in general, and along Wilmslow Road in particular. What I was trying to point out earlier wasn't so much that buses had no role to play, rather that the two networks should compliment one another. As far as I am aware, GMPTE are currently lobbying government for more regulatory powers over the bus network. The aim is to have something along the lines of Greater London, where private companies operate the services themselves, but the routes, fares and frequencies are set by a public body.

Interestingly, if the buses were better regulated we wouldn't have the current free for all at Piccadilly Gardens at rush hour, which leaves trams stranded amongst rows of 42's as there's no room at the bus stands - improving the buses would improve Metrolink's reliability as well!

[Metrolink]

Indeed, trams will only ever play a minority role in Manchester's transport, but they will deal with the heavily used corridors.

Buses should be used to compliment the trams, not compete against them.

[spacepostman]

But whilst they are run by reedy corporates who put profit before people then this won't happen. We need to follow the London example!

[Metrolink]

right, I am off (for a short while anyway).

not going to have access to the interweb until about the 10th August after tonight.

Hopefully will come back to the good news.

please post any MEN or NW Enquirer stories on here so I can read them on my return.

have a good summer everyone.

[Sir Miles Platting]

Originally Posted by Metrolink

right, I am off (for a short while anyway).

not going to have access to the interweb until about the 10th August after tonight.

Hopefully will come back to the good news.

please post any MEN or NW Enquirer stories on here so I can read them on my return.

have a good summer everyone.

And you Mr Link.....

[spacepostman]

You too Metro! Keep up all the good work and we will still be here when you return, hopefully not as downtrodden as we all are now in regards to our beautiful light rail system!

Oooooh ya bastards ya! We've still got it, it never left us! oohhh!

[Zim Flyer]

Originally Posted by Metrolink

right, I am off (for a short while anyway).

not going to have access to the interweb until about the 10th August after tonight.

Hopefully will come back to the good news.

please post any MEN or NW Enquirer stories on here so I can read them on my return.

have a good summer everyone.

Noooooo, don't leave us Metrolink.



Lets hope there is some good tram news for you when you get back.