• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Greater Manchester Combined Authority: Latest transport strategy draft publication

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The legal framework won't change, though. We've waited 20 years now so forget that. I'm not advocating a huge tram building programme, just build the ones that are on the current wish list. Cycling/e-bikes and shared taxis (especially once autonomous vehicles become available) are the next best options available. Buses will become uneconomic if cycling and shared taxis become the main non-private car options.
It may never change but we have to hope it does, as delivery of a sensible integrated transport network is virtually impossible otherwise. The opinion in US transport circles, where it's actually happening now, is that shared taxis damage public transport and create more congestion despite promising the opposite.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It may never change but we have to hope it does, as delivery of a sensible integrated transport network is virtually impossible otherwise. The opinion in US transport circles, where it's actually happening now, is that shared taxis damage public transport and create more congestion despite promising the opposite.

Shared taxis (matatus, song thaews or whatever you call them) are a lesson Asian and African countries already learnt - Malaysia banned them some time ago. Even with an app they are basically the same thing. They might work in low-density cities like MK, but when you see the disruption the present non-shared taxis cause by blocking the road to collect/disgorge one passenger, can you imagine what kind of a mess London would be if you got rid of the buses and had shared Ubers instead?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
DRT already covers much of GM and has replaced tendered buses in many areas. But is still not particularly efficient or cheap because of the need to book through a traditional call centre. With modern and future technology and with mass usage, near on demand shared taxis at low cost could be available without causing much unnecessary mileage if efficient routes can be calculated by computer in real time. We would still have trams and heavy rail on major corridors and shared taxis could be encouraged to connect into them rather than compete with them. Infrequent local bus services in suburban towns are pointless and should probably be replaced by shared taxis today, especially in the evening.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,533
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
DRT does work for areas of low demand for non-car users or specialist needs like community transport, but it's not areas of low demand where Uber etc are focused - they are interested in mass demand competing with other modes which really doesn't work.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
This is one of many US-focused blogs that debunk the idea that shared taxis and similar can sensibly replace conventional public transport.
https://humantransit.org/2018/02/microtransit-what-i-think-we-know.html
That means efficiency in transit is the ratio of passengers to drivers. Microtransit, by definition, is a low-capacity service, carrying small numbers of people at a time. This is, by definition, a way to serve very few people at very high cost, compared to fixed routes.

And as soon as we talk about transit agencies funding microtransit, we are saying that they should do this instead of adding fixed route services that are proven to attract vastly more riders and serve them vastly more efficiently.
...
Because of its low productivity, transit agency funding of arises from a coverage goal, which is the opposite of a ridership goal. Coverage means “predictably low ridership service run for a non-ridership reason,” typically access to places where the built environment makes high-ridership service impossible. The microtransit boosters assume that agencies must run lots of coverage service but this is actually an issue that should be debated; many agencies I’ve worked with have shifted their priorities the other way.
...
If a transit agency invests in a microtransit service hour for 3 people instead of a fixed route service hour for 30 people, solely to give those 3 people a better “customer experience,” we must ask “why are these 3 people so special?” Why shouldn’t they pay the full cost of their superior customer experience, rather than expecting the taxpayer to subsidize it?
...
The microtransit movement, like so many fads that have blown over transit agencies during my 25-year career, appears to be an example of elite projection, the tendency of fortunate people to assume that whatever they personally like will be good for society as a whole. An urban elite has seen their lives transformed by ride-hailing services, and understandably wants to believe that this transformation can be brought to transit too. This helps to explain why so much talk of microtransit is so dreamy, so obviously stated in the tone of a sales pitch rather than an analysis. To think clearly in this context, you need to lean into the wind, being skeptical but not cynical about ideas that obviously serve someone’s commercial interest.
...
But the neglect of fixed routes, encouraged at the highest levels, is the real source of transit’s declining relevance. My firm works in cities all over the US, and most of them have appallingly low levels of fixed route service compared to potential demand. In most American cities, the quantity of service is growing far slower than population, which means that on average, the availability and usefulness of transit is getting worse. Most cities, in short, are forcing low-income people to buy cars by making that the only way to have a life, even in places where fixed route service could succeed.

In this reality, should transit agencies really focus on ways to move tiny numbers of people more expensively, to deliver them a special “customer experience”, as the microtransit idea proposes? Clearly that’s not the path to ridership.

Meanwhile, cities that are forcefully recommitting to fixed routes are bucking the trend of falling ridership, and these show a clear path. Ridership is up in Seattle, despite all the countervailing trends, because of an unusually high commitment to quality service and to protecting fixed routes from congestion — a commitment shared by the transit agency and the City of Seattle. Houston continues to do far better than its Texas peers, partly due to the 2015 network redesign that expanded the bus network’s usefulness.
On the economics of ride-hailing: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2017/understanding-uber-not-app/
That last part is important because the main element of Uber’s grand narrative – their continued ability to offer low fares – is not as guaranteed a prospect as Londoners (and indeed all users) have been led to believe.

For now, it is simply worth bearing something in mind: Uber’s fares do not cover the actual cost of a journey.

Just how large the deficit is varies by territory and – as the firm don’t disclose more financial information than necessary – it is difficult to know what the shortfall per trip is in London itself. In New York, however, where some 2016 numbers are available, it seems that every journey only covers 41% of the costs involved in making it.

Just why Uber do this is something we will explore another time, but for now it is important just to know it is happening. It means that, without significant changes to Uber’s operational model, the company will never make a profit (indeed it currently loses roughly $2bn a year).
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,266
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Infrequent local bus services in suburban towns are pointless and should probably be replaced by shared taxis today, especially in the evening.

What percentage of local bus services that are infrequent is the average in comparison to the total number of operated bus services that are deemed to be regular bus services in those suburban towns you refer to?

Have you any thoughts on rural area infrequent bus service provision?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
What percentage of local bus services that are infrequent is the average in comparison to the total number of operated bus services that are deemed to be regular bus services in those suburban towns you refer to?

Have you any thoughts on rural area infrequent bus service provision?

Urban services running hourly or worse, especially in the evening are very unattractive due to their low frequency and consequently carry very few passengers.

Obviously rural buses services hardly exist and almost never run in the evening or Sunday. Bus modal split may well be 1% or lower in rural areas. DRT and in the future autonomous transport is the clear solution here.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,418
Rural roads are one of the reasons I really can’t see autonomous cars ever really working.....
Not unless someone pays for kerbs on them all and teaches cars to avoid potholes
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Rural roads are one of the reasons I really can’t see autonomous cars ever really working.....
Not unless someone pays for kerbs on them all and teaches cars to avoid potholes

Urban roads can have potholes too.
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
Just because there are a lot of buses doesn't mean that usage is high. Britain probably has more buses than any other European country, maybe even if you exclude London, but we are all aware that bus usage is low, hence calls for franchising.

What makes bus usage feel low, even when we see plenty of buses such as in parts of Manchester, is the awareness that half of bus journeys in England are in London.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
But what other option is there if you discount buses? Although I note you didn't comment on cycling, so maybe you see potential there?
I'm absolutely not discounting buses - I'm saying they are a vital part of the network. Cycling has its place and should be encouraged, but it's never going to be for everyone so it doesn't substitute for a comprehensive public transport network.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I'm absolutely not discounting buses - I'm saying they are a vital part of the network. Cycling has its place and should be encouraged, but it's never going to be for everyone so it doesn't substitute for a comprehensive public transport network.

In some towns in mainland Europe, cycling achieves modal shares that public transport can only hope to get in only the very biggest cities. For connection into tram lines in south Manchester where it is flat and distances to the tram stop are often short, cycling should be ideal. It can be done without regulatory change, so there is no need for wishful thinking that bus franchising will happen.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
In some towns in mainland Europe, cycling achieves modal shares that public transport can only hope to get in only the very biggest cities. For connection into tram lines in south Manchester where it is flat and distances to the tram stop are often short, cycling should be ideal. It can be done without regulatory change, so there is no need for wishful thinking that bus franchising will happen.
For cycling to be widespread in areas such as south Manchester there would have to be an enormous spend on a comprehensive network of protected cycle tracks, which would take up significant roadspace so while it might not require regulatory change it would require political willpower. However there are many people who wouldn't use it, such as the infirm, those visiting without cycles and those with heavy luggage or small children. And what may be OK for south Manchester may not work so well in the hills to the north and east.

I'm not saying that cycling shouldn't be part of the strategy but it's not a reason to neglect buses.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
In some towns in mainland Europe, cycling achieves modal shares that public transport can only hope to get in only the very biggest cities. For connection into tram lines in south Manchester where it is flat and distances to the tram stop are often short, cycling should be ideal. It can be done without regulatory change, so there is no need for wishful thinking that bus franchising will happen.

Do those cities have Manchester’s weather though?

Cycling in the dry is attractive. Arriving at work muddy, soaked and needing a shower and change of clothing isn’t.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Do those cities have Manchester’s weather though?

Cycling in the dry is attractive. Arriving at work muddy, soaked and needing a shower and change of clothing isn’t.

The main cycling countries, Netherlands and Denmark, have similar climates to the UK. Rainier if anything. Whereas hot and dry countries are not noted for cycling.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
They also haven't abandoned bus services, as you appear to be suggesting.

But, certainly in the case of the Netherlands, usage is low even by British standards, because most of the kinds of trips made by bus in other countries are made by bike. But it is still considered important to provide a comprehensive bus system, so that requires a lot of subsidy. If such a switch happened in the UK, it would make most if not all commercial services unviable, and there would be little appetite for subsidising replacements.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,266
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
But, certainly in the case of the Netherlands, usage is low even by British standards, because most of the kinds of trips made by bus in other countries are made by bike. But it is still considered important to provide a comprehensive bus system, so that requires a lot of subsidy. If such a switch happened in the UK, it would make most if not all commercial services unviable, and there would be little appetite for subsidising replacements.

There is a totally different cycling mindset in this country to the oft-quoted Netherlands scenario. Buses in all their various guises from those horse-drawn ones onwards have been long been imbued in the British travelling public's mindset.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
There is a totally different cycling mindset in this country to the oft-quoted Netherlands scenario. Buses in all their various guises from those horse-drawn ones onwards have been long been imbued in the British travelling public's mindset.

Funny how Britain is not prepared to pay for buses if it is indeed part of the culture
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Is that "Britain" the Treasury with the hands on the purse-strings and nothing to do with the transport operators? Culture does never feature in the mind-set of those in the Treasury, as well you know.

Neither the government nor operators are prepared to pay for it.
 

D A Altrincham

New Member
Joined
6 Oct 2019
Messages
1
Location
Altrincham
I wonder if someone could help me. As a resident of Altrincham and train passenger, I am a member of “the stakeholders committee” assessing the possibility of reopening the mid-Cheshire line through Middlewich. If the line were reopened to Crewe it would probably be the preferable route from Altrincham and south Trafford to London (if and when HS2 reaches Crewe). There are a number of difficulties with reopening the line as I sure you can imagine, including capacity constraints at Crewe and Piccadilly.

However, I notice that TfGM is proposing a tram/train experiment extending the tram service to Hale. As someone who knows very little about train engineering (most of what I know has come from reading your forum) can I ask the naive question; could the tram experiment be extended to Crewe / Sandbach (thus overcoming the capacity problem between Stockport and Piccadilly)? Or to put it another way: is there a type of tram -train which would be suitable for a Piccadilly/ Altrincham/ Crewe tram service?

PS I notice remarks in this forum about batterie powered trains and their usefulness. Would it be feasible to recharge the train batteries at each stop?

PPS I use the Hale level crossing quite frequently and the closed time often seems excessive. Is there not technology which could improve this situation?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There's a thread somewhere on the forum about Middlewich re-opening, but as usual I can't remember the title which makes it difficult to search for.

TfGM has looked at extending tram-trains as far as Knutsford or Northwich but I believe the benefit didn't justify the cost.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
There's a thread somewhere on the forum about Middlewich re-opening, but as usual I can't remember the title which makes it difficult to search for.

TfGM has looked at extending tram-trains as far as Knutsford or Northwich but I believe the benefit didn't justify the cost.
The relevant thread is Campaign to restore passenger services on the Middlewich Link Line.

With regard to Hale level crossing, there is long established technology that would eliminate the delays, namely a bridge. Unfortunately it would require costly property demolition.
 
Joined
6 Feb 2014
Messages
88
I notice that TfGM is proposing a tram/train experiment extending the tram service to Hale.
My reading of the transport part of the GM Spatial Planning document (albeit now some months ago) was that the Altrincham - Hale Train-Tram suggestion was that it would be an extension of the Train-Tram proposals covering use of the existing Altrincham - Cheadle line rather than an extension of the tram network (via Sale) to Hale.
To me the more important priority would be implementing the long promised increased Northern service frequency to Hale, Knutsford & Northwich at least, now apparently being blocked by Network Rail because of concerns over the number of user operated crossings on the line (but I am not sure whether these crossings are before of after Northwich and the Middlewich line).
I have always regretted the capacity decrease resulting from the conversion of the heavy rail Altrincham to Oxford Road line to tram operation. The previous frequency of 6 tph (2 of which ran onwards from Altrincham to Hale, Knutsford and Northwich) provided a higher capacity, more comfortable, and in the case of the limited stop services a faster service to central Manchester than Metrolink and did not use up the capacity limited Stockport to Piccadilly route. Perhaps we should be considering the reinstatement of this route for Train/Tram operation?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top