Tramways: Which towns and cities would benefit most?

[AlbertBeale]

Brighton and Hove (and Portslade and Shoreham)

- Certainly a line replacing the 25 bus from the Old Steine down Lewes Road out to the universities at Falmer
- A line out to Portslade as well probably a good idea, possibly further - and in the east to the Marina and Royal Sussex Hospital
- Woodingdean via Elm Grove to the station and Preston Park to somewhere like Hollingbury
- Possibly a branch on the latter line serving Hangleton

Existing bus routes below. Mostly a case of turning the main corridors into trams

View attachment 65500

It's years since I lived in Brighton, but I doubt Elm Grove is any less steep than it was. Surely too steep for trams in places?

And the point about the 25 (and its variants) is that buses turn off and loop round the Sussex Univ campus, and some head over to the Brighton Univ campus too, I think. A tram up the main road is one thing, but putting it round the listed buildings on the Sussex campus at all hours might be controversial, as well as less cost-effective than the trunk route itself... Of course, you could make all the students walk from the main road like they did in my day...

And as others have said, trams that are all on-road, rather than being partly on - eg - old rail alignments (which are not completely absent in Brighton, but not relevant here) are not such an obvious thing to do. Far better for somewhere like Brighton (especially with all the hills) are swish Trolley buses which have decent batteries for non-wired patches - which already exist in some cities abroad ... providing they're combined with enforced bus lanes and the banning of almost all cars in much of the urban area.

And as for the ideas that car drivers won't switch to anything less sexy than a tram, and that car drivers simply won't stop driving - well, tough. For the sake of equitable urban mobility for everyone, not to mention for the sake of preserving what's left of our ecosystem, there's no choice.

 

[HSTEd]

Google Earth puts the gradient on the Lewes road as peaking at over 13%.
Which is rather steep, but the average gradient is only about 2.3% so its hard to tell how long that stretch of gradient actually is.

AIUI The Sheffield Supertram manages sections of 10% gradients and the Pöstlingbergbahn in Linz manages ~11.6%.
So it's not unreasonable.

Course you probably wouldn't have an absolutely direct copy of the bus routes in Brighton, because the obvious route for a tram is on the sea front, rather than ~400m inland.
Probably would get a bit of a backlash for killing Volk's electric railway though.

EDIT:

Just slightly rerouted the trams and got peak gradient down to 5%... so even with inaccuracies in Google Earth, it should be engineerable.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Google Earth puts the gradient on the Lewes road as peaking at over 13%.
Which is rather steep, but the average gradient is only about 2.3% so its hard to tell how long that stretch of gradient actually is.

AIUI The Sheffield Supertram manages sections of 10% gradients and the Pöstlingbergbahn in Linz manages ~11.6%.
So it's not unreasonable.

Course you probably wouldn't have an absolutely direct copy of the bus routes in Brighton, because the obvious route for a tram is on the sea front, rather than ~400m inland.
Probably would get a bit of a backlash for killing Volk's electric railway though.

I wasn't talking about the gradient on the Lewes Road - I'd forgotten there was the odd steep-ish bit on it - but on Elm Grove, which was also mooted as a tram route; the latter must surely be much steeper.

And leave Volk's Railway alone! When are they going to put it back on stilts and re-extend it to Rottingdean??

Also, I remember (I think) that Linz, which you mention here (as with Zurich?) has a mixture of trams and trolleybuses, which makes for great complexity/fun where the overhead lines cross, given the very different electrical systems and different guidance (or not) aspects of the wires. I could have spent all day...

 

[Clip]

Some sort of boat service was tried in the not too distant past http://www.clydewaterfront.com/projects/clyde-wide/c15---clyde-clippers-river-link, and to go back a century or so Glasgow had the "Cluthas" which provided a service running up and down the River Clyde. They were introduced between Victoria Bridge and Whiteinch Ferry, taking about 45 minutes on the 3 miles (4.8 km) route which included 11 landing stages alternating on both sides of the river, competition from the original tram system from 1901 resulted in the Cluthas being withdrawn in 1903. I think in that historical description of both attempts lies the restriction that a water based service faces, it takes a lot more time to moor the boat to allow passengers on and off compared to train or tram.

To be fair the thames clippers seem to manage it quite quickly

 

[tasky]

It's years since I lived in Brighton, but I doubt Elm Grove is any less steep than it was. Surely too steep for trams in places?

And the point about the 25 (and its variants) is that buses turn off and loop round the Sussex Univ campus, and some head over to the Brighton Univ campus too, I think. A tram up the main road is one thing, but putting it round the listed buildings on the Sussex campus at all hours might be controversial, as well as less cost-effective than the trunk route itself... Of course, you could make all the students walk from the main road like they did in my day...

And as others have said, trams that are all on-road, rather than being partly on - eg - old rail alignments (which are not completely absent in Brighton, but not relevant here) are not such an obvious thing to do. Far better for somewhere like Brighton (especially with all the hills) are swish Trolley buses which have decent batteries for non-wired patches - which already exist in some cities abroad ... providing they're combined with enforced bus lanes and the banning of almost all cars in much of the urban area.

And as for the ideas that car drivers won't switch to anything less sexy than a tram, and that car drivers simply won't stop driving - well, tough. For the sake of equitable urban mobility for everyone, not to mention for the sake of preserving what's left of our ecosystem, there's no choice.

Elm Grove had trams when the Brighton Corporation Tramways were running so it doesn't seem like it should be a problem.

EDIT: here's some social history about people's memories of them https://www.mybrightonandhove.org.uk/places/placetrans-2/trams-on-elm-grove/elm-grove-3

I don't think running trams on the roads around Sussex Uni would be a problem - for a start, the university has done quite a lot of development and knocked down old buildings in recent years anyway.

On the question of road vs rail alignments - it's not quite a question of just running them down the road with traffic where no rail alignment is available. If you look at cities like Brussels they are often run down the central reservation most of the way - many wide roads in cities across the UK were built so wide for that very reason (and are arguably too wide now for the job they are doing)

 

[AlbertBeale]

To be fair the thames clippers seem to manage it quite quickly

Yes - they're quite efficient - though with a fraction of the passengers getting on and off at each stop compared with, say, an underground train, as well as being only a fraction of the frequency. So, wonderful though they are, they're not a very significant part of the transport system.

 

[edwin_m]

Thames Clippers are also limited to 4 knots upstream of about Tower Bridge, which is only about twice walking pace. So probably not the quickest option unless both origin and destination are close to piers. And the more piers there are the slower it gets.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Elm Grove had trams when the Brighton Corporation Tramways were running so it doesn't seem like it should be a problem.

EDIT: here's some social history about people's memories of them https://www.mybrightonandhove.org.uk/places/placetrans-2/trams-on-elm-grove/elm-grove-3

I don't think running trams on the roads around Sussex Uni would be a problem - for a start, the university has done quite a lot of development and knocked down old buildings in recent years anyway.

On the question of road vs rail alignments - it's not quite a question of just running them down the road with traffic where no rail alignment is available. If you look at cities like Brussels they are often run down the central reservation most of the way - many wide roads in cities across the UK were built so wide for that very reason (and are arguably too wide now for the job they are doing)

Thanks! I had no idea trams were ever on Elm Grove, nor even that it would be possible - it's surprising given my memory of how steep parts are; can anyone say what the gradient is? (My earliest time in Brighton wasn't much more than half a century ago, so post-trams.)

Yes Sussex Uni has knocked down a handful of its older buildings, though only - from what I understand from my last visit - some student housing out on the periphery which was intended as a very temporary boost to accommodation in the '70s and '80s, but which has been patched up for decades since. They weren't quite prefabs, but friends who lived in them even in their early days speak of the gaping cracks in the walls and so on, even then! But I would think space - and listed setting - constraints would make it very difficult to have tram access everywhere that buses currently go on the campus. (Though perhaps, where/if there's a will, there's a way.) Nearly all the development has been just additions, not demolitions. Virtually all the main buildings from the Basil Spence era, and subsequent developments, are still there. After all, 50 or so years old (some a bit more, some rather less) is not a great age for a building intended to last, and for historical and architectural reasons most of the early campus is surely still inviolable.

I don't think that wide boulevards with lots of space for tram tracks down the middle - lovely though that is in some continental cities - is too close to the situation in Brighton! But which British cities were you thinking of with too much road width where the surplus was once intended for trams?

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think that wide boulevards with lots of space for tram tracks down the middle - lovely though that is in some continental cities - is too close to the situation in Brighton! But which British cities were you thinking of with too much road width where the surplus was once intended for trams?

Birmingham, Leeds and Sunderland spring to mind. Liverpool as well I think. But they do tend to be only in those outer suburbs that were developed in the inter-war period and before most cities decided it wasn't worth keeping the trams.

 

[tasky]

I don't think that wide boulevards with lots of space for tram tracks down the middle - lovely though that is in some continental cities - is too close to the situation in Brighton! But which British cities were you thinking of with too much road width where the surplus was once intended for trams?

You're right that it isn't often the case in Brighton, though places like the Old Steine were designed specifically for trams I believe. In London if you go on an old historic map of trams and look at the roads that they were on, more often than not the road is unusually wide because there used to be trams on it. In many cases the space is used for bus lanes, or on-street parking.

Just one example, but Ferdinand Street in Camden is a good archetype - quite a pain to cross as a pedestrian even though it's just a residential street.

Yes Sussex Uni has knocked down a handful of its older buildings, though only - from what I understand from my last visit - some student housing out on the periphery which was intended as a very temporary boost to accommodation in the '70s and '80s, but which has been patched up for decades since. They weren't quite prefabs, but friends who lived in them even in their early days speak of the gaping cracks in the walls and so on, even then! But I would think space - and listed setting - constraints would make it very difficult to have tram access everywhere that buses currently go on the campus. (Though perhaps, where/if there's a will, there's a way.) Nearly all the development has been just additions, not demolitions. Virtually all the main buildings from the Basil Spence era, and subsequent developments, are still there. After all, 50 or so years old (some a bit more, some rather less) is not a great age for a building intended to last, and for historical and architectural reasons most of the early campus is surely still inviolable.

There has been some other stuff I think replaced - certainly when I was there some years ago they were planning to knock down and rebuild Arts C and D. There is quite a lot of space on the periphery on the campus (service roads etc) and a trams wouldn't necessarily have to take the same route as buses today through it (the 25 has been modified a few times). The university authorities would also certainly jump at getting a light rail, I think.

 

[AlbertBeale]

You're right that it isn't often the case in Brighton, though places like the Old Steine were designed specifically for trams I believe. In London if you go on an old historic map of trams and look at the roads that they were on, more often than not the road is unusually wide because there used to be trams on it. In many cases the space is used for bus lanes, or on-street parking.

Just one example, but Ferdinand Street in Camden is a good archetype - quite a pain to cross as a pedestrian even though it's just a residential street.

View attachment 66936

There has been some other stuff I think replaced - certainly when I was there some years ago they were planning to knock down and rebuild Arts C and D. There is quite a lot of space on the periphery on the campus (service roads etc) and a trams wouldn't necessarily have to take the same route as buses today through it (the 25 has been modified a few times). The university authorities would also certainly jump at getting a light rail, I think.

Thanks - the idea of some wider roads in the borough of Camden being tram-friendly is an interesting one (I live in the borough). Though struggles with the local Council over road and transport issues are never-ending... but that's another story (or several other stories ... see years of the Camden New Journal, our wonderful local paper). In terms of some wider roads in London having had trams once, it's not obvious to me which is the cause and which the effect. in every case. And of course the on-street parking you refer to (in fact the proliferation of cars in general [though parts of Camden have or had the lowest car-ownership figures in the country, I believe]] is the bane both of efficient buses and of trams.

Re the Sussex campus - aha, perhaps one or two of the later Arts buildings (post-Spense-design and so less protected) did go rather than just get added to; if that's within your knowledge, I accept that. Given the subjects I was involved with when there, the Arts buildings weren't at the time - and haven't been on subsequent visits - places I've had a great deal to do with. But in any case, I think they're a bit away from the current bus routes. Whether the university authorities would "jump at" getting their own tram line I don't know - I've always found them a bit unpredictable. (And certainly less radical than they were in the early days...)

Checking, I see there appears not to be an Arts D these days ... so you're right about that at least. Perhaps it's what gave way to their "Business School" or similar [he says sniffily].

 

[tasky]

Checking, I see there appears not to be an Arts D these days ... so you're right about that at least. Perhaps it's what gave way to their "Business School" or similar [he says sniffily].

Glad we're on the same page about the business school

That's an interesting point about cause and effect on the tram/street widths. Once day I will have a long play around with RailMapOnline and Google Streetview and try and get a sense as to how wide the streets with trams on were.

I suppose in an ideal world you'd be taking space away from on-street parking for bus lanes and tram and such, but as you hint at, it can be very difficult to get people to part with parking - and I guess if it's still hard in Camden where car ownership is so low, it's going to be all but impossible to do it in other parts of the country! (I used to be a resident there as well and followed various attempts to put cycle lanes in quite closely)

 

[edwin_m]

I suppose in an ideal world you'd be taking space away from on-street parking for bus lanes and tram and such, but as you hint at, it can be very difficult to get people to part with parking - and I guess if it's still hard in Camden where car ownership is so low, it's going to be all but impossible to do it in other parts of the country! (I used to be a resident there as well and followed various attempts to put cycle lanes in quite closely)

It will be pretty much impossible to prohibit on-street parking on a residential street unless the houses have enough off-street parking for however many cars they have. Even if the road is wide enough to take trams as well there are risks such as children running out between parked cars.

 

[takno]

It will be pretty much impossible to prohibit on-street parking on a residential street unless the houses have enough off-street parking for however many cars they have. Even if the road is wide enough to take trams as well there are risks such as children running out between parked cars.

There's only spaces for around 1 in 4 properties round here to have a car and we seem to manage okay. If you're in an area with excellent public transport like Camden you can certainly minimise the amount of space. It's really just a case of being willing to ramp up the fees for parking permits to keep towing cars until people give up.

 

[Clip]

Yes - they're quite efficient - though with a fraction of the passengers getting on and off at each stop compared with, say, an underground train, as well as being only a fraction of the frequency. So, wonderful though they are, they're not a very significant part of the transport system.

I am well aware, however the post i quoted stated

it takes a lot more time to moor the boat to allow passengers on and off compared to train or tram.

And i was merely responding to that as its context stated it wouldn't be quick. I hope that is clear now.

 

[PartyOperator]

There's only spaces for around 1 in 4 properties round here to have a car and we seem to manage okay. If you're in an area with excellent public transport like Camden you can certainly minimise the amount of space. It's really just a case of being willing to ramp up the fees for parking permits to keep towing cars until people give up.

More like ramping down the enormous subsidies currently given to people who park cars on the street. A parallel-parked car uses at least 15 square metres of land. Renting that amount of land in the centre of London for any other use would cost vastly more than the average parking permit. The market for private parking spaces also suggests residents permits should be at least 10 times the current price.

 

[Adsy125]

More like ramping down the enormous subsidies currently given to people who park cars on the street. A parallel-parked car uses at least 15 square metres of land. Renting that amount of land in the centre of London for any other use would cost vastly more than the average parking permit. The market for private parking spaces also suggests residents permits should be at least 10 times the current price.

A two storey house in central London on that land would be worth ~£600,000! Crazy isn’t it.

 

[Ianno87]

More like ramping down the enormous subsidies currently given to people who park cars on the street. A parallel-parked car uses at least 15 square metres of land. Renting that amount of land in the centre of London for any other use would cost vastly more than the average parking permit. The market for private parking spaces also suggests residents permits should be at least 10 times the current price.

I honestly look around Cambridge and despair at the sheer amount of road and city space given over to residents parking. Many of which seldom move, and begs the questions why:
-How many actually *need* a car outside their door 24/7, and/or Zipcars etc don't suffice when a car is needed (given that the worst streets tend to be in easy cycling distance of places, near main bus routes and near the railway station too)
-Residents don't get unlimited free parking for their cars at the Park & Ride sites, so they can keep their cars in reasonably close proximity, but go fetch them when actually needed

For a city that prides itself on its intellectual prowess, its thinking is very much stuck in the past with its attitude to the car.

 

[tasky]

As it's relevant to this discussion, I saw this morning that Brussels (one of the most car choked-cities in Western Europe for various interesting reasons) has plans to remove 65,000 on-street parking spaces. It's only by 2030, but it's certainly a great statement of intent

https://www.lecho.be/dossier/mobili...000-places-de-parking-en-voirie/10152617.html

 

[takno]

As it's relevant to this discussion, I saw this morning that Brussels (one of the most car choked-cities in Western Europe for various interesting reasons) has plans to remove 65,000 on-street parking spaces. It's only by 2030, but it's certainly a great statement of intent

https://www.lecho.be/dossier/mobili...000-places-de-parking-en-voirie/10152617.html

I shoved the linked article through google translate and got back this gem

According to parking.brussels, the total supply of street parking has risen in recent years to around 265,000 places (compared to 293,000 in 2005), which is equivalent on average to one site for every five inhabitants in the Brussels Region, with significant disparities between the communes of the first and second crowns. The regional parking agency estimates 500,000 off-street places. By 2030, the Region aims to increase the number of underground parking spaces below the 200,000 mark, a reduction of 65,000 places. Conversely, the objective displayed in the regional sustainable development plan (PRDD) is to increase access to off-street parking of 20,000 places for residents.

 

[Ted172]

What about Malvern/Worcester?

 

[tasky]

I shoved the linked article through google translate and got back this gem

Ceci n'est pas un parking

 

[takno]

Ceci n'est pas un parking

It was an interesting article once I gave up and read it in French.

 

[edwin_m]

I honestly look around Cambridge and despair at the sheer amount of road and city space given over to residents parking. Many of which seldom move, and begs the questions why:
-How many actually *need* a car outside their door 24/7, and/or Zipcars etc don't suffice when a car is needed (given that the worst streets tend to be in easy cycling distance of places, near main bus routes and near the railway station too)
-Residents don't get unlimited free parking for their cars at the Park & Ride sites, so they can keep their cars in reasonably close proximity, but go fetch them when actually needed

For a city that prides itself on its intellectual prowess, its thinking is very much stuck in the past with its attitude to the car.

Some people will genuinely need to have a car (job need, infirmity) or will consider they have to have one for independence or status reasons. The first category can be influenced to some extent by better public transport, cycling facilities, etc, but the second is much harder to shift. New developments can be created where parking is not provided or those who want it pay extra, but it's very much harder to tell existing homeowners they can no longer park close to their houses because someone wants to build a tramline down their street (which will attract a lot of opposition in residental areas for other reasons too).

 

[Ken H]

Leeds, Leeds, Leeds!

Which must surely be one of the biggest places in Britain, if not the whole of Europe without some sort of tram system or metro/underground railway.

leeds does need something.
But the vast sector of the city between the harrogate line and the York line that never had a railway needs something.
The existing roads are very busy and restricting them to squeeze a tram line in would be difficult

 

[matacaster]

A priority system would improve the network. My fair limited experience of bus in Leeds is that they are good for getting to the edge of the city centre and awful once they get there. Manchester's new priority system seems to be working fairly well. Its not a silver bullet but a priority system and bus franchising would help.



Leeds as a large metro system, its just heavy rail not light rail. Electrification to Huddersfield, Harrogate and Bradford Interchange and battery EMUs or bi modes would make a big difference. I am not sure what the niche for light rail would be in Leeds.

There is a substantial part of Leeds to the North East which must generate a fair number of car journeys as its difficult by bus, no train and worse still the residents are very well healed and often have multiple large cars. Thinking here of places around Collingham, Wetherby, Boston Spa, Tadcaster, Sherburn-in-Elmet etc. Perhaps reopening old heavy rail route Cross-gates to Harrogate with park and ride might help?

 

[matacaster]

I'd be interested in proposals for Bradford as it seems to present some unique problems!

1. The ring road actually goes partly through the CENTRE of the city!
2. The ring road is mostly single carriageway, but manages to have short sections of dual carriageway and even 3 lane dual carriageway sections.
3. There are of course many radial routes which often have priority over the ring road in terms of traffic light sequencing.
4. Much traffic goes through Bradford to get from M1/62->M6 rather than as a destination
5. The standard of driving is absolutely appalling and there is a lack of insurance and road tax. The 'best' driving is generally done by taxi drivers and those on some kind of substance.
6. There is one? guided bus route which expects customers to cross a bridge to get to the bus stop, it is badly designed and motorists who are not aware have been known to be 'guided'. Its not clear whether this has helped matters.
7. Bradford is a steep-sided bowl (hence trolley buses were very popular) on 3 sides (including to Leeds via New Pudsey and to Manchester) with only one flat exit on Canal Road (Forster Sq Station / Shipley / Leeds) and tunnelling under the centre would be very difficult as the Bradford beck runs under it.
8. There are two stations, not connected in the centre and a new shopping centre presenting a 'challenge' for NPR as the council decided not to to protect the route.

Perhaps a bulldozer and start again?

 

[HSTEd]

Partially guided trolleybus would probably be the best bet there.

The overhead wires should reinforce to people approaching the busway that this not a road.

 

[edwin_m]

The overhead wires should reinforce to people approaching the busway that this not a road.

If they don't notice the rails plus an increasing assortment of signs, bollards and other paraphanalia where a tramway diverges from a road, why would they pay attention to overhead wires? If anything they would make drivers more likely to follow them.

 

[HSTEd]

If they don't notice the rails plus an increasing assortment of signs, bollards and other paraphanalia where a tramway diverges from a road, why would they pay attention to overhead wires? If anything they would make drivers more likely to follow them.

A mass of overhead wiring does tend to draw attention to this is not a normal road though.
But the real answer to prevent access to guided busways is retracting bollards activated by the approach of the buses.