Funding guaranteed for light rail

[pemma]

Tory supporting paper has claimed the Conservatives have guaranteed funding for schemes including the St Albans Tram-Train scheme and further Manchester Metrolink extensions, which they have a go at John Prescott for being able to do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8848102/Trams-back-in-favour.html

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

1)...This would be the same John Prescott who saw the A555 be built from Bramhall to Handforth as parts of the SEMMS scheme, then decided in his Transport role not to have the final short final link to Manchester airport constructed.

2)...Are these "future expansions" of the Manchester Metrolink the works that are in progress at present when 2016 will see the final link to Manchester Airport as being the final one of the current four lines....or are we talking "next stage" future developments that will see places such as Stockport being served. Such press reports are not always "crystal clear" in their prognostications.

 

[yorksrob]

or are we talking "next stage" future developments that will see places such as Stockport being served. Such press reports are not always "crystal clear" in their prognostications.

Lets hope they keep their mits off the Atherton line.

Also, if they could see their way to re-opening some proper railways as well it would make a welcome change.

Shaln't hold my breath though.

 

[swt_passenger]

Tory supporting paper has claimed the Conservatives have guaranteed funding for schemes including the St Albans Tram-Train scheme and further Manchester Metrolink extensions, which they have a go at John Prescott for being able to do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8848102/Trams-back-in-favour.html

There's nothing much at all there that wasn't in the DfT announcement last month though, which you linked to in this thread:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=52587

 

[shinkansen1966]

1)...This would be the same John Prescott who saw the A555 be built from Bramhall to Handforth as parts of the SEMMS scheme, then decided in his Transport role not to have the final short final link to Manchester airport constructed.

Is this the same John Prescott who gave us the London Underground Private Public Partnership ? Exactly how did that one pan out ?

 

[Mojo]

Is this the same John Prescott who gave us the London Underground Private Public Partnership ? Exactly how did that one pan out ?

Of course, for some reason most people in transport hate the Tories, but let us not forget the huge amount invested in infrastructure under the 1979-1997 Conservative Governments and now it seems this Government. I am sure we have already committed ourselves to more projects than the last Government.

 

[pemma]

Of course, for some reason most people in transport hate the Tories, but let us not forget the huge amount invested in infrastructure under the 1979-1997 Conservative Governments and now it seems this Government. I am sure we have already committed ourselves to more projects than the last Government.

I think the first government with Tony Blair was prime minister invested the most though. Around the turn of the millennium there were new trains appearing left, right and centre.

 

[Mojo]

I think the first government with Tony Blair was prime minister invested the most though.

What did they do? New trains were paid for by the Roscos, and trains are relatively cheap and low-impact compared to new lines or stations.

Under the 1979-97 Government work started on Midland Metro, Sheffield Supertram, Manchester Metrolink (phases 1 and 2), London Tramlink, Tyne/Wear Metro (phase 2), Docklands Light Rail (phases 1-3), Jubilee line extension and reopening of dozens of lines and stations right across the network.

 

[pemma]

trains are relatively cheap and low-impact compared to new lines or stations

170s, 175s etc were not cheap compared to Pacers even with inflation taken in to account.

However, if you want infrastructure investment instead: St Pancras, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds are good examples.

Manchester Metrolink (phases 1 and 2)

The whole Manchester Metrolink network was originally built because the Conservative government wouldn't fund an underground rail link between Victoria and Piccadilly stations. If that had been funded Manchester would have had a more versatile S-Bahn/RER type system instead of trams and there wouldn't be problems with heavy rail and light rail sharing tracks.

Phase 1 was the cheap phase as the majority of it was on rail tracks being used by heavy rail.

Phase 2 wasn't completed until July 2000, so it would have given time for the Labour government to pull funding if they didn't think it was the best use of funds, as the Coalition government have done with many transport projects.

 

[Mojo]

170s, 175s etc were not cheap compared to Pacers even with inflation taken in to account.

Even with that, under the Conservative Government of the 80s, the railway was brought back to many more people than before. Thanks to the last Government you may have new trains (albeit paid for by private enterprise), but thanks to the Government before some people have a railway station full stop!

However, if you want infrastructure investment instead: St Pancras, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds are good examples.

The benefits of these schemes are negligible compared to having a railway station opened where there was not one before (or at least before it was closed in the 60s and 70s).

The whole Manchester Metrolink network was originally built because the Conservative government wouldn't fund an underground rail link between Victoria and Piccadilly stations.

Actually, that plan was scrapped in 1977, when Labour were in charge. Whatever colour local Government is, their policies and statements cannot be relied upon as a general representative of that party.

If that had been funded Manchester would have had a more versatile S-Bahn/RER type system instead of trams and there wouldn't be problems with heavy rail and light rail sharing tracks.

Phase 1 was the cheap phase as the majority of it was on rail tracks being used by heavy rail.

Metrolink is a very successful scheme and has delivered real improvements to the transport network in Greater Manchester. After reopening the Metrolink phase 1 carried more passengers combined than the rest of the local rail network in Greater Manchester and made a profit, unlike the rest of the network which made a loss!

Phase 2 wasn't completed until July 2000, so it would have given time for the Labour government to pull funding if they didn't think it was the best use of funds, as the Coalition government have done with many transport projects.

Work started before the election, so pulling an uncontentious scheme once contracts have been signed and construction started isn't wise.

 

[radamfi]

I think the Tories were quite good on rail until privatisation. However buses were deregulated in 1986, meaning that European style integration became very difficult, and (very unusually in world terms) it became illegal to subsidise bus fares on most routes.

Land use planning was very laissez-faire in the 80s, encouraging car based development. This was tightened up in the early 90s but looks set to be relaxed again imminently.

 

[jon0844]

There are many people who will always blame the Tories and do everything to get Labour back in. I think they have selective memories, which is already shown by the number of people who see the current coalition making cuts and want to re-elect Labour so we can start spending more money.

God help anyone that ran their own personal finances on the same basis of just borrowing more and more, with no ability to pay back the debt. But, the party that spends and spends is bound to be more popular, and seen as the one doing the most for the people.

 

[142094]

There could also be the argument that it was the Conservatives who privatised the railway in the first place, and as a result £bns have been haemorrhaged from the railways ever since in subsidies and payments to 3rd parties. £bns that could have paid for most of the schemes that are either ongoing or have been planned for years.

 

[radamfi]

It is possible to have high spending and a high level of investment without going into debt if you collect enough taxes. Most of the Nordic countries have a very enviable standard of living and good local public transport, yet don't seem to have so much of an issue with debt. UK Governments have been afraid of collecting the right amount of tax to pay for their spending.

 

[jon0844]

Yes, but nobody wants to pay the tax. No matter how much anyone earns, the only people who should be taxed heavily are those who earn more than you!

The sad fact is that to spend loads of money, you do indeed to raise a lot of taxes. New Labour thought to do this with all the stealth taxes, to hide the reality.

But, that said, you don't want ANY Government swimming in money to simply waste as it appears to be never ending.

We go from one extreme to another in this country. I am quite certain that come 2015 (when Ed will have gone), Labour stands a good chance of getting back in and we'll start all over again!

 

[WatcherZero]

However the cuts did kill off the recovery, Labour there was a worldwide recession and then 2.5% growth, Conservatives came and froze and later cut everything, we crashed back into another recession and now today with the latest growth published at 0.5% we have officially taken longer to recover than we did from The Great Depression!
Manufacturing is now 2.5% smaller than when Labour was in Government, the service sector is 4% smaller.

It proves that you cant cut your way out of a recession, a lesson learned at great cost to the people will hopefully never be repeated. At least until the next right leaning Government comes along that thinks we can have a private sector fuelled recovery.

 

[radamfi]

Yes, but nobody wants to pay the tax.

How do those countries who follow the Nordic model get people to vote for their high taxes? Of course we had high taxes in the 70s, but that wasn't following the full Nordic model as Nordic model also includes privatisation and liberal market economics.

 

[pemma]

Actually, that plan was scrapped in 1977, when Labour were in charge.

With the alternative suggested a scheme very similar to the Ordsall Chord but under Thatcher's government that alternative was downgraded to a tram link between Piccadilly and Victoria stations.

Work started before the election, so pulling an uncontentious scheme once contracts have been signed and construction started isn't wise.

Work started 3 weeks before the election. By that time phase 2a of Cornbrook-Salford Quays had to go ahead. Phase 2b of Salford Quays to Eccles could have been scaled back as has been attempted with the Edinburgh tram.

 

[jon0844]

I can't speak for the entire population, but I know that many Scandinavian businesses (well, in Sweden at least) will often relocate abroad to save on paying large business tax.

 

[ainsworth74]

However the cuts did kill off the recovery, Labour there was a worldwide recession and then 2.5% growth, Conservatives came and froze and later cut everything, we crashed back into another recession and now today with the latest growth published at 0.5% we have officially taken longer to recover than we did from The Great Depression!

And I suppose the ongoing economic strife in Europe has nothing to do with our own economic problems and it is all entirley to do with the conservatives?

Also it isn't a recession until we suffer two quaters (or 6 months) of negative growth, seeing as we've been growing (if slowly) we aren't (yet) in another recession

 

[WatcherZero]

And I suppose the ongoing economic strife in Europe has nothing to do with our own economic problems and it is all entirley to do with the conservatives?

Also it isn't a recession until we suffer two quaters (or 6 months) of negative growth, seeing as we've been growing (if slowly) we aren't (yet) in another recession

Well if they get to say its all Labours fault for overspending and there was no global recession, they prevent themselves from using the current economic climate defence by default. Your right, with 0.1% growth they just narrowly managed to avoid the technical Recession (the figures show that two months out of the three in the 0.1% growth quarter were negative). I belie the correct technical term is Stagflation, high unemployment and inflation with next to no growth. The only succesful ending of a stagflation by intervention was in the US in the 70's, they massivley ramped up interest rates to kill inflation and while it also killed growth temporarily it rebooted the economy which returned to normal soon afterwards.

 

[radamfi]

I can't speak for the entire population, but I know that many Scandinavian businesses (well, in Sweden at least) will often relocate abroad to save on paying large business tax.

Is that significant enough as an argument against the Nordic model though? Sweden seems to do OK, in fact better than OK. GDP per capita is significantly higher than the UK despite the high taxes.

 

[jon0844]

Sweden was a good country to look to, but they now have a lot of problems and their health service isn't what it once was.

But, if I spoke the language, I'd certainly consider moving there.

 

[WatcherZero]

I believe it comes down to supply, restricted supply of manpower and resources means the competion for resources is high enough to support the high taxation. Mind you its a country that has to severely restrict the hours when alcohol can be sold to control the suicide rate.

 

[jon0844]

While the Government is hanging on as long as possible to having state control on alcohol, so it profits twice (from the profit on the drink, and the tax) the fact is that will end and the EU is trying to open it up (maybe not trying that hard, but it will happen).

However, you can buy weaker alcohol from any supermarket and I am not sure there's a significant suicide problem in all but the north - in the winter months. The high price of drink probably regulates things quite well, except people are more likely to 'pre-load' at home; something that is becoming more common here as our booze is getting more expensive in bars and clubs.

 

[tbtc]

I can't speak for the entire population, but I know that many Scandinavian businesses (well, in Sweden at least) will often relocate abroad to save on paying large business tax.

We have a supposedly low-tax "competitive" infrastructure, yet businesses still relocate abroad to save a few quid, as do the very rich. Even if our tax rate was half what it is, we'd see people still moving away, because thats what the rich do, they can relocate to save a few quid.

 

[142094]

Scandinavian countries may seem to have it better, but consider:

1) Most have a much lower population that the UK (think Norway has only about 5 million)

2) The tax rate is much higher, and prices are higher

3) Norway has been good in managing the profits made from the North Sea oil and gas (Statoil is majority state-owned).

 

[jon0844]

Norway is probably an exception, as it didn't join the EU.

 

[142094]

Norway is probably an exception, as it didn't join the EU.

No wonder - didn't do them any harm as well.

Only problem about Norway is the high rate of suicides - manly due to the dark nights and nothing to do in some places. Also, if you are over there, if someone offers you poteen (sp?), don't drink it as it is lethal.

 

[jon0844]

Surely that's just for the far north of Norway, Sweden and Finland (as it is with Iceland) n the winter where it can be very depressing and isolated.

Of course, by contrast, these are the places to be in the summer where it never gets dark.

There are problems with illegal alcohol in rural areas too, but that's because of the low population and relatively little policing. However, despite the land mass, in terms of population it's nowhere near representative of any of these countries as a whole.