Any new underground systems planned?

[AM9]

Southampton and Portsmouth are the 3rd and 2nd most densely populated cities in the UK after London, both having geographic features that keep the majority of the city in a relatively confined area. They are also both part of the South's second largest urban area after London (over 800k). Neither have a tram, underground, or anything similar. Definitely potential for something!

Not only that, there is the daily dire queue of traffic leaving Gosport to get to Portsmouth passing another queue coming from Portsmouth going to Gosport. The two places are separated by 250m of harbour entrance but the road distance is 15+miles! There is of course a ferry that has to thread its way between arriving and departing cross channel ferries and RN ships, but that is of limited capacity and the trip effectively takes about 15 minutes from shore to shore.
I lived in the area between 1976 and 1993, and there were repeated attempts to get support for a tunnel between the two, most of them for a light rail tunnel which would have changed commuting and leisure travel beteen the city and town centres completely. Had the plans come to fruition, it may have kicked off something like a tram system from either end of the tunnel, and possibly extending to Fareham from Gosport along the old Fareham-Gosport railway trackbed, (currently in use as a busway by the First Eclipse routes).

 

[stuu]

I think you mean public sector business. No average private sector business can afford to overspend in this way.

This isn't true. Private sector businesses suffer exactly the same cost pressures as the public sector, and are just as prone to blowing the budget. They get far less publicity when they do so, which isn't the same thing

 

[Arkeeos]

Its not really true that British cities are any less dense than continental European cities. https://www.stockingblue.com/article/1011/european-cities-by-population-density-of-urban-area/

 

[AM9]

This isn't true. Private sector businesses suffer exactly the same cost pressures as the public sector, and are just as prone to blowing the budget. They get far less publicity when they do so, which isn't the same thing

The reason that publicity is less or non-existent is that private sector businesses keep it quiet, only releasing details when necessary for annual reports or shareholder interaction.

 

[bib]

Its not really true that British cities are any less dense than continental European cities. https://www.stockingblue.com/article/1011/european-cities-by-population-density-of-urban-area/

There's some unexpected values in there, eg Leicester being top 25 in Europe and having a higher density than Barcelona. I guess the methodology must be difficult to apply consistently and depends on where you draw the city boundaries at and if you include parks, golf courses etc.

https://www.centreforcities.org/rea...-systems-big-british-cities-compare-european/ This makes an interesting argument that british cities have decent size public transport networks but it is the lack of population density that means they are not as useful. Though it may also be to some degree that many European cities have trams etc that might allow average journey speeds to be higher than on a bus in the UK, therefore increasing the population that can reach the city centre in 30mins.

I can't find a detailed enough map but I think I remember seeing one in the past and being suprised at the population density of terraced 2-3 story houses in English cities, I think it was maybe >10,000/sqkm in some areas, which is presumably down to lots of HMOs with maybe >5-6 people in a house. In comparison eg Vienna looks to be mostly 6-8k/sqkm, and looking at google maps and streetview its about 75% 4-6 floor appartment blocks. So despite superficial appearances there might actually be quite a lot of high density areas in UK cities, but maybe only in certain areas/pockets, whereas maybe in European cities it might be that almost everything within 2 miles of the city centre is a 5 floor mid-density appartment block.

Bringing it back more on topic, there's presumably only a few reasons you would build an underground instead of overground or light rail:

• High demand on the route, either due to high population density or high demand areas such as a commercial centre, or high levels of interchanges, such that a bus/tram is inadequate and high frequency segregated route is required. I guess the advantage of a tram is that you can run in on roads in town centres, I couldn't see someone putting a tram in a tunnel for any length, at that point you are incurring most of the costs of heavy rail/underground without the capacity benefits, unless you have very wide streets or long trams. I don't know what the demand would need to be, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_rolling_stock# , say a 6 car unit with a capcity of 800pax running 12tph would be 9.6k pax/hour/direction. At a bare minimum the Glasgow subway looks like 15tph with a capacity of about 300 which would be 4.5k pax/hr/direction. Although you wouldn't want it to be full all the time, it'd be interesting to try and figure out what routes might have that level of demand at peak times.
• Something is in the way of an overground route - rivers/historic buildings/hills/very high land prices, i.e. something that would make it more expensive or politically unacceptable to build a route above ground vs underground, and that a short tunnel/bridge would not be able to avoid.

 

[AM9]

I couldn't see someone putting a tram in a tunnel for any length, at that point you are incurring most of the costs of heavy rail/underground without the capacity benefits,

Actually that is part of the progression to an underground metro system. Brussels for instance has buried the main tram services between Gare du Midi and Gare du Nord below the streets BD Maurice Lemonnier and Adolphe Max to make a pre-metro route. One day that could be enhanced to a full metro if needed. Globally other cities have similar ambitions.

 

[Arkeeos]

https://www.centreforcities.org/rea...-systems-big-british-cities-compare-european/ This makes an interesting argument that british cities have decent size public transport networks but it is the lack of population density that means they are not as useful. Though it may also be to some degree that many European cities have trams etc that might allow average journey speeds to be higher than on a bus in the UK, therefore increasing the population that can reach the city centre in 30mins.

I think that is less to do with overall density and more to do with terrible land use around public transport in the country, even in London you will have tube stations with semi-detached houses surrounding it, when really that land warrants blocks of flats. And usually transit projects are in part funded by land development, so we should probably start doing that.

Also "getting to the city centre within 30min" doesn't account for frequency of those routes, the reason why British cities probably have those giant capture areas is because of the giant rail networks through those cities, like in Birmingham or Manchester but those lines don't run metro level frequencies.

I'm reluctant to say that it is to do with overall density, as Portsmouth has been mentioned, which is plenty dense enough for light rail, yet there isn't one, when even small cities in France like Le Havre are getting them.

 

[HSTEd]

Urban buses are such bad public transport options that including them at all flatters the public transport provision in British cities.

'Buses are slow, unreliable and have huge and unsustainable staffing requirements.

 

[AM9]

Urban buses are such bad public transport options that including them at all flatters the public transport provision in British cities.

'Buses are slow, unreliable and have huge and unsustainable staffing requirements.

With the probable exception of London's buses, - because they are generally operated as part of an integrated transport system under a single organisation.

 

[HSTEd]

With the probable exception of London's buses, - because they are generally operated as part of an integrated transport system under a single organisation.

Even London buses are not what they once were, with average speeds significantly under 10mph.

 

[stuu]

Actually that is part of the progression to an underground metro system. Brussels for instance has buried the main tram services between Gare du Midi and Gare du Nord below the streets BD Maurice Lemonnier and Adolphe Max to make a pre-metro route. One day that could be enhanced to a full metro if needed. Globally other cities have similar ambitions.

It's being converted right now, due to be done by 2025

 

[MattRat]

Southampton and Portsmouth are the 3rd and 2nd most densely populated cities in the UK after London, both having geographic features that keep the majority of the city in a relatively confined area. They are also both part of the South's second largest urban area after London (over 800k). Neither have a tram, underground, or anything similar. Definitely potential for something!

Perhaps even a metro that connects the two.

 

[JohnRegular]

I suspect, although I don't know for sure, is that Portsmouth is not a good place for tunneling because of how low-lying it is- flooding and water ingress would be a big concern.
Having said that, we've had a tunnel under the Severn for nearly 150 years so I'm sure it could be done if the will and the money was there. Extend it to Waterlooville and Gosport which are both unserved by rail.

 

[AM9]

Perhaps even a metro that connects the two.

I think that was scotched when the plans for Solent City were binned in the early '80s, and ribbon followed by infill development on a grand scale was allowed,, particularly centred on Locks Heath. Had the greater plan been accepted by Winchester early enough, a quality transport network might have evolved. However, vested interests in the status quo, led by intransigence at county level (ironically located in 'the castle' in Winchester, effectively destroyed any strategic planning for South Hampshire. With the push for a Northern Powerhouse by George Osbourne in the eaerly 20'teens, there has been renewed interest in a 'Southern Powerhouse', but indications are that the chaotic expansion between Portsmouth and Southampton since the '80s, has killed the plan.
By now we could have seen the Fareham to Southampton line straightened out to allow fast tansfers across the region. The current line is about 40km long with many tight curves that prevent much above 70mph running (my guesswork). A line from Portsmouth and Southsea to go under the harbour entrance to link into the Gosport Fareham line then cutting between Netley and Burseldon then under the Itchen to Southampton Central would be about 27km long with a 100mph alignment over most of its length. With the Fareham/Botley/Eastleigh chord two tracked throughout, it would also improve connectivity northwards and ultimately via Basingstoke-Reading, access to the midlands and north.

I suspect, although I don't know for sure, is that Portsmouth is not a good place for tunneling because of how low-lying it is- flooding and water ingress would be a big concern.
Having said that, we've had a tunnel under the Severn for nearly 150 years so I'm sure it could be done if the will and the money was there. Extend it to Waterlooville and Gosport which are both unserved by rail.

The trackbed between Fratton and Portsmouth & Southsea stations was laid in the course of the Portsmouth & Arundel canal. By taking off from the throat of P & S station, a new line could burrow under Victoria Park and easily reach a depth to clear the harbour mouth.