Liverpool Underground Circle Line

[90019]

So you pair keep saying it means nothing. You need to start using evidence, not just saying, this might happen, that might happen, I prefer the colour green, isn't it a lovely day. It does not move the debate forward.

My evidence is my own experience of living here for almost 18 years half of it in an area going to be served by the trams, and the experiences of friends and family of living in the city. Not out of date statistics not factoring in current situations.

Statistics can be made to say anything, 17 years personal experience of the city, in my book, is pretty good evidence compared to statistics.

 

[inner-city]

So you pair keep saying it means nothing.

Read my posts re: Liverpool, Merseyrail and trams. There is no case for trams. I added that a modern tram-like bendy-bus system can do what the tram system does to emphasis the stupidity in implementing such a misconceived, expensive plan.

 

[Mojo]

My evidence is my own experience of living in the city for almost 18 years, living half of it in an area that is going to be served by the trams. Not out of date statistics not factoring in current situations.

Do you mind therefore if I ask what your qualifications are in transport planning? You need to look at the whole sub-regional picture when planning urban transport, not just what happens en-route.

 

[Metroland]

Certainly not a York - we've proved that, read the links. The only one that really does very well is London, which is subsidised to the tune of nearly 1 billion a year and has a congestion charge and an extensive rail network to feed it.

 

[Mojo]

Read my posts re: Liverpool, Merseyrail and trams. There is no case for trams. I added that a modern tram-like bendy-bus system can do what the tram system does to emphasis the stupidity in implementing such a misconceived, expensive plan.

You still haven't provided any evidence that such a scheme will create sustained modal shift. Therefore your argument means nothing. When you present a case for people to look at you have to back it up with evidence, fact and case studies.

 

[Metroland]

Read my posts re: Liverpool, Merseyrail and trams. There is no case for trams. I added that a modern tram-like bendy-bus system can do what the tram system does to emphasis the stupidity in implementing such a misconceived, expensive plan.

Sorry, I've read it, you have not convinced me. Just because you say something doesn't mean its gospel, you need to back it up with evidence - from official sources please, not the opinion of some lobbiest or uncle Sam in Sainsnburys Bootle.

 

[tbtc]

London has come along way. The new buses drop their suspension at bus stops and ramps emerge for pushchairs and wheelchairs, satellite info systems on and off the buses, Oyster cards accepted so no hanging around bus stops, bus lanes and traffic light priority makes them zip through London traffic. The Tube like maps and signage makes them easy to use as well - this is essential and it also give a go-ahead image too. They are a great success and fill the gaps of the Tube wonderfully. Far better than any tram scheme. TfLondon have done a great job. I use them regularly and the info systems work, telling you how long the next bus will be at the stop.

People who slag buses know nothing of modern bus systems. Doing what London did using state of the art eco tram-like bendy-buses and they are a few levels higher again. That is where we should be looking.

BTW, the ride on London bendy-buses is very, very good, they pitch and roll far, far less than d-deckers and even normal single deckers. I also went on one of the hybrid buses they have and they are far quieter than the full diesel buses. The future is electric/hybrid bendy-buses. But the tram-like bendies - implementing what London did in making full system out of it.

Before anyone slags the London bendies, they are not suited to the streets, not bending directly centre. Someone screwed up big time in not specifying the right models.

..and Routemasters are a joke.

Whilst I agree with you about Rouremasters (the Queen Mother of buses!), your other points don't really work for me.

Most big cities in the UK have the things you mention (e.g. my local route has wheelchair accesible buses, electronic displays at certain stops with real time information, an "Overground" schematic map, buses branded in line with their "Overground" colour; in fact it had some of these before routes in London did. Routes elsewhere (like Go Ahead) have mobile phone ticketing. I can find the (real) time of buses from my local stop via my PC or my phone, if I want. There's a local version of the Oystercard swipe pass up here too.

However, the reason London buses *work* whilst patronage is stagnant elsewhere in the UK isn't because of these "modern" features, it's because buses in London are regulated (meaning no daft competition), with regulated (artificially low) fares available on services of all operators. Plus, contracts insist on modern vehicles for London, whilst the rest of us get the cast offs... Give us subsidised fares, brand new buses and regulated stable contracts, and I'm sure the effect would be the same here.

Sadly, because of local politics in London, there's going to be 100 bendi-buses foisted on the rest of the UK - though whether anyone will be mistaking them for trams is unlikely!

(can someone on this thread slag off the Northern Rail "tram train" project - it's the one mode of travel that hasn't been criticised in this thread!)

 

[inner-city]

What evidence do you have that an "up to date bus system" will create sustained modal shift?

Look at London. Use it. I do. Then look at the impending technology I have highlighted that can be used too. I don't take much to see that properly designed and implemented bus systems can make a huge impact.

You are retro-viewing not being realistic and seeing what can be done.

 

[Metroland]

Honestly, your debating skills are hopeless. This debate is not moving forward, I'm off to bed.

 

[tbtc]

You should use an up to date bus system

It's not an "up to date bus system" that works in London, it's a heavily subsidised well regulated system with artificial levels of provision and fares and a heavy financial penalty for motorists (in the central area).

Not a fair comparison with the rest of the UK...

 

[Mojo]

Look at London. Use it. I do. Then look at the impending technology I have highlighted that can be used too. I don't take much to see that properly designed and implemented bus systems can make a huge impact.

London is a totally different system. It has been boosted by rail connections and a congestion charge. Even so, the money spent on it would not be sustainable for every city in the country.

 

[tbtc]

Look at London. Use it. I do. Then look at the impending technology I have highlighted that can be used too. I don't take much to see that properly designed and implemented bus systems can make a huge impact.

You are retro-viewing not being realistic and seeing what can be done.

...but we have these kind of things outside London - as I've just posted I have low floor buses with "real time" information, schematic maps and smart card technology.

What we don't have is a bottomless pit of money, as things have to be commercial out of the capital.

 

[90019]

Do you mind therefore if I ask what your qualifications are in transport planning? You need to look at the whole sub-regional picture when planning urban transport, not just what happens en-route.

currently no qualifications, no.

However, I'm looking at how the trams will affect the areas it is going to serve, and trying to work out what warrants the trams being built in areas that already have a good and regular bus service.

You know what i think the money should be spent on? Improving the few bus services in Edinburgh that arent up to scratch, for example the 8, which can be rather unreliable. Rather than blowing huge amounts duisrupting the city for years, building trams that are going to serve areas currently adequately served by buses.

Currently we have, what, at least 9 different bus companies serving the city, possibly more if ive forgotten any. Would you say it's a better idea improving what we already have or building a whole new system on top of it that is completely inflexible in comparison?

Personally, I think the money should've been spent improving the buses, so that the effects would be felt citywide, rather than building trams that serve little of the total population of the city.

 

[Tom B]

You should use an up to date bus system.

What happens if you have no choice in the matter. My local buses are run by Firstbus; I don't have any choice but to use them.

 

[Mojo]

However, I'm looking at how the trams will affect the areas it is going to serve, and trying to work out what warrants the trams being built in areas that already have a good and regular bus service.

The factors that I look at when determining what system is best:
- Current congestion levels (is it worth spending the money here or somewhere that is more congested)
- Modal shift (will my scheme create more modal shift than an alternative system)
- Capacities (are the roads at saturation point, what about the trains or trams, how busy are they?)
- Ease of implementation (once you've started, it's easy to expand)

Personally, I think the money should've been spent improving the buses, so that the effects would be felt citywide, rather than building trams that serve little of the total population of the city.

But the question we've been looking at all along - are buses value for money? They don't create very much Modal Shift and as a result cost more in the long run. People don't like buses as much as trams. Developers love them as they increase the value of their developments and give a nice little marketing edge.

Perhaps the route in Edinburgh is bad - I don't know. I said Midland Metro Line 1 was a bad route, but what it *has* done is created modal shift thanks to free car parking at some locations and it's encouraged development on its route. It wasn't a logical route to start with but it was the one which had the least objection. What it has done though is proven the concept to people who live in the area who now want it to be extended.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

Also isn't there a road-rail tram I once saw in the BUSES magazine? It wasn't in the UK, but was a bendy bus (triple bendy IIRC) and ran on rails, and went on the road in to depot. Didn't need wires, it was powered by a hybrid engine or something along those lines.

Also I think trams work, I know in outer London on the Croydon Tramlink they must be faster than a bus, since they run on 50mph independent lines. And I love using the Manchester Trams, never seems to take long to get anywhere in the city, and also has a small section on its in in the city, with both pedestrians and vehicles banned on that section. I think that works well really as it forces cars ect to take an alternative route.

 

[inner-city]

It's not an "up to date bus system" that works in London, it's a heavily subsidised well regulated system with artificial levels of provision and fares and a heavy financial penalty for motorists (in the central area).

Not a fair comparison with the rest of the UK...

If you saying London does not have an up to date bus system you are sadly mistaken. It is superb. And it can be improved even more too.

If Liverpool has this needless tram system implemented then this will have received a bottom pit of public money too.

 

[90019]

The factors that I look at when determining what system is best:
- Current congestion levels (is it worth spending the money here or somewhere that is more congested)
- Capacities (are the roads at saturation point, what about the trains or trams, how busy are they?)

These two especially, the roads are getting more congested, and getting close to saturation levels, but this is because the Edinburgh Council are useless at traffic management. For some strange reason, they seem to think that closing roads and shifting that traffic to another road is a good idea, Since the closure of Princes Street and now that they've essentially closed George Street in one direction, and now swithing Hill Street and Young Street (or iot could be the other two) around, all of the traffic has been moved to Queen Street, hugely increasing congestion there. I wish someone could explain the logic of that one.

But the question we've been looking at all along - are buses value for money?

If you already have a good existing infastructure, then i'd say yes, it is.
As it has been said, Edinburgh's bus service has been voted best in the UK, but there could still be some improvement. This is where the money should be spent

 

[tbtc]

Currently we have, what, at least 9 different bus companies serving the city, possibly more if ive forgotten any

Most of those operators are running express/ longer distance services along arterial roads though (e.g. the A8 towards Glasgow) - there's no competition on most routes within the city.

It'd have sounded strange 10-15 years ago that there'd be no competition to busy areas like Leith and a very token alternative to places like Morningside (considering there used to be competition on *everything* - even on the old 32/52).

 

[90019]

Most of those operators are running express/ longer distance services along arterial roads though (e.g. the A8 towards Glasgow) - there's no competition on most routes within the city.

Maybe so, but they are taking up a fair bit of space on the road network in town, and with the addition of trams, it could be possible that we end up with gridlock on Princes Street and maybe even Leith Walk, meaning diverting services and creating more congestion on other roads as well.

 

[Mojo]

If Liverpool has this needless tram system implemented then this will have received a bottom pit of public money too.

The inspector of the public inquiry into Merseytram said: "Line 1 would have a very significant impact in socio-economic terms, greatly enhancing the prospects, networks and life chances of people living in areas of extremely high social and economic deprivation...especially for the majority of Line 1 corridor residents who are without a car, the presence of the tram would significantly improve access to jobs, opening access to the additional 12,000 city centre jobs which are an Objective One target and improving access to 55,000 jobs overall."

If you think creating and improving access to jobs in six out of the top 20 deprived wards in England is a waste of money, then I honestly don't know what to say.

 

[tbtc]

If you saying London does not have an up to date bus system you are sadly mistaken. It is superb. And it can be improved even more too

You've not understood me.

What I said is that my local route in Sheffield has all of these modern features too (wheel chair accessible buses, schematic maps, "real time" information available at some stops and on mobile phones/ PCs, smart card prepayment etc etc)...

...however, bus ridership in Sheffield is stagnant, like in most parts of the UK. We've got all these nice gadgets, what we don't have is bucketloads of cash to throw at an artificially cheap subsidised system.

To argue that buses elsewhere would be fine if only they had the new toys London buses have shows you have little understanding of buses out here in the real world...

 

[inner-city]

Sorry, I've read it, you have not convinced me. Just because you say something doesn't mean its gospel, you need to back it up with evidence - from official sources please, not the opinion of some lobbiest or uncle Sam in Sainsnburys Bootle.

Official sources in 1963 said half the rail network should go. They also said that Liverpool needs Merseytram when there is a plethora of disused rail infrastructure to be re-used on Merseyrail Metro. I counter their misguided view and very convincingly too - it doesn't take much to pull it apart. Of course, I will make no impact on a brainwashed tram fanatic. I fact I am no real train fan - I haven't a clue about rolling stocks types. It is their impact on cities and communities I am more interested in.

If trams were the greatest thing since sliced bread, I would say give us them.

 

[Mojo]

I fact I am no real train fan - I haven't a clue about rolling stocks types.

Nor am I - so that is irrelevant. I need to know basic information as part of my activities.

It is their impact on cities and communities I am more interested in.

So what's wrong with a scheme that creates millions of pounds in environmental, economic & social benefits and a few thousand jobs?

 

[inner-city]

The inspector of the public inquiry into Merseytram said: "Line 1 would have a very significant impact in socio-economic terms, greatly enhancing the prospects, networks and life chances of people living in areas of extremely high social and economic deprivation...especially for the majority of Line 1 corridor residents who are without a car, the presence of the tram would significantly improve access to jobs, opening access to the additional 12,000 city centre jobs which are an Objective One target and improving access to 55,000 jobs overall."

Objections to the trams:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/merseytramliverpoolcitycentr5652?page=9

6.5 In the view of a number of objectors, there is no clear need for Merseytram Line 1 in transportation terms. Passengers between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre are already catered for by the fast, frequent and recently refurbished Merseyrail Electrics trains.

6.12 Merseytravel has demonstrated no transport need for the proposed tram. There is a train service between Kirkby Railway Station and central Liverpool which provides a train every 15 minutes, with a journey time also of only 15 minutes. There is a frequent bus service in the Line 1 corridor. The time saving for most journeys within the line 1 corridor resulting from use of the proposed tram rather than the bus is at most 5 minutes. Even this claimed marginal advantage is misleading because it takes no account of the additional waiting time for the tram or of the longer average walk to the tram stop predicated by the wider tram catchment area compared with that of the bus. There is ample bus capacity: a bus can carry up to 50 passengers, but average use is only 12 to 14 passengers per bus.

6.34 The scheme would meet no identified transport need, and, indeed, would damage competing transport undertakings such as local trains and buses by unfair competition. There is already a train service between Kirkby and Liverpool run by Merseyrail.

there is currently a bus service between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre on average about every two minutes. There is accordingly no need or natural demand for a tram.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (OBJ/269)

The [tram] scheme is poorly targeted and does not represent good value for money. The money could be better spent on other projects, including the provision of a new deepwater harbour and cruise liner terminal, or improvements to local roads and the provision of a rapid rail link to Liverpool Airport.

6.41 It is self-evident that by promoting a tram which is largely to be publicly funded, in direct competition with buses and trains which are in large part without public subsidy, Merseytravel is acting in contravention of EU competition law. Any grant of public money would be challengeable in court or before the European Competition Commissioner.

​

Note: Merseytravel has demonstrated no transport need for the proposed tram.

Line 1 runs to Kirkby, which is also served by Merseyrail and buses. How dumb!!! Who thinks of this wasteful cr*p?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what's wrong with a scheme that creates millions of pounds in environmental, economic & social benefits and a few thousand jobs?

Nothing at all. Merseytram doesn't do that, but extending the Liverpool underground will.

 

[90019]

or improvements to local roads

Now there's a point.

Why is so much being spent on trams in Edinburgh when we have roads in a state such as the one in the attached photo? That photo was taken some months back, and the road is currently in an even worse state, yet instead of fixing it, they put speed bumps on it, which are, oddly enough, the smoothest bits on the road, and completely useless, as even our realtively skinny VW Polo can go straight over them.

 

[inner-city]

You've not understood me.

What I said is that my local route in Sheffield has all of these modern features too (wheel chair accessible buses, schematic maps, "real time" information available at some stops and on mobile phones/ PCs, smart card prepayment etc etc)...

...however, bus ridership in Sheffield is stagnant, like in most parts of the UK. We've got all these nice gadgets, what we don't have is bucketloads of cash to throw at an artificially cheap subsidised system.

To argue that buses elsewhere would be fine if only they had the new toys London buses have shows you have little understanding of buses out here in the real world...

Put in high profile eco tram-like bendy-buses, traffic light priority, comprehensive Tube like maps and signage, bus lanes and all the other toys and people will used them.

In Liverpool the prime form of transport is the bus, even to people near Merseyrail stations. The Merseyrail system needs to copy the successful London tube format in signage, maps, image, etc. In London they first think of Tube then others, the same in Paris. The Tube is easy to understand, even to foreigners, and to get around on. The Tube is give high profile, and occasionally even advertises.

You judge something to the best. Even bus systems.

 

[Mojo]

Investment in trains is absolutely perfect. Trains are just as good as trams for moving people along the same corridors. I'd agree with you that there's nothing wrong with a train route covering the same line, but running buses down there would be pure lunacy - a wasted opportunity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Put in high profile eco tram-like bendy-buses, traffic light priority, comprehensive Tube like maps and signage, bus lanes and all the other toys and people will used them.

Still awaiting evidence of this. Your London argument has already been ruled as invalid.

 

[Metroland]

Well at least were getting a little further forward, but you have to ask yourself, if trams were suddenly so useless, why did they spend £70 million on them, without laying a bit of track. They might as well have given £1 million to the chief people on here, to retire for the rest of their life. They seem to be able to come up with more sense than the DfT.

''Today’s meeting will be the first public discussion of the Audit Commission’s Public Interest Report which criticised the £70m that had been spent on the aborted scheme.

TRAMS were today named as the top transport priority for Merseyside – despite already having cost £70m without a single piece of track being laid.

Weak management and inadequate financial reporting mechanisms were blamed.

Merseytravel was also told that it should have engaged better with local councils in the area.''

.........

The cost benefit ratio of the scheme is now understood to stand at 2:1 (£2 of benefit for each pound spent), which was better than when it was first proposed in 2004.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk...ol-s-tram-plan-back-on-agenda-64375-20488105/

But maybe the real nervousness from the Labour Government, who prefers giving money to scroungers rather than infrastructure is this:

'Just days before losing his post, outgoing rail minister Tom Harris revealed that the Treasury dislikes light rail schemes because of the loss of revenue from car tax and fuel duty.

Addressing the All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group,Harris said that, when assessing the business case for new light rail systems ‘The treasury sees that as a net loss because of the effect of car tax and fuel duty.’

He added: ‘When you have a business model which sees modal shift as a negative, in my view, that needs some work.’

Alastair Darling vetoed several light rail schemes when he was transport secretary.'

http://www.railpro.co.uk/issues/pdfs/comment_news_letters_nov.pdf

IS this the same Alistair Darling that gave billions to the banks?

 

[90019]

'Just days before losing his post, outgoing rail minister Tom Harris revealed that the Treasury dislikes light rail schemes because of the loss of revenue from car tax and fuel duty.

Now why doesn't that surprise me?

With the huge amounts they're getting from all the various taxes (and the investing of, in 2006-2007, 18% of the £45bn of it back into the road network, and yes, i researched this last year, although, annoyingly, i cant find the pdf i got the data from, but it was an official report) it doesnt surprise me, now that i think about it that they're so reluctant.