-
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!
TfGM to increase Metrolink fares by almost 6%
- Thread starter pemma
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I understand they've basically been frozen for several years due to the various expansion works. Now that passengers are seeing the benefits, only fair that fares rise to pay for it all.
They ran a consultation earlier in the year to gauge opinion as to whether passengers preferred the rise all in one go, or staged over three years.
Unsurprisingly, staged came out more popular. But Metrolink can now point to the 'overwhelming support' for raising fares again next year, and the year after that to fight off the inevitable negative press. Genius.
They ran a consultation earlier in the year to gauge opinion as to whether passengers preferred the rise all in one go, or staged over three years.
Unsurprisingly, staged came out more popular. But Metrolink can now point to the 'overwhelming support' for raising fares again next year, and the year after that to fight off the inevitable negative press. Genius.
A 3 year fare freeze while 2CC was built. They rose at RPI+1% in 2014 and that was the standard formula used in previous years.
http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pages/news.aspx?newsID=516
Are they though? Altrincham, Eccles and MediaCity services have got slower since the East Disbury and Airport services started running on the same lines since just before Trafford Bar to the city centre and I imagine the same is true of Bury services in the Victoria area. OK East Didsbury and Oldham passengers are seeing the benefit of 2CC but the fare rise is a blanket one for all passengers not just the passengers of the new lines.
Last edited by a moderator:
They got slower because of the shift from life-expired BR block signalling to the new Thales-powered drive-on-sight working.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
On a point of fact there was and is no "BR" signalling on Metrolink. It was all replaced with (then) modern SSI and 2-aspects for the opening of Phase 1.
It's not at all "fair" in my view that the users of the system have to pay for the cost of so much of the expansion and the vast amounts of debt interest when in other cities local public transport users do not have to bear these costs. But without that, the extensions would never have been built and we would all be worse off for it. In the current political and financial climate there is little chance of any sensible policy change that would result in reasonable prices for the people who do the right thing and use public transport, rather than driving their car. It does not help that the new Mayor ruled out congestion charging, the obvious and appropriate solution here.
I have been saying the same thing since 2010 and this should come as no surprise to anybody.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
There can be no doubt that a compromise was made between journey time and capacity, which has cost perhaps 2 minutes on some journeys like Sale to Market Street or Piccadilly Gardens, but this has allowed a significant reduction in delays due to congestion that were a daily occurrence. In my view this compromise was the right one because it allowed the same infrastructure (mostly the section between Trafford Bar and St Peters Square) to support a high-frequency service to other destinations.
People who live on phase one who have been using Metrolink for years also now have the benefit that they can go to far more places like Oldham and Disbursy without paying more for the expensive mixed-mode tickets that they would have in the past (this 'premium' for using different public transport companies should not exist, but sadly because of our Government's attitude towards public transport, it still does). The Day Travelcard has been £5 for years but now you can use it to get to far more places than before.
Personally, what I would like to see now, and what might help soften the blow of higher fares, is an increase in the quality of the stop environment. Some of the stops from phase two have only ever been partially refurbished and need painting and cleaning quite badly. The phase one stops were worked on but in many cases they are now getting quite shabby. New lifts or replacement with ramps to increase reliability, and more ticket machines at a few locations would be welcome improvements. It will also help if we can finally get to a situation where services from Manchester Airport run through to Victoria.
Last edited:
tbtc
Veteran Member
I appreciate that Mancunians won't enjoy the price increase, but at least theirs is a light rail system that has grown to become a "network" (a number of new routes, a brand new fleet).
Plenty of other places have never got beyond the drawing board (e.g. Leeds, Bristol) - it took around fifteen years for the West Midlands Metro to get a relatively short extension in central Birmingham built - Sheffield Supertram still has the same map as it did over twenty years ago (and, until last week, the exact same fleet).
I'd be happy with the Manchester approach rolled out elsewhere.
In fairness ot Burnham, the people of Greater Manchester rejected a congestion charge fairly decisively less than a decade ago - I don't think anyone has successfully made a case for one since then - if the people of Greater Manchester voted against such a scheme then that restricts the options of the Mayor/ TfGM etc.
At least Meadowhall to Sheffield has both good rail and tram links. The Trafford Centre doesn't have either!
Would you be happy if some local rail services out of Sheffield got truncated with the Sheffield end getting a tram running at more frequent intervals instead, which would directly reduce the number of heavy rail routes in and out of Sheffield? That conversion method is how the Manchester system got as big as it is today.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why? It's much cheaper for the Treasury to just borrow the money and give it out in grants to invest in new infrastructure in cities around the country. There is no reason not to just do that - in all of the UK's cities.
Of course people voted against something that costs them money... I am not quite sure why you would think otherwise. Car drivers are enjoying the advantage of not paying for all of the costs of their choice, in terms of carbon emissions, air pollution, traffic congestion which slows everyone else down and noise. It's totally reasonable for them to pay more - why do they need to drive in inner city Manchester? How many people will voluntarily give up a large advantage they have to the benefit of the whole of society? A Congestion charge (or whatever else you want to call it) will solve all four of those at once while providing a stream of revenue that can be used to support public transport. That is a model I would like to see rolled out elsewhere. There is no requirement for a referendum.
Last edited:
You remember the Manchester congestion charge would have been for the entire area inside the M60. I don't call Worsley or Brinnington inner city. I'd have no objection to a charge inside the inner ring road, but it wouldn't raise enough money to interest any politicians.
But "directly reduce[ing] the number of heavy rail routes in and out of Manchester" has yielded secondary benfits:
-Without conversion of the Altrincham line, the current use of Manchester Airport via the Castlefield corridor wouldn't be possible (and yes, no need to trot out the usual 'but mid-Cheshire trains now go via Stockport' argument - still a net win on balance all round, until Dec 2008 at least)
-Similarly, conversion of the Oldham loop assists making the Ordsall Chord timetable improvements possible.
As for the other heavy rail conversions:
-Bury was self contained, life expired and in need of total renewal anyway. Might as well be a tram in that case
-Chorlton/Didsbury was long out of use with little if any prospect/requirement for serious return to heavy rail use.
So in your Sheffield example, truncating routes (not that it is the actual plan to do so of course), would benefit other corridors.
Even ignoring the biggest disadvantage of the conversion there's additionally the following disadvantages:
- There would be a better alternative for diverting North Wales services during disruption and during engineering works. There would also be an alternative Liverpool-Runcorn-Sale-Piccadilly-Airport route which could be used during Chat Moss engineering works.
- An option to re-route the Trafford Park freight to avoid Manchester Piccadilly could have been looked in to, which would have created more passenger trains paths in and out of Piccadilly for little expense.
- There wouldn't be single track bottlenecks at Navigation Road, which would allow both more freight and more diverted trains to use the route.
- Altrincham to Deansgate could be done in 15 minutes, rather than the 25 minutes it currently takes. Yes Metrolink has a higher off-peak frequency but that benefit is lost if you're travelling from Altrincham given the extended journey time.
- The option of very long services (up to 8 carriages) serving Warwick Rd (now Old Trafford Metrolink) is lost. Most people try to cram on the first service even if there's another one 6 minutes later.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
Theres a double level crossing at Navigation Road, the limitation on services is primarily how long the road can stay closed before traffic grinds to a halt.
Also passengers have to use the level crossing due to the lack of a footbridge, so if the barriers are down longer people would have to wait to get to the platform.
Incorrect, the boundary would have been the inner edge of the ring road which A6010 Alan Turing Way is part of.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This specific one could be solved by making more and better use of Manchester United Football Ground station and discouraging tram use, for example by not stopping there for 2 hours before/after matches, or perhaps even by making the rail service free of charge for match day ticket holders and heavily publicising it.
You're overlooking something. Old Trafford Metrolink serves both the cricket ground and the football ground. The remaining train station can only serve the football ground. While the cricket ground is much smaller than the football ground it still holds 26,000 or enough passengers to fill 130 trams to maximum capacity. At present it seems Metrolink try their hardest to get as many people towards central Manchester as quickly as possible to the city centre after any event at Old Trafford cricket ground but do it at the expense of short forming and cancelling/terminating short Altrincham services which can lead to some people waiting an hour for a tram to Altrincham after the match - so much for a 6 minute frequency!
That was the proposed 'intermediate ring'. There was a second, more expensive, charge for going inside the M60.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6691683.stm
daodao
Established Member
Overall, the conversion of the MSJ&A line to Metrolink has been markedly beneficial. It serves the densely populated Greater M/c, where passenger rail services are useful and worth developing. Beyond Hale, the ex-CLC line serves rural areas where public transport only has a limited role. If it was not for the freight traffic on the mid-Cheshire line, minor towns like Knutsford would have lost their rail passenger service entirely.
daodao
Established Member
Public transport within the M60 is extremely variable, unlike in inner London. Many former tram routes now have few or no bus services whatsoever.
For example, there are now only 2 bus services (each running every 10 mins Mon-Sat daytime, otherwise every 30 minutes) between Manchester and Chorlton-cum-Hardy (although it is now served by Metrolink). Only the 85 (formerly bus 80/tram 22) and 86 (formerly bus 82/tram 23) still survive. Other routes from Chorlton to M/c (1960s bus numbers 62/81/85/94) are no longer extant.
The limited availability of public transport in many parts of inner Manchester (both outside the city centre and travelling to it) means that restricting or charging for car use attracts significant opposition.
What Metrolink should do as part of this fare rise is to move to a singles only structure. Presumably they will have to anyway as part of smartcard pay as you go. Also, there should be some consideration to making any new fare structure compatible with future fare integration with buses when bus franchising begins.
Worth noting for a 'minor town' Knutsford can get up to 200 passengers boarding or alighting a single service at peak times and over half a million journeys are made to and from the station a year. Without the rail link between Altrincham and Knutsford even the new A556 relief road would be at maximum capacity. The number of workers and schoolkids commuting from Greater Manchester to Knutsford is similar in number as the number of people commuting from Knutsford to Greater Manchester. Not many routes which serve Greater Manchester can claim they have well utilised services in both directions at peak times.
I'm not sure how you get the impression Knutsford station would have been closed down. The additional round of Beeching Cuts (never implemented) recommended closing the Warrington to Chester line and making the Chester to Sale to Manchester route the only route between Chester and Manchester. Another poster on here claimed that if the Navigation Road to Stockport line had no reopened to passenger traffic that the Mid-Cheshire services would have continued to run between Chester and Altrincham only - similar to the Ormskirk to Preston shuttle.
- Status