Transport for Strathclyde – A New Public Transport Network

[JumpinTrainz]

Having had a quick look at the publication (which was prominently displayed on the home page of the SPT website while I was looking for something else), there is little mention of Glasgow bringing back trams.

According to an article a while ago in the local rag Glasgow Evening Times that I had saw, Glasgow had the most number of tram cars that had numbered around one thousand.

A new tram route (Phase I) could run from Queen Street Station - Central Station - Broomielaw - Clyde Arc Bridge - Pacific Quay - Govan Cross (for Underground) - New Southern General - Braehead Centre - Renfrew Cross - Airport - Abbotsinch - Love Street - Paisley Gilmour Street Station - Paisley Cross - Canal Station

Phase II would be a conversion of the Neilston/Newton/Cathcart lines as the overhead line equipment was installed in 1960 and due for replacement in the near future. This would link with and continue to Queen Street. There could be arms or deviations that could penetrate Croftfoot, The 'Milk (Castlemilk), and Mearns Cross.

When Manchester have completed their tram network, perhaps they could have a go with designing, developing, and implementing a tram system for Glasgow, being as they are the experts in doing so.

After all, Manchester, Sheffield, the West Midlands, Croydon, and Nottingham have all brought back trams in recent years - perhaps it is Glasgow's turn to bring back trams?

One reason it would make sense converting these routes is that Scotrail don’t seem too keen on ordering metro stock specific to these shorter routes. The 334s, 380s and 385s are unsuitable for these routes and need to be replaced before overheating.

I think having a tram route to link Glasgow with the Pacific Quay, QEUH, Braehead and most importantly the Airport can only be a positive. I do wonder what it’ll do to routes like the 77 and 500 which seem to be very profitable routes. Not to mention if they enter Castlemilk. The 75 has been one of Glasgow’s biggest routes for a while.

 

[PaulMc7]

One reason it would make sense converting these routes is that Scotrail don’t seem too keen on ordering metro stock specific to these shorter routes. The 334s, 380s and 385s are unsuitable for these routes and need to be replaced before overheating.

I think having a tram route to link Glasgow with the Pacific Quay, QEUH, Braehead and most importantly the Airport can only be a positive. I do wonder what it’ll do to routes like the 77 and 500 which seem to be very profitable routes. Not to mention if they enter Castlemilk. The 75 has been one of Glasgow’s biggest routes for a while.

I agree with your point regarding Castlemilk to be fair. The 5, 34A and 75 have all been very good services and well used. It's why I'm unsure regarding trams. They're potentially a good idea but the disruption the setup could cause may not be worth it.

 

[Jordan Adam]

One reason it would make sense converting these routes is that Scotrail don’t seem too keen on ordering metro stock specific to these shorter routes. The 334s, 380s and 385s are unsuitable for these routes and need to be replaced before overheating.

I think having a tram route to link Glasgow with the Pacific Quay, QEUH, Braehead and most importantly the Airport can only be a positive. I do wonder what it’ll do to routes like the 77 and 500 which seem to be very profitable routes. Not to mention if they enter Castlemilk. The 75 has been one of Glasgow’s biggest routes for a while.

Glasgow to Paisley via Pacific Quay, QEUH, Braehead, Renfew & Airport would seem the ideal if a tram route was to be built, you just have to look at how many buses run from Paisley to Glasgow to see that there is demand of some sort. I also think this route would still leave room for good bus provision to coexist.

I have to agree with @PaulMc7 regarding Castemilk, the real concern would be how it would impact existing bus services. Also when you consider the costs it would probably be far more logical and beneficial to just use that money to improve bus infrastructure and provisions. Less expensive BRT systems that offer far greater operational flexibility are far more cost effective and seem the way forward rather than trams imo.

 

[route101]

Hoping we get better bus integration and ticketing.

 

[Scotrail314209]

One reason it would make sense converting these routes is that Scotrail don’t seem too keen on ordering metro stock specific to these shorter routes. The 334s, 380s and 385s are unsuitable for these routes and need to be replaced before overheating.

I think having a tram route to link Glasgow with the Pacific Quay, QEUH, Braehead and most importantly the Airport can only be a positive. I do wonder what it’ll do to routes like the 77 and 500 which seem to be very profitable routes. Not to mention if they enter Castlemilk. The 75 has been one of Glasgow’s biggest routes for a while.

The skeptical part with Castlemilk is getting the trams up Castlemilk Drive. The 75 runs into congestion throughout it's route to, so if the trams were to go along there it might worsen the congestion.

 

[PaulMc7]

The skeptical part with Castlemilk is getting the trams up Castlemilk Drive. The 75 runs into congestion throughout it's route to, so if the trams were to go along there it might worsen the congestion.

You can wait a solid 25/30 mins then 3 75s come together as it is even while we've been in Tier 3 so if it didn't have an effect I'd be incredibly surprised.

 

[Jordan Adam]

You can wait a solid 25/30 mins then 3 75s come together as it is even while we've been in Tier 3 so if it didn't have an effect I'd be incredibly surprised.

And the way to fix that would be improved bus infrastructure! Hence the previous point that it would be better putting money that way rather than to an overpriced and less convenient tram.

 

[PaulMc7]

And the way to fix that would be improved bus infrastructure! Hence the previous point that it would be better putting money that way rather than to an overpriced and less convenient tram.

Yes I agree with you there. Glasgow and the outskirts has a good enough network as it is without adding another form of transport. We just need congestion dealt with properly more than anything.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Yes I agree with you there. Glasgow and the outskirts has a good enough network as it is without adding another form of transport. We just need congestion dealt with properly more than anything.

I’ve noticed Edinburgh tends to get congested, but the bus bunching is nowhere near as bad as Glasgow. Services seem to be relatively punctual, i’ve never seen two buses arrive at once on any route in Edinburgh

 

[PaulMc7]

I’ve noticed Edinburgh tends to get congested, but the bus bunching is nowhere near as bad as Glasgow. Services seem to be relatively punctual, i’ve never seen two buses arrive at once on any route in Edinburgh

I've noticed that when I've been in Edinburgh too. It usually takes horrendous roadworks to cause buses in Edinburgh problems but in Glasgow the roads could be dead and buses can be incredibly late.

 

[route101]

I’ve noticed Edinburgh tends to get congested, but the bus bunching is nowhere near as bad as Glasgow. Services seem to be relatively punctual, i’ve never seen two buses arrive at once on any route in Edinburgh

Had a few bad experiences in Edinburgh with buses. I was at the Gyle and there was no 22 services turning up. Turned out roadworks at Gorgie were causing disruption. One thing about Edinburgh is the network is more dense and most routes run at a decent frequency with deckers. You not usually far away from another alternative route.

My Worry about these trams, is journey times, will a bus still be faster than the tram. Would like to see more orbital links, not as easy to get around without going into the City Centre.

The Transport for Strathclyde has to stronger than the SPT.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Had a few bad experiences in Edinburgh with buses. I was at the Gyle and there was no 22 services turning up. Turned out roadworks at Gorgie were causing disruption. One thing about Edinburgh is the network is more dense and most routes run at a decent frequency with deckers. You not usually far away from another alternative route.

My Worry about these trams, is journey times, will a bus still be faster than the tram. Would like to see more orbital links, not as easy to get around without going into the City Centre.

The Transport for Strathclyde has to stronger than the SPT.

I agree,

However Transport for Strathclyde has to include areas outwith Glasgow, such as Ayrshire and Inverclyde. If it was to be focused on Glasgow, it should just be called Transport for Glasgow.

 

[GusB]

Please let's not get distracted by discussing congestion issues in Edinburgh. This thread is for Glasgow!

 

[Jordan Adam]

I’ve noticed Edinburgh tends to get congested, but the bus bunching is nowhere near as bad as Glasgow. Services seem to be relatively punctual, i’ve never seen two buses arrive at once on any route in Edinburgh

Part of that (although not entirely the reason) is because in Edinburgh most of the core routes don't operate any more frequent than every 10 minute, whereas in Glasgow there's multiple routes that operate every 7/8 minutes or better. As i note though that's not the only reason, arguably the other and more pressing issue is the lack of good bus priority.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yes I agree with you there. Glasgow and the outskirts has a good enough network as it is without adding another form of transport. We just need congestion dealt with properly more than anything.

Not really. The Glasgow Metro report went into this, and their argument is that the city is doing far worse than it should for somewhere of its size and importance. The rail network that some people use to get into Glasgow for generally more affluent city centre activities might be alright, but everything else is really quite bad. That's one of the things about the proposed Paisley/Airport Metro line. It means that someone living in Paisley or Govan will have an easier time getting to work at the hospital or the new airport industry zone.

Sending the Metro up to somewhere like Castlemilk is also a fairly important declaration that these areas deserve the same quality of public transport as any other. Some poorer areas are 'lucky' enough to benefit from relative proximity to more desirable areas (normally resulting in creeping gentrification, and poorer people being priced out). Going for something more than just a bus provides everyone with much more confidence to invest somewhere (even just choosing to live there), as rails don't normally disappear or are deprioritised any more without a great deal of thought.

Shifting people onto a Metro system can be a critical part of solving many of the city's congestion issues. That's where sending the Metro to more affluent areas really becomes critical. Rich people will take high quality public transport instead of using the car. The idea of sending the Metro down through Newton Mearns would mean people there would not have or want to drive into the city centre so much, leaving the streets of the South Side that little bit less congested.

 

[PaulMc7]

Not really. The Glasgow Metro report went into this, and their argument is that the city is doing far worse than it should for somewhere of its size and importance. The rail network that some people use to get into Glasgow for generally more affluent city centre activities might be alright, but everything else is really quite bad. That's one of the things about the proposed Paisley/Airport Metro line. It means that someone living in Paisley or Govan will have an easier time getting to work at the hospital or the new airport industry zone.

Sending the Metro up to somewhere like Castlemilk is also a fairly important declaration that these areas deserve the same quality of public transport as any other. Some poorer areas are 'lucky' enough to benefit from relative proximity to more desirable areas (normally resulting in creeping gentrification, and poorer people being priced out). Going for something more than just a bus provides everyone with much more confidence to invest somewhere (even just choosing to live there), as rails don't normally disappear or are deprioritised any more without a great deal of thought.

Shifting people onto a Metro system can be a critical part of solving many of the city's congestion issues. That's where sending the Metro to more affluent areas really becomes critical. Rich people will take high quality public transport instead of using the car. The idea of sending the Metro down through Newton Mearns would mean people there would not have or want to drive into the city centre so much, leaving the streets of the South Side that little bit less congested.

The hospital is easy to get to from Paisley and it's in Govan too so it's even easier from there. Buses could be cheaper to the airport with First but there's enough of them from Paisley with Mcgills and Glasgow with First. Castlemilk is also a bad example considering the buses are very good. Yes it doesn't have a train service but with the fact you get charged a considerable bit more for using the train before 9:15am than afterwards that's not a bad thing imo.

You get people who think they've got a bad bus service in Glasgow even when they have access to the most frequent services in the city. That's a bigger problem to address to be quite honest. We need to sort out the idea of turning your nose up at a particular mode of transport and the bus is the biggest one that occurs with. Couple that with removing the peak time price increase on the train and you've fixed a fair part of the problem regarding transport because it will result in people starting to realise what good options they've got that aren't a car.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

I feel like with proposals like these, recent electrifications and car ownership - bus travel is only going to decline. The transition from Overground to Simplicity was massive in which many routes were merged into one to make a more efficient system.

A tram system around the Southside/Airport and into Castlemilk is only going to killer major routes like the 75, 77, 500, 4/4A, 6, 38 etc. If it’s cheaper and a more efficient to travel then why would people get the bus. Rail travel is cheaper than the bus as it is and I’d almost always get the train over bus for that reason. They need to start doing more to tempt bus use.

 

[johncrossley]

I feel like with proposals like these, recent electrifications and car ownership - bus travel is only going to decline. The transition from Overground to Simplicity was massive in which many routes were merged into one to make a more efficient system.

A tram system around the Southside/Airport and into Castlemilk is only going to killer major routes like the 75, 77, 500, 4/4A, 6, 38 etc. If it’s cheaper and a more efficient to travel then why would people get the bus. Rail travel is cheaper than the bus as it is and I’d almost always get the train over bus for that reason. They need to start doing more to tempt bus use.

Alternatively buses and trains could work together as a network like in most cities of that size.

 

[PaulMc7]

Alternatively buses and trains could work together as a network like in most cities of that size.

To me that would be the better option than adding trams plus it would be so much less disruptive.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I feel like with proposals like these, recent electrifications and car ownership - bus travel is only going to decline.

It depends on whether you are bothered about bus travel or public transport use in general. So schemes like electrification and new station opening should be welcomed if they help reduce private car usage.

The pre-eminent issue is that private car usage has been enabled and even encouraged and that has had a massive impact on bus service usage and reliability. That needs to be sorted and it doesn't matter if it's a private managed or publicly managed system - congestion doesn't discriminate.

 

[route101]

It doesn't help that all these car dependent estates are going up on the outskirts. Glasgow does have a great rail network but the ticketing and timetabling is stuck in 1990. Generally I prefer using the train, but the bus gets me closer to places. I don't mind using the bus occasionally for leisure but when you use it every day for work it lets you down.

 

[Jordan Adam]

It doesn't help that all these car dependent estates are going up on the outskirts.

The same can be said for literally almost any new build area anywhere in the country, they always have a heavy car bias for the first decade or so as the population demographics tend to be relatively homogeneous with very few teenage or elderly residents, it's always younger couples in their late 20s / 30s or people starting families who already drive cars. Age demogragics are always key to how high or low bus use is and something which is often overlooked.

The pre-eminent issue is that private car usage has been enabled and even encouraged and that has had a massive impact on bus service usage and reliability. That needs to be sorted and it doesn't matter if it's a private managed or publicly managed system - congestion doesn't discriminate.

This is particularly true of Glasgow given it's extensive road networks and lack of good bus priority. Improving bus services alone doesn't decrease car usage alone, what needs to be done is more investment in bus priority. Restricting certain city centre roads to cars, reducing the number of parking spaces in city centres and/or increasing the prices. Who's going to pay £4 for a bus ticket when you can park in the city centre for half that. It's the same reason night buses have struggled, often if you were traveling in a group it was cheaper to just get a taxi rather than each having to pay bus fares.

 

[PaulMc7]

It doesn't help that all these car dependent estates are going up on the outskirts. Glasgow does have a great rail network but the ticketing and timetabling is stuck in 1990. Generally I prefer using the train, but the bus gets me closer to places. I don't mind using the bus occasionally for leisure but when you use it every day for work it lets you down.

The pricing in general for the trains doesn't suit me for when I get a job due to the wild difference between peak prices and off peak prices. The reliability of the trains is always a worry for being let down too because one issue can ruin any chance of getting somewhere on time whereas with the bus it's easier to not be late if there's any issues. Only used the train a handful of times in recent years but like you said it's down to where I was going more than anything as the bus covers that so much better.

 

[route101]

The pricing in general for the trains doesn't suit me for when I get a job due to the wild difference between peak prices and off peak prices. The reliability of the trains is always a worry for being let down too because one issue can ruin any chance of getting somewhere on time whereas with the bus it's easier to not be late if there's any issues. Only used the train a handful of times in recent years but like you said it's down to where I was going more than anything as the bus covers that so much better.

Depends how many bus routes you have locally for back up. I start job this week and its only the train I can get to easily, not looking to the day when trains are cancelled. Really ought to get a car.

 

[johncrossley]

Depends how many bus routes you have locally for back up. I start job this week and its only the train I can get to easily, not looking to the day when trains are cancelled. Really ought to get a car.

Does a commuter from Basingstoke to London think about a backup if someone jumps in front of the train and the line is closed for two hours? They don't consider using their car as a backup. Occasional disruption is part and parcel of the life of a commuter regardless of mode. You can easily get caught up in a motorway jam for two hours as well.

 

[route101]

Does a commuter from Basingstoke to London think about a backup if someone jumps in front of the train and the line is closed for two hours? They don't consider using their car as a backup. Occasional disruption is part and parcel of the life of a commuter regardless of mode. You can easily get caught up in a motorway jam for two hours as well.

Good Point, when I used the bus to work , I used to get bus a bit earlier so I had a buffer. My commute is around 50 mins , 25 min walk to railway station, 15 min train ride then a 10 min walk. Or a 15 min drive. In my recent interviews, they wonder why I have driving licence yet no car and always ask me how I would get to the workplace.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Does a commuter from Basingstoke to London think about a backup if someone jumps in front of the train and the line is closed for two hours? They don't consider using their car as a backup. Occasional disruption is part and parcel of the life of a commuter regardless of mode. You can easily get caught up in a motorway jam for two hours as well.

By the time said commuter has bought a house in Basingstoke, their fate is sealed. There's essentially no practical way for most commuters to get to their offices in central London by anything other than public transport. The same isn't true in Glasgow, which makes it that much more important to improve the quality of public transport. Things will naturally get harder for car users as city centre land prices go up and it's no longer possible to park for free, or as cheaply. Making public transport better will help that process along, and the shift away from cars and parking will in turn make public transport better too.

There's no point building a Metro until the bus network is sorted out. However, that process takes a lot less time than planning a Metro system, so it's entirely legitimate to start planning the Metro before the buses are done. It's like how the existence of Pacers wasn't a reason to not go ahead with HS2 plans.

The Metro has to fill in the gaps between the bus and train services. Once sorted out, it will be obvious that some bus corridors require intensification to handle and stimulate more passenger demand. Equally, there are rail lines which could do with a shift to a more Metro specification and better connectivity to the city core. The rail network has fairly major shortcomings because of how the pattern of development in post-WW2 Glasgow has largely ignored the existing rail network in favour of cars. A town as big as Newton Mearns should really have a rail link. The Metro is the best way of making it happen. It's no different, really, to the way that various suburban rail lines in and around London got hoovered up by extensions of the Tube network.

 

[route101]

By the time said commuter has bought a house in Basingstoke, their fate is sealed. There's essentially no practical way for most commuters to get to their offices in central London by anything other than public transport. The same isn't true in Glasgow, which makes it that much more important to improve the quality of public transport. Things will naturally get harder for car users as city centre land prices go up and it's no longer possible to park for free, or as cheaply. Making public transport better will help that process along, and the shift away from cars and parking will in turn make public transport better too.

There's no point building a Metro until the bus network is sorted out. However, that process takes a lot less time than planning a Metro system, so it's entirely legitimate to start planning the Metro before the buses are done. It's like how the existence of Pacers wasn't a reason to not go ahead with HS2 plans.

The Metro has to fill in the gaps between the bus and train services. Once sorted out, it will be obvious that some bus corridors require intensification to handle and stimulate more passenger demand. Equally, there are rail lines which could do with a shift to a more Metro specification and better connectivity to the city core. The rail network has fairly major shortcomings because of how the pattern of development in post-WW2 Glasgow has largely ignored the existing rail network in favour of cars. A town as big as Newton Mearns should really have a rail link. The Metro is the best way of making it happen. It's no different, really, to the way that various suburban rail lines in and around London got hoovered up by extensions of the Tube network.

Newton Mearns essentially has two railway stations. Whitecraigs and Patterton. Earlier and later services on the railway network I would like to see.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Newton Mearns essentially has two railway stations. Whitecraigs and Patterton. Earlier and later services on the railway network I would like to see.

Newton Mearns has stations in the same way as other new towns do: Cumbernauld, Livingston, Glenrothes. There are railways and stations nearby on the outer edge, which suits people who happen to live on that side of town, but it's generally not a good solution. Traditional towns developed around railway stations for a very good reason. Intensive public transport is a service that benefits from being centrally located in an urban area. You want to have as many people within walking or rolling distance as possible. It's also possible to build higher density housing in these central areas, as all the town services are nearby, meaning that people don't need to use a car as much.

East Kilbride has ended up with a reasonably central railway station almost by accident. The town is still a bit too spread out, making walking to the station a less viable option than it should be, but it's still better.

With the way that most new towns are designed for cars, park and ride at these nearby railway stations has ended up being the default solution. People expect to live somewhere arbitrary in Cumbernauld and drive to Croy to get their express train to Glasgow or Edinburgh in the morning. That's fine for new towns which are reasonably far away from Glasgow or Edinburgh, as city centre commuters will still prefer P&R to driving all the way. However, the closer you are to a city, the less efficient it'll be to break your journey with P&R unless you end up with a truly turn-up-and-go service frequency from there on.

When the Glasgow Metro is almost certainly going to involve street running tram technology, it makes perfect sense to use that to serve some of the newer, less rail-focussed developments around. Get rid of the need to drive to a P&R, and a family is able to go down from 2 cars to 1. Fewer cars being needed generally means that people then aren't going to fall back to using a car at the slightest inconvenience. If you've got two cars paid for anyway, then the cost of using it to drive into the city is currently just the fuel and possibly parking. If it's a bit rainy or cold, then you might just drive it all the way rather than changing at a P&R. If you know you can get away with one car, then you'll continue using public or active transport for much longer. This also helps your political pressure to make sure that there are good services for other people. If you'll occasionally have to walk in the rain to the Metro stop, then you're more likely to push for a better local feeder bus service than if you'd just drive instead.

 

[route101]

Newton Mearns has stations in the same way as other new towns do: Cumbernauld, Livingston, Glenrothes. There are railways and stations nearby on the outer edge, which suits people who happen to live on that side of town, but it's generally not a good solution. Traditional towns developed around railway stations for a very good reason. Intensive public transport is a service that benefits from being centrally located in an urban area. You want to have as many people within walking or rolling distance as possible. It's also possible to build higher density housing in these central areas, as all the town services are nearby, meaning that people don't need to use a car as much.

East Kilbride has ended up with a reasonably central railway station almost by accident. The town is still a bit too spread out, making walking to the station a less viable option than it should be, but it's still better.

With the way that most new towns are designed for cars, park and ride at these nearby railway stations has ended up being the default solution. People expect to live somewhere arbitrary in Cumbernauld and drive to Croy to get their express train to Glasgow or Edinburgh in the morning. That's fine for new towns which are reasonably far away from Glasgow or Edinburgh, as city centre commuters will still prefer P&R to driving all the way. However, the closer you are to a city, the less efficient it'll be to break your journey with P&R unless you end up with a truly turn-up-and-go service frequency from there on.

When the Glasgow Metro is almost certainly going to involve street running tram technology, it makes perfect sense to use that to serve some of the newer, less rail-focussed developments around. Get rid of the need to drive to a P&R, and a family is able to go down from 2 cars to 1. Fewer cars being needed generally means that people then aren't going to fall back to using a car at the slightest inconvenience. If you've got two cars paid for anyway, then the cost of using it to drive into the city is currently just the fuel and possibly parking. If it's a bit rainy or cold, then you might just drive it all the way rather than changing at a P&R. If you know you can get away with one car, then you'll continue using public or active transport for much longer. This also helps your political pressure to make sure that there are good services for other people. If you'll occasionally have to walk in the rain to the Metro stop, then you're more likely to push for a better local feeder bus service than if you'd just drive instead.

East Kilbride station is about 10 minutes walk from the town centre. Though there is not much going on in East Kilbride these days. I walk to to East Kilbride station, takes about 25 minutes.