Should Manchester have an orbital Tram route?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

GMCA and TfGM acts to administer public transport for all ten statutory areas, Manchester being only one of these, that make up the Greater Manchester area. These same ten statutory areas are also the constituent shareholders of Manchester International Airport. Whilst Greater Manchester County as such ceased to have its own governing body, the area itself is always viewed as a corporate area for many purposes

 

[WatcherZero]

Should Manchester be draining all the cash for transport projects in the North-West ?
There are other towns & cities

Its not really had anything beyond the Regional Funding Allocation (which is apportioned per capita) Its not like London which has had more than half or all transport funding over the last 5 years while having a fifth the population and 25% the income.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Its not really had anything beyond the Regional Funding Allocation (which is apportioned per capita) Its not like London which has had more than half or all transport funding over the last 5 years while having a fifth the population and 25% the income.

..and Manchester appears to be getting all tha major projects in the North. Leeds and Liverpool have no tram system, Sheffield's smallish system isn't being expanded. The East Lancs conurbation has very little in the way of public transport infrastructure. As everything in the South seems London-centric so everything in the North appears to be Manchester orientated.

 

[WatcherZero]

Leeds and Birmingham have just had more spent on their stations than will be spent in the entire Northern Hub project across Lancashire and Yorkshire. Manchester money had been raised locally through Council Tax, its not national money. The ability to lead and get councils working together like London rather than fighting each other like Nottingham, Edinburgh, Merseyside and to a lesser extent both Yorkshires to fund large projects isnt national favouritism.

 

[northwichcat]

Manchester money had been raised locally through Council Tax, its not national money.

The ability to lead and get councils working together like London rather than fighting each other like Nottingham, Edinburgh, Merseyside and to a lesser extent both Yorkshires to fund large projects isnt national favouritism.

An average of £2 per Greater Manchester household per year funds transport through council tax.

Metrolink got £520m of government funding for Metrolink phase 3 and they loaned the short fall of around £300m. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5152948.stm

The Ordsall Chord will get £85m of government funding.

And there has been disagreements between councils. Do you remember the congestion charge proposal?

 

[telstarbox]

..and Manchester appears to be getting all tha major projects in the North. Leeds and Liverpool have no tram system, Sheffield's smallish system isn't being expanded. The East Lancs conurbation has very little in the way of public transport infrastructure. As everything in the South seems London-centric so everything in the North appears to be Manchester orientated.

Liverpool has the Merseyrail and plenty of suburban stations. I'd like to see the Supertram down Ecclesall Road to Totley but sadly don't think it would happen!

 

[WatcherZero]

An average of £2 per Greater Manchester household per year funds transport through council tax.

Metrolink got £520m of government funding for Metrolink phase 3 and they loaned the short fall of around £300m. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5152948.stm

The Ordsall Chord will get £85m of government funding.

Government funding was RFA allocation from 2011-2016, thats money equally available to everyone per capita. The Council tax Transport Precepts is £70.97 per year per person. The £20m annual profit of Metrolink (which recieves no subsidy) will also be used to finance borrowing, The London Underground on the other hand recieves £1bn in annual subsidy to keep fares low.

http://www.wigan.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyre...dTransportAuthoritypreceptleaflet20112012.pdf

And there has been disagreements between councils. Do you remember the congestion charge proposal?

Indeed 8 out of 10 councils voted in favour of it and it was put to public referendum. After the no vote the money was highjacked from funding of regional transport to plug the Crossrail funding gap.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Indeed 8 out of 10 councils voted in favour of it and it was put to public referendum. After the no vote the money was highjacked from funding of regional transport to plug the Crossrail funding gap.

You have quoted a matter here that, some months ago on a thread, I gave the actual 10 area referendum results where, despite many areas being "totally rock-solid Labour" areas, the electorate in all of the 10 areas overwhelmingly voted against the imposition of a two-band congestion scheme in order to fund the proposed expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system.

This referendum result, at the time, was received with total disbelief at the then-GMPTE and by some of the really Labour-orientated councillors who basically accused the electorate of betraying those in power "who knew better" was was good for the electorate they were voted into power to represent.

 

[northwichcat]

The Council tax Transport Precepts is £70.97 per year per person.

So if you have a household with 2 unemployed parents and 2 school age children then is TfGM is receiving £283.88 from that household or does £70.97 either exclude non-council tax payers or include tax payer funded benefits to low income households?

The £20m annual profit of Metrolink (which recieves no subsidy) will also be used to finance borrowing

You might want to note what happened to the Chester Rail Link bus in using a statement like that. The council subside more for the commercial service than they did for the subsided service. The reason being the number of pensioners who use it for free. Metrolink also allows pensioners to travel for free and there are also subsided PTE tickets which are valid on Metrolink.

 

[Samtron2000]

You might want to note what happened to the Chester Rail Link bus in using a statement like that. The council subside more for the commercial service than they did for the subsided service. The reason being the number of pensioners who use it for free. Metrolink also allows pensioners to travel for free and there are also subsided PTE tickets which are valid on Metrolink.

What relevance does this have to Metrolink using it's operating profit to subsidise it's running!!!

Also the Chester Bus was due to a change of operator more than anything else, I believe!!

 

[northwichcat]

What relevance does this have to Metrolink using it's operating profit to subsidise it's running!!!

How is it use of operating profit? TfGM subside free off peak travel for pensioners on buses, trains and trams. The money comes out of the TfGM transport budget not RATP Metrolink's profits.

Also the Chester Bus was due to a change of operator more than anything else, I believe!!

It was due to the free bus (operated by First Chester) being part subsided by the council and part subsided by the rail companies.

Aintree Coachlines registered a commercial fare paying service on the same route so the council had to withdraw the subsided route for legal reasons as a subsided route cannot run on the same route at the same time as a commercial service.

However, the council have to pay the new operator for any pensioner passes used on the commercial service and the total cost of doing that is higher than the subsidy the council were paying for the free bus.

 

[snail]

However, the council have to pay the new operator for any pensioner passes used on the commercial service and the total cost of doing that is higher than the subsidy the council were paying for the free bus.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here? I don't think anyone is going to set up a rival tram service to Metrolink to force TfGM to withdraw pensioner subsidies . You are trying to compare a county-wide concessionary scheme on all transport modes to a single bus route in a city.

 

[Samtron2000]

How is it use of operating profit? TfGM subside free off peak travel for pensioners on buses, trains and trams. The money comes out of the TfGM transport budget not RATP Metrolink's profits.

RATP have an agreed contract to run metrolink unlike stagecoach in Sheffield, where they take the profits. So yes, tgfm reuse the profits from metrolink to expand the system!

It was due to the free bus (operated by First Chester) being part subsided by the council and part subsided by the rail companies.

Aintree Coachlines registered a commercial fare paying service on the same route so the council had to withdraw the subsided route for legal reasons as a subsided route cannot run on the same route at the same time as a commercial service.

However, the council have to pay the new operator for any pensioner passes used on the commercial service and the total cost of doing that is higher than the subsidy the council were paying for the free bus.

Far enough, I have no interest in buses so didn't know the inner details. Though to be fair, there were always a significant number of people who walked rather than get the bus! It's not far!

 

[WatcherZero]

Im afraid youll find even if your unemployed council tax is collected jcollins, the benefit doesnt go directly to you the council claims it back from the Government on your behalf.

 

[northwichcat]

Im afraid youll find even if your unemployed council tax is collected jcollins, the benefit doesnt go directly to you the council claims it back from the Government on your behalf.

That's precisely the point. You were saying the Manchester transport money doesn't come from central government but with a high unemployment rate a lot of what would be collected through council tax is in fact coming from central government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here? I don't think anyone is going to set up a rival tram service to Metrolink to force TfGM to withdraw pensioner subsidies . You are trying to compare a county-wide concessionary scheme on all transport modes to a single bus route in a city.

No. I'm making the point that a commercial service can in fact be more expensive to the tax payer than a subsided service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

RATP have an agreed contract to run metrolink unlike stagecoach in Sheffield, where they take the profits. So yes, tgfm reuse the profits from metrolink to expand the system!

You've completely changed your argument. You were implying that the transport operator foots the cost of concessionary travel not the tax payer.

There are potential financial benefits for RATP for running Metrolink but a lot less than there are for Stagecoach running Supertram.

 

[Samtron2000]

You've completely changed your argument. You were implying that the transport operator foots the cost of concessionary travel not the tax payer.

There are potential financial benefits for RATP for running Metrolink but a lot less than there are for Stagecoach running Supertram.

I've never once mentioned concessionary travel!!!! I was responding to your claim that TfGM could reinvested it's operating profit from metrolink back into the system!!!!!

 

[northwichcat]

I've never once mentioned concessionary travel!!!! I was responding to your claim that TfGM could reinvested it's operating profit from metrolink back into the system!!!!!

You quoted two posts where I had mentioned concessionary travel on Metrolink being subsided and started going on about Metrolink only being funded using profit. If you were talking about something different then why quote previous posts on a different subject? Are you just trying to increase the amount of arguing in this thread for amusement?

 

[Samtron2000]

You quoted two posts where I had mentioned concessionary travel on Metrolink being subsided and started going on about Metrolink only being funded using profit. If you were talking about something different then why quote previous posts on a different subject? Are you just trying to increase the amount of arguing in this thread for amusement?

Concessionary travel on practically all transport systems across the country are subsidised!!!! Now it's you who's twisting the argument!!

 

[northwichcat]

Concessionary travel on practically all transport systems across the country are subsidised!!!! Now it's you who's twisting the argument!!

That post is hilarious.

If you look back at the discussion WatcherZero says "Metrolink (which recieves no subsidy.)" I pointed out it does in fact receive a tax payer subsidy to allow for free travel for pensioners and for passengers travelling on subsided PTE tickets. (However, it is correct that Metrolink doesn't receive subsides that some bus and rail services receive.)

YOU THEN CAME IN and twisted the argument by replying to my posts and making random Metrolink comments in reply that had absolutely no relevance to what I was saying.

In Greater Manchester pensioners can enjoy free off-peak bus, train and tram travel - all funded by tax payer subsidy.

In Cheshire pensioners can enjoy free off-peak bus travel and can claim a £6 discount on a Senior's railcard - both funded by tax payer subsidy.

So the tax payers are funding a greater amount of pensioner's travel within Greater Manchester than within Cheshire. It is not a case of it being the same everywhere in the country.