That's not the only thing in favour of roads. Car users are valued more than public transport users & cyclists in terms of their productivity under the New Approach To Appraisal. Environmental costs are one-off rather than recurring and even more spurious is the fact that it estimates accidents on a road that hasn't even been built and uses it as a way of justifying it.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Liverpool Underground Circle Line
- Thread starter inner-city
- 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
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
A bus leaves Liverpool centres to Kirkby ever 2 minutes. The tram will beat it by 5 minutes. The Merseyrail train takes 15 minutes about a 1/3 of the tram time.
Duh!!!! Who thinks of this cr*p!!!
The focus should be on the Merseyrail underground - is is cheap to do. The city is growing with it being Europe's largest construction site last year with 40 tower cranes in the centre. If finances means that bendy-buses means an infill for 4,5,10 years then so be it. Throwing masses of money at a needless tram system is sheer madness.
Merseyrail needs to service these two...
Liverpool Waters
Wirral Waters
The sooner they get started with a Merseyrail Circle Line, the better. The top class transport infrastructures acts as a catalyst.
Ruled by who?
Any transport economist will tell you, the £45bn billion is needed to cover external costs such as congestion, pollution, policing, heath effects.
But, you see, this country is run by accountants, who like to show balances on certain books, rather than any political will to improve quality of life.
People rightly rejected the congestion charge in Manchester, which was all about tax and nothing to do with solving congestion.
If they wanted to solve congestion, they would spend the money anyway. But its official, its all about raising tax. Buses are ideal, because they are seen to do something, but will do nothing at all - and they can still rake the tax in from motorists that refuse to get on them.
But, you see, this country is run by accountants, who like to show balances on certain books, rather than any political will to improve quality of life.
People rightly rejected the congestion charge in Manchester, which was all about tax and nothing to do with solving congestion.
If they wanted to solve congestion, they would spend the money anyway. But its official, its all about raising tax. Buses are ideal, because they are seen to do something, but will do nothing at all - and they can still rake the tax in from motorists that refuse to get on them.
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
Not the Dft, Merseytravel, who dreampt up this ridiculous tram scheme and have spent £70 million already. That could have got St. James underground station, the Dingle Tunnel and Dingle underground station on-line.
Please keep stupid political babbles off this forum. Go to alt.tory.idiots. They will accommodate you.
Most people still keep a car and use public transport - I do.
Having no option but to do so, otherwise you would be in soup line.
90019
Established Member
Indeed, they rejected it here in Edinburgh a few years ago as well.
As i previously mentionned, in 2006-07, the government took £45bn in tax from motorists, and only £8bn was reinvested in the roads, or approx. 17.8%
The road network is drastically underfunded in the UK and quoting someone (again, i forget who :???
it's "struggling to support our growing economy"Nothing to do with lack of regulation then? Why can't I put political babble on the forum, last time I looked this was a free country. My grandparents fought for the freedom of speech, obviously not liked by fascists like you.
If I don't like my tax money given to banks and people like that woman in Huddersfield with with several children by several fathers, what's wrong with that?
Personally I'd prefer to see it spent on a tram system to make a city more attractive instead of having to put up with a cheap and nasty bus system.
PS no, I don't vote Tory either.
Too much stick, not enough carrots. We need high-frequency, high-quality, convenient rail systems in our cities to beat the jams.
The answer wouldn't be to build more roads. More roads=more traffic=more congestion. A real alternative to the car is needed, and for a lot of journeys, rail, walking & cycling could be that very alternative.The road network is drastically underfunded in the UK and quoting someone (again, i forget who :???
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
It said this was "understood". A weasel, BS word. Yes, understood. They understood Line 1 which is served by Merseyrail and buses. The bus is about the same to Kirkby in time.
BTW, This pictures shows a train on Liverpool city street:
Almost directly under the train is the disused 1.5 mile Waterloo Tunnel. At the end of the Doric columned buildings to the right is the Byrom St cutting which can accommodate a station in the tunnel. Duh!!
You couldn't make any of this up. If you did they would not believe you.
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
Because it was totally stupid and we don't want it and it a train forum.
You should do. You deserve each other. Go to their meetings - by tram.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What world are you in?
90019
Established Member
Because it was totally stupid and we don't want it and it a train forum.
You should do. You deserve each other. Go to their meetings - by tram.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Lost time I looked, you weren't a moderator.
You have just spent the last few hours spewing non stop bus bilge on a rail forum - which I'm happy to debate with you. But you really must learn to put up with the odd political statement in a discussion about spending public money.
You obviously don't like the conservatives then, do my slightly anti-labour comments offend you, why would that be?
BTW, I'm a floating voter for the record, and fairly A-political.
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
Manchester should not have had a ballot. The result was going to be obvious. Everyone agrees in principle with the congestion charge and what it aims to achieve, but when it comes down it no one will give up their car. They all think their car journey is essential, when it is not, and that everyone else should stop using "their" cars.
Cities have to meet EU health limits on emissions. Despite congestion charging Ken Livingstone in London never met them. He planned to extend the zone and lunatic Boris Johnson scrapped it. Johnson knows he will be out next time as Alan Sugar is running for the job, so he doesn't have to worry about reducing emissions.
Livingstone wanted to pedestrianise parts of London, as Liverpool did 35 years ago - one of the reasons Liverpool can meet the emissions. Livingstone had firm plans to pedestrianize Parliament Square. It was scheduled to be done and costed with contractors ready to roll. Buffoon Johnson scrapped it.
London will have to increase the charge to discourage cars traveling to the centre. Manchester will have to introduce the charge, or pedestrianize large parts of the city to achieve limits. Pedestrianizing doesn't bring in income. Pedestrianizing costs money to construct.
If you want to get political - unfortunately my local scheme was axed thanks to political bickering with the Lib Dems & Labour. Maybe you don't want trams in Liverpool but tramtrains would certainly be useful in Bristol!
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
To the MOD: This one is turning offensive.
90019
Established Member
No, when it comes down to it, it is just another tax on motorists, and it's almost a given that the money raised will not be used for maintainance of the road network.
Oh, and if the congestion charge is so good, why is congestion in London unaffected, if not worse since it has been introduced? Not to mention the negative effects on small businesses within the main zone.
Last edited:
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
Yep. Liverpool has lots of it disused and waiting to be re-used by Merseyrail.
Blimey if you think that is offensive! Certainly no more than telling me to log into Tory.idiots and then calling poor old Boris a buffoon! pah!
So what is wrong is improving the buses, Merseyrail and tram system, given the public money was there? Why are you so pathologically against trams given they have a positive benefit-cost ratio and spending money on public infrastructure would create 4500 jobs for recession hit Liverpool? Surely we should be doing that rather than giving it to bankers, who pay themselves huge bonuses?
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
It is not. It is to stop congestion and clean up cities air. I can't think of any other way, besides making all centres pedestrianized and trade only vehicles entering in the early mornings and evenings.
It is not worse at all. I live on the edge of it. It has made a great impact as it cascades outwards. It should go up as the traffic levels are rising, indicating the charge is too low. If they don't want to pay, or even for parking, then the whingers should buy a hybrid, and London is crawling with the Prius, which make economic sense.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What hard figures and analysis days that? Please read the first post and start again from there. What I say is quite clear.
90019
Established Member
To the Lexus 6 litre V12 limo! which gets off because it's got a little battery and is technically a hybrid...
I love Lexus for that
And no, because the prius is sh*t and not at all environmentally friendly.
The hard analysis is the latest report on them, quoted by the newspaper. Your analysis is not hard data, it is a series of statements that you don't like trams, and subjective points about Liverpool's needs and the pros and cons of buses which remains totally unconvincing to anyone that knows anything about the subject. You need to work harder to convince me.
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
That is hard analysis is it? Do not be so naive. Read my post on the objections. Please read the first page of this thread. What you don't understand get back to me and ask.
You are a lost case.
Last edited:
90019
Established Member
Methinks the feeling's probably mutual
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
To the Lexus 6 litre V12 limo! which gets off because it's got a little battery and is technically a hybrid...
I love Lexus for that
The cars have to conform to emissions, not technology.
The Prius is brilliant. I know a friend with one and I drive it regularly. 60-65mpg around London and silent when stopped. Magic! Every home should have one. Calcars in the USA have adapted one to charge from the mains and put a lager battery set in. They get around 130mpg in money equiv. The Prius regularly tops the JD Power charts in the USA.
See my post on supercapacitors. Hybrids will go down that route, as are trains and electric buses.
BTW, Liverpool had electric buses running a loop around the centre - 35 years ago.
Don't be patronising, I have over 10 years quite senior railway experience and run an IT company. Mojo is a transport planning undergraduate - and vice chairman of a rail pressure group.
Who are you? I read your report, some of it makes sense, but I'm turned off by your anti-tram remarks, because you clearly haven't read many reports on them. While they are not the solution to everything, they can be useful given the right circumstances. You need to sell us more why a tram system is such a bad idea, and a bus or rail system is such a good idea. I want to see more BRT case studies, and dis-benefits of the tram from 'official' sources. If you play your cards right, you might win the argument, but you need to work harder.
For the record I have no vested interests in any of them, this is purely a debate which you obviously want to win. I'm fairly hot on energy and sustainability as well.
Last edited:
90019
Established Member
Actually no.
They work in the city, but that's it. If you take it out of the city, the MPG plummets, and in fact, many diesels are much more efficient, in fact out of town, the priuses usually have an MPG in the high 30s or maybe mid to low 40s if you're lucky. Then we come to the matter of the batteries. Did you know that the area around the factory where Priuses are made is actually extremely polluted because the batteries are so toxic and they can't do anything with them?
inner-city
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 92
I have read this by member of the design team of many of the UK tram systems. tsk, tsk.
He says:
Some people are still promoting trams on the grounds of linking developments in town. I seriously suggest these people visit Manchester, Sheffield or Nottingham to watch these things trundle through the city centre streets at an average speed of <10 mph screeching as they negotiate tight city-centre corners. They are like a fish out of water, unless they are on truly dedicated and segregated track, which cannot be achieved on most city centre streets. Their basic technology and performance is outdated.
I agree the city centre seriously needs an efficient, dedicated easy to use people-mover if it is to consolidate its recent developments and ensuing expansion but trams are not the answer unless you have a nice relatively straight traffic free route that pierces the centre and even then that limits its effectiveness. A light monorail that also comes to surface could satisfies all criteria and would be far more futuristic and forward thinking. A basic loop system linking satelite car parks, bus and train hubs would avert complicated switching. This system need have no effect on current road capacities unlike the tram which often needs extensive infrastructure changes traffic segregation and high maintenance overhead line too..... the monorail impacts only at well spaced foundations with power source and track combined allowing relatively fast modular constructions.
Stations can be built into the sides of existing buildings to utilise escalators/stairways etc. Running costs can be minimal since they can be driverless and have exceptionally high frequency. This would allow the city-centre shops to compete very favourably with shopping malls that are surrounded by convenient carparks by expanding city centre movement and accessiblity inordinately. The overhead parallels have obvious historical context too.
------------------------
to the assertion that a tram could efficiently act as a people-mover around town I don't believe that can be the case. I have a lot of experience of Tram design as have I worked on the design of overhead systems for Merseytram, Sheffield, Metrolink and Nottingham including structural and dynamics modelling etc..... I'm out of that discipline now but have lots of contacts still involved. I am just comparing relative merits and struggle with the notion of trams as our solution when we have the opportunity to break new ground. Monorails are the real world, and a new generation of lightweight systems would offer far greater opportunities and flexibility than any slow surface vehicle competing with others.
--------------------------
I assure you I don't need a lesson on structural components for OHLE, its what I used to design for a living for over 6 years, mainline and trams, in fact I think you will find that my name appears on most of the basic design drawings and initial layout plans for Merseytram. You would also be wrong to consider them all insignificant in size, especially tension length terminating masts with balance weights inside that have to withstand some heavy bending moments and are of much larger section. Though I can't remember if they were included on the loop section now.
Similarly structures on tight corners, the tension generates large overturning moments which combined with ofsets and staggers means heavy structures every few metres where spanwires cannot be anchored. There are some horrendous examples of cluttered mast work in both Manchester and sheffield.
Again you may be getting confused with my suggestion regarding the possibilties with monorails and perhaps some of the heavier models in Japan etc. I envisage a far lighter vehicle perhaps similar to the urbanaut concept which, where necessary can decend to ground level eleviating your concerns for single storey ascent which doesn't seem to have stopped Liverpool 1 from adopting a multi-storey format. Having said that I believe a systems that flies around town only a few metres above the street totally unimpaired by traffic, junctions, pedestrians would sell itself. A surface vehicle can take ages to get around town, this would be minutes meaning just a few vehicles would supply an almost continuous unimpeded flow like clockwork. As regards the likes of William Brown street, I forgot there was a line of trees on the St Johns Garden side..... simple solution would be simply run along that side next to the trees with no visual obtrusiveness.
As regards numbers of stops, a simple loop, perhaps pinched to form a figure of 8 or whatever would only need a handfull of stops to cover all major nodes and hubs. My feelings are that this could have readily been applied to all the new build and infrastructure of L1 and this has been a missed opportunity. I'm only promoting a concept not tendering for the job so I don't really feel the need to tick all the boxes..... I believe the speed issue is significant, since that is a fundamental performance criteria, especially if you are trying to counter the speed and convenience of PRT for instance. Buses on the same segregated roadways will give exactly the same performance if not better, although I agree the perception issues favour trams, I think even this can be countered by the new tramlike designs
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually yes. I am the one who drives it a lot. Ask and i will tell, don't tell me. That is usually the way it goes.
Motorways work is around 45mpg, which is still superb. Overall mpg is what matters, not some one off trip.
Diesels are filthy, and noisy and vibrate and like driving a tractor. The Prius does not even have a gearbox. The take-up is seamlessly smooth. Brilliant ride indeed. Try one. And do not listen to negative propa-ganda about them. Those who want to end the world do that.
8 year guarantee and the power splitter too.
Total tripe.
Toyota do not make the batteries. The next generation will have supercapacitors. Brilliant again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Train spotting and IT don't seem to mix.
Last edited:
No link to that text. The guy seems to have experience on OHL design, not urban planning.
No, its not ten years experience in taking down numbers, please don't be insulting, its highly unprofessional if you did have any credentials which I doubt you have because you seem to be light on detail and hard data. In fact, I'll be surprised if you have even left school. I'm not going to pretend my area is urban planning either - although Mojos is, but I do like people to be able to back up their cause and recognise bs for a great distance on these matters as I'm well read on some of these things.
Most of what you are talking about is yet to be designed or actually in operation - which means atm it is an engineers fantasy which may or may not do what it says on the tin.
Reality lessons from actual operating results
There is a plethora of real-world evidence underpinning the research data. Unfortunately, it's mostly "anecdotal" because conducting controlled scientific experiments of two different transit modes offering the same basic service in the same corridor is virtually impossible. But consistently repeated examples of transit mode performance can suggest patterns helpful in planning analysis and decisionmaking.
The following examples provide some case studies of both rail transit and busway-type "BRT" operations which tend to suggest that, with similar service levels in the same or similar corridors, such "BRT" services have not attracted the same level of ridership as rail operations. These cases, and the evidence cited above, suggest that the potential of LRT and other rail alternatives to attract ridership in corridors specifically targeted for major transit investments may be greater than planners assume and than somewhat mechanistic forecasting models (constrained by strict Federal Transit Administration guidelines) predict.
· Suburban Philadelphia, 1967 The conversion of the Ardmore electric rail trolley (legacy LRT) line to a busway resulted in an almost immediate 15 percent loss of ridership; furthermore, an increase in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs (due to the need for more buses to maintain schedules, despite sinking ridership) provoked a downward spiral in service and ridership to a point where the line today carries only a few hundred daily rider-trips. [7]
· Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC, 1970-1996 The Shirley Busway was deemed a great success upon its opening in 1970. The pre-existing Route 18 was expanded from three trips per day (without subsidy) to approximately thirty trips with subsidy yielding a substantial increase in ridership.
However, with long gaps between buses, political pressure grew to convert the busway into an HOV lane, opening it up for use by automobiles and other private motor vehicles. Ridership peaked in 1980-81 during the second energy crisis. Subsequently it declined 67% as costs increased sharply. At the same time, transit ridership in the National Capital area ballooned from 135 million per year to 270 million, mainly because of the introduction of the MetroRail system. In 1996, ridership on the Route 18 Shirley Busway buses had plunged to 2,350 weekday rider-trips.
As MetroRail service was introduced to the Route 18 territory (Springfield, Virginia), bus ridership dropped further to 1,650 per day; however, MetroRail patronage in Springfield soared to 13,000, even though bus fares were lower than rail and travel time was approximately equal. Furthermore, the operating cost of rail transit was far less per passenger. [7]
· South Pittsburgh, 1978 The South Busway, projected to carry 35,000 weekday rider-trips, actually attracted only 20,000 rider-trips initially, and that level has now dropped to about 14,500, less than pre-busway ridership in the affected corridor. Meanwhile, a parallel LRT upgrade has attracted approximately fifty percent more passengers. [7]
· East Pittsburgh, 1983 - The East Busway was originally projected to attract 80,000 weekday rider-trips, but the actual service initially attracted only about 30,000. The system actually lost 25 percent of bus riders as the busways were further developed. [7]
· Pittsburgh, 1999-2000 The West Busway, with a capital cost of approximately $55 million per mile, was originally projected to attract 50,000 weekday rider-trips. However, initial ridership of only 5,400 has grown modestly to about 9,500 (19% of original projections); in part, this may be temporary, as repairs to a parallel bridge in the corridor initially delayed motor vehicle traffic and have given a temporary ostensible advantage to the busway. [7, 8]
Taken as a whole, Pittsburgh's three busways were forecast to attract a total of approximately 165,000 weekday rider-trips. In reality, only 55,000 daily rider-trips have actually materialized some 25 years from the opening of the region's first busway. [7, 8] in recent years, transit development seems to have shifted more heavily into expansion of Pittsburgh's LRT system.
· Los Angeles, 1997-2000 The Harbor Transitway, with busway stations, cost approximately $500 million for ten miles of route. A project of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the busway was originally projected to attract 63,000 weekday rider-trips, in actuality, the service has attracted only about 5,000.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm
How has the tram helped Nottingham? David Thornhill explains.
"Visit the Victoria Centre shopping centre where many buses serve. The busy road junction of Milton Street and Parliament Street is terribly congested. Motorists parking there illegally is one reason, but much congestion is caused by the huge number of buses looking for road space. Then take the short walk to Nottingham's heart, the Market Square. Here it is a different world, no obvious congestion and every few minutes a tram glides to the main city tram stop and delivers/collects another 100 or so shoppers, commuters and tourists - all quietly, efficiently and with no pollution in the city centre.
"In summary, the success of bus services in Nottingham will continue, but where is the road space for yet more buses? On most corridors there isn't any! The answer is already there - the tram. Nottingham needs an extensive network of trams on the busiest corridors complemented by high quality bus routes where a tram cannot be justified.
"The success cascades out from the city too, as modal shift to public transport frees road space right across Greater Nottingham, delivering more reliable public transport and more reliable trips by car, for those few journeys that cannot be made on public transport. Everyone is a winner with a tram system!"
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/public_transport/trams/nottingham
Benefits of tram developments in Nottingham
Economy: Line 1 of NET has had a considerable impact on the Citys economy. Central government have recognised the importance of cities as drivers of the national economy in the UK and we are seeing increased support for this role. The City centre is still witnessing considerable development and further retailers moving in to the area. The tram (as part of the transport system) is required to ensure that Nottingham retains its place as one of the leading retail centres in the UK. It is also important to enable staff of commercial and service sector companies to enter and leave efficiently (eg Capital One, city centre financial and legal staff)
Congestion: The development of Line 1 was very much on the premise that unless something radical was done then we would experience gridlock around 2010. Line 1 has provided some alleviation, but traffic growth in general has failed to eliminate this threat. From many parts of the City commuting by cycle, public transport and car now take similar times. Though this may be an incentive to encourage modal shift, there is a need to improve overall journey times and encourage non-essential traffic movements to move to other forms of transport.
The cost of congestion to Nottingham business will make it less competitive and encourage companies to relocate outside the City centre. This is undesirable from a social perspective and would only increase the deprivation of inner city areas.
Regeneration (along the route): Line 1 has demonstrated considerable potential for regeneration along tram routes.
Hucknall (at the northern end of route 1) is currently demonstrating real regeneration. The building of the Tesco store alongside the tram has been a spur for regeneration. It has opened up land, for example Butlers Hill is nearly completed as a new site for business that can attract staff via the tram. Hucknall Market Square developments have encouraged increased tourism, higher quality apartment type accommodation and a general uplift of commercial properties in the town.
Similarly around Hyson Green we have seen the development of the new art gallery (New Art Exchange) and considerable public investment in new infrastructure. The tram has also encouraged development of commercial businesses, such as Tenon, to expand their operations close to the tram. We are also now starting to see considerable changes in the letting of housing in the area. The Radford/Hyson Green area is the first housing area as you leave the City centre on the tram and is starting to become more popular with first time buyers or renters. This is a considerable spur to regeneration of the area.
Regeneration (city centre): The tram developments as part of the transport planning has been a major contributor to encouraging further regeneration of the city centre. Public sector commitment to Public Realm works (such as the Market Square development) have made a considerable impact and have in many ways been encouraged by the success of the tram. The commitment to civilising the city centre has encouraged major private sector investment in the city such as Westfields commitment to the Broadmarsh development, Helical Bar development of Trinity Square and considerable commercial development along the Fletcher Gate area.
Phase 2 will encourage similar improvements across the city.
Nottingham development areas: The Government support for cities in general is encouraging, building on the economic successes of regenerated cities as drivers of City/regional economies. The recent Growth Point proposals for Nottingham will provide an increased number of residents accessing local transport and roads as well as providing increased labour for the economy. It will be essential that the transport system can accommodate this increased patronage (a number of the potential growth point sites are to the south of the city and would be well served by Phase 2).
Environment: There is no doubt that the tram and its ability to encourage modal shift and hopefully enable other traffic to flow more easily will have a major beneficial effect on the quality of life of residents and make the City a more attractive proposition for business and tourism. The tram also encourages greater pedestrian movement which is also a positive health benefit.
Economic Inclusion: Nottingham exhibits a major paradox. In terms of deprivation Nottingham ranks as 7th most deprived (Index of multiple deprivation, Department of Communities and Local Government); and yet it is the 3rd richest of the Core Cities in terms of GVA (GVA Headline Series 2006 (2004 data), Office of National Statistics).
The outer estates of Nottingham (Bulwell, Clifton, Bestwood etc) are areas of high unemployment, low skills and often disengagement from mainstream activities. Whilst the tram on its own will not solve these social problems it helps provide access to training and employment. GNP working with the City, Job Centre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council has developed a Making the Connection model that aims to target those in deprived communities on long term benefit or single parents who may wish to re-enter the labour market. Access to affordable transport is cited by both participants and managers as a major inhibitor in reconnecting these people to mainstream services and longer term jobs.
Twenty First Century Solutions: It is also impossible to neglect the civic pride element the tram has brought to the city. The symbolism has, I believe, had a positive effect on the perceptions many people have of Nottingham. Whilst the boundary issues of Nottingham ensure that it is often cited for negative crime and drugs stories, the tram has been symbolic of a more modern and dynamic city. Many visitors and new students have commented on the modern face of the city symbolised by the tram and reflected in the developments it has encouraged and enabled.
http://www.netphasetwo.com/07/pdfs/121207/Martin Gawith GNP Statement of Evidence.doc
Modal shift
Light rail is proven to attract motorists out of cars - their use has dropped by nearly 19% in Croydon since Tramlink tram began
operations in 2000. Significant modal shift - 20%-40% - from the private car has occurred in other cities where LRT has been introduced. 22 million car trips a year have beentaken off roads by UK light rail schemes.
Experience in the UK and abroad shows that LRT promotes regeneration.Light rail can produce significant inward
investment in a locality. Light rail has a strong positive impact on employment and property prices Since Croydon Tramlink was built, nearby residential property prices have risen significantly. Light rail can help focus development, rather than encouraging urban sprawl. Rails in the ground make a political statement of commitment. Traffic-free areas encourage more shoppers. Trams do not destroy the atmosphere.
Trams produce minimal pollution at the point of use and reduce overall demand for power by the use of regenerative braking. Tramways can also cut noise pollution by reducing cars and buses in a city centre. Vehicles that run on steel rails are at least three times more energy efficient than those with rubber tyres on tarmac. LRT does not depend on fossil fuels. Trams can provide greater capacity than car and bus with less environmental impact
http://www.lrta.org/LRTA_PR07-4a.pdf
New light rail schemes are far better at attracting motorists and cutting congestion than improvements to bus services, according to a new report, launched today (23/2/05).
What light rail can do for cities (produced for pteg-Passenger Transport Executive Group by consultants Steer Davies Gleave, and available at http://www.pteg.net/lightrailandcities.htm) reviews the record of the seven operational UK light rail schemes. It finds that UK light rail is delivering on ridership, regeneration and modal shift. The reports findings include:
· Typically, light rail achieves six times the level of traffic reduction achieved by major improvements to bus services. Around 20% of rush hour light rail users have switched from the car - compared with between 4% and 6.5% for bus improvement schemes. At the weekends, up to 50% of light rail passengers previously travelled by car
· All UK light rail and tram systems are popular and are near or at capacity in the rush-hours. UK light rail now takes 22 million car journeys off the road every year
· When passenger numbers are high, light rail can be more cost effective than the bus alternative
· Tram schemes have played an important part in delivering regeneration and shaping how and where it occurs. All UK tram schemes have led to increases in commercial and residential property values
http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/con...+the+bus+for+getting+people+out+of+their+cars
In comparing light rail and busway costs it is important to ensure a like for like comparison. The CPT(UK) in their submission to the ETRA Inquiry said that "For a complete new system on reserved track . . . the capital cost [of a busway] could be similar to that of a light rail line". Buses have a role in short journey, lower volume applications and trams are more economic where passenger demand requires at least a 10 minute tram service. This takes into account that:
in terms of capacity two buses are needed for one tram;
in terms of speed two buses are needed for one tram;
in terms of life span between three and five buses are needed for one tram; and
the higher staff/passenger ratio on tramway systems will result in broadly similar operational costs per passenger at higher traffic volumes.
Benefits of Light Rail
The costs of LRT systems must be set against their proven benefits;
tramways are successful in attracting people out of motor cars. A modal shift of 15%-20% is achieved on UK tramwayssomething never achieved with buses;
rail systems are capable of supporting regeneration; the DLR is the most outstanding example of this. Research in Manchester and Croydon has demonstrated similar effects;
LRT can benefit the environmentnot only do trams not emit pollution at the point of use, but they can also use electricity from renewable resources;
LRT can be used to serve and encourage new developments without disfiguring the landscape with congested roadsit is noticeable that new housing schemes in the Thames Gateway are predicated on rail services (DLR to Barking etc). Future developments will need to be based around heavy and light rail services if they are not to generate "M4" congestion phenomena.
Given the lower benefits of a bus-based scheme a tramway will frequently offer better value for money.
2. WHAT LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL
The LRT Forum consider that the success of a light rail system should be gauged by:
Capacity
Greater efficiency in transporting between 1,500 and 8,000 passengers per hour than other public transport modes, such as bus, metro or heavy rail and the private car.
Modal shift
Achievement of modal shift from the private car to public transport.
LRT schemes provide an acceptable alternative to use of the car in terms of quality, security, frequency, reliability and image. Modern LRT schemes have demonstrated modal shift of between 17-20% based on research by Centro/GMPTE. Both Croydon and Nottingham have been positively welcomed by the residents and businesses which has contributed to passenger usage. While upgrading of bus services produces increased passenger flows these are generally attributable to changes in travel patterns by existing public transport users rather than to shift from car to bus.
Optimised highway use
Light rail provides the highest level of passenger carrying capacity per metre of road width compared with bus and car usage.
Reliability
Light rail is more reliable in terms of frequency and waiting time than bus, given fixed track and junction priority, contributing to higher economic productivity, and less stress suffered by individuals.
Environmental benefit
Light rail is capable of delivering improvements to the cityscape urban fabric: the integration of walking and cycling, reduction in air/noise pollution, reduction in road traffic accidents. It also has a role in encouraging social inclusion. DLR and Croydon have demonstrated regeneration effects.
Safety and accessibility
Safety and accessibility are major integral elements of modern light rail schemes. Level floor boarding, passenger help points, CCTV, lighting, and the use of conductors, contribute to a safe, and accessible secure environment.
Integration
Integration of transport modes and networks is fundamental to the success of public transport including light rail. Integration requires planning of convenient multi modal interchanges, use of multi-modal ticketing schemes and consistent fares structures, provision of passenger information on a modal basis, and compatible passenger treatment (eg consistent passengers' charters). Planning of park and ride facilities and encouragement of feeder bus services assist the public to make use of light rail.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/378we44.htm
Twenty five years ago the Coalition Government of Sir Charles Court in Western Australia closed down the Fremantle railway line. The stated rationale was that buses would do the job better as they were cheaper and more flexible. In reality they wanted to build a freeway down part of the rail reserve. For the transport planners trains were a symbol of the old economy and WA was going for the car in a big way, with buses to pick up those few who couldnt manage a car, and with freeways to service the rapidly sprawling suburbs. The land use assumptions were part of their package the idea that Australian cities would turn back in and redevelop around the train system was not imaginable.
As soon as the rail line was closed patronage on the replacement buses for the line fell by 30% and resolutely remained there over the next four years as I began the campaign to bring back the Fremantle train and build a decent service across the city. In 1983 the ALP Government was elected with a mandate to restore the train service. The 30% lost patronage immediately returned to the old diesels much to the amazement of the transport planners.
http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/Newman-Dissent.doc
No, its not ten years experience in taking down numbers, please don't be insulting, its highly unprofessional if you did have any credentials which I doubt you have because you seem to be light on detail and hard data. In fact, I'll be surprised if you have even left school. I'm not going to pretend my area is urban planning either - although Mojos is, but I do like people to be able to back up their cause and recognise bs for a great distance on these matters as I'm well read on some of these things.
Most of what you are talking about is yet to be designed or actually in operation - which means atm it is an engineers fantasy which may or may not do what it says on the tin.
Reality lessons from actual operating results
There is a plethora of real-world evidence underpinning the research data. Unfortunately, it's mostly "anecdotal" because conducting controlled scientific experiments of two different transit modes offering the same basic service in the same corridor is virtually impossible. But consistently repeated examples of transit mode performance can suggest patterns helpful in planning analysis and decisionmaking.
The following examples provide some case studies of both rail transit and busway-type "BRT" operations which tend to suggest that, with similar service levels in the same or similar corridors, such "BRT" services have not attracted the same level of ridership as rail operations. These cases, and the evidence cited above, suggest that the potential of LRT and other rail alternatives to attract ridership in corridors specifically targeted for major transit investments may be greater than planners assume and than somewhat mechanistic forecasting models (constrained by strict Federal Transit Administration guidelines) predict.
· Suburban Philadelphia, 1967 The conversion of the Ardmore electric rail trolley (legacy LRT) line to a busway resulted in an almost immediate 15 percent loss of ridership; furthermore, an increase in operations and maintenance (O&M) costs (due to the need for more buses to maintain schedules, despite sinking ridership) provoked a downward spiral in service and ridership to a point where the line today carries only a few hundred daily rider-trips. [7]
· Northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, DC, 1970-1996 The Shirley Busway was deemed a great success upon its opening in 1970. The pre-existing Route 18 was expanded from three trips per day (without subsidy) to approximately thirty trips with subsidy yielding a substantial increase in ridership.
However, with long gaps between buses, political pressure grew to convert the busway into an HOV lane, opening it up for use by automobiles and other private motor vehicles. Ridership peaked in 1980-81 during the second energy crisis. Subsequently it declined 67% as costs increased sharply. At the same time, transit ridership in the National Capital area ballooned from 135 million per year to 270 million, mainly because of the introduction of the MetroRail system. In 1996, ridership on the Route 18 Shirley Busway buses had plunged to 2,350 weekday rider-trips.
As MetroRail service was introduced to the Route 18 territory (Springfield, Virginia), bus ridership dropped further to 1,650 per day; however, MetroRail patronage in Springfield soared to 13,000, even though bus fares were lower than rail and travel time was approximately equal. Furthermore, the operating cost of rail transit was far less per passenger. [7]
· South Pittsburgh, 1978 The South Busway, projected to carry 35,000 weekday rider-trips, actually attracted only 20,000 rider-trips initially, and that level has now dropped to about 14,500, less than pre-busway ridership in the affected corridor. Meanwhile, a parallel LRT upgrade has attracted approximately fifty percent more passengers. [7]
· East Pittsburgh, 1983 - The East Busway was originally projected to attract 80,000 weekday rider-trips, but the actual service initially attracted only about 30,000. The system actually lost 25 percent of bus riders as the busways were further developed. [7]
· Pittsburgh, 1999-2000 The West Busway, with a capital cost of approximately $55 million per mile, was originally projected to attract 50,000 weekday rider-trips. However, initial ridership of only 5,400 has grown modestly to about 9,500 (19% of original projections); in part, this may be temporary, as repairs to a parallel bridge in the corridor initially delayed motor vehicle traffic and have given a temporary ostensible advantage to the busway. [7, 8]
Taken as a whole, Pittsburgh's three busways were forecast to attract a total of approximately 165,000 weekday rider-trips. In reality, only 55,000 daily rider-trips have actually materialized some 25 years from the opening of the region's first busway. [7, 8] in recent years, transit development seems to have shifted more heavily into expansion of Pittsburgh's LRT system.
· Los Angeles, 1997-2000 The Harbor Transitway, with busway stations, cost approximately $500 million for ten miles of route. A project of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), the busway was originally projected to attract 63,000 weekday rider-trips, in actuality, the service has attracted only about 5,000.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-08a.htm
How has the tram helped Nottingham? David Thornhill explains.
"Visit the Victoria Centre shopping centre where many buses serve. The busy road junction of Milton Street and Parliament Street is terribly congested. Motorists parking there illegally is one reason, but much congestion is caused by the huge number of buses looking for road space. Then take the short walk to Nottingham's heart, the Market Square. Here it is a different world, no obvious congestion and every few minutes a tram glides to the main city tram stop and delivers/collects another 100 or so shoppers, commuters and tourists - all quietly, efficiently and with no pollution in the city centre.
"In summary, the success of bus services in Nottingham will continue, but where is the road space for yet more buses? On most corridors there isn't any! The answer is already there - the tram. Nottingham needs an extensive network of trams on the busiest corridors complemented by high quality bus routes where a tram cannot be justified.
"The success cascades out from the city too, as modal shift to public transport frees road space right across Greater Nottingham, delivering more reliable public transport and more reliable trips by car, for those few journeys that cannot be made on public transport. Everyone is a winner with a tram system!"
http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/public_transport/trams/nottingham
Benefits of tram developments in Nottingham
Economy: Line 1 of NET has had a considerable impact on the Citys economy. Central government have recognised the importance of cities as drivers of the national economy in the UK and we are seeing increased support for this role. The City centre is still witnessing considerable development and further retailers moving in to the area. The tram (as part of the transport system) is required to ensure that Nottingham retains its place as one of the leading retail centres in the UK. It is also important to enable staff of commercial and service sector companies to enter and leave efficiently (eg Capital One, city centre financial and legal staff)
Congestion: The development of Line 1 was very much on the premise that unless something radical was done then we would experience gridlock around 2010. Line 1 has provided some alleviation, but traffic growth in general has failed to eliminate this threat. From many parts of the City commuting by cycle, public transport and car now take similar times. Though this may be an incentive to encourage modal shift, there is a need to improve overall journey times and encourage non-essential traffic movements to move to other forms of transport.
The cost of congestion to Nottingham business will make it less competitive and encourage companies to relocate outside the City centre. This is undesirable from a social perspective and would only increase the deprivation of inner city areas.
Regeneration (along the route): Line 1 has demonstrated considerable potential for regeneration along tram routes.
Hucknall (at the northern end of route 1) is currently demonstrating real regeneration. The building of the Tesco store alongside the tram has been a spur for regeneration. It has opened up land, for example Butlers Hill is nearly completed as a new site for business that can attract staff via the tram. Hucknall Market Square developments have encouraged increased tourism, higher quality apartment type accommodation and a general uplift of commercial properties in the town.
Similarly around Hyson Green we have seen the development of the new art gallery (New Art Exchange) and considerable public investment in new infrastructure. The tram has also encouraged development of commercial businesses, such as Tenon, to expand their operations close to the tram. We are also now starting to see considerable changes in the letting of housing in the area. The Radford/Hyson Green area is the first housing area as you leave the City centre on the tram and is starting to become more popular with first time buyers or renters. This is a considerable spur to regeneration of the area.
Regeneration (city centre): The tram developments as part of the transport planning has been a major contributor to encouraging further regeneration of the city centre. Public sector commitment to Public Realm works (such as the Market Square development) have made a considerable impact and have in many ways been encouraged by the success of the tram. The commitment to civilising the city centre has encouraged major private sector investment in the city such as Westfields commitment to the Broadmarsh development, Helical Bar development of Trinity Square and considerable commercial development along the Fletcher Gate area.
Phase 2 will encourage similar improvements across the city.
Nottingham development areas: The Government support for cities in general is encouraging, building on the economic successes of regenerated cities as drivers of City/regional economies. The recent Growth Point proposals for Nottingham will provide an increased number of residents accessing local transport and roads as well as providing increased labour for the economy. It will be essential that the transport system can accommodate this increased patronage (a number of the potential growth point sites are to the south of the city and would be well served by Phase 2).
Environment: There is no doubt that the tram and its ability to encourage modal shift and hopefully enable other traffic to flow more easily will have a major beneficial effect on the quality of life of residents and make the City a more attractive proposition for business and tourism. The tram also encourages greater pedestrian movement which is also a positive health benefit.
Economic Inclusion: Nottingham exhibits a major paradox. In terms of deprivation Nottingham ranks as 7th most deprived (Index of multiple deprivation, Department of Communities and Local Government); and yet it is the 3rd richest of the Core Cities in terms of GVA (GVA Headline Series 2006 (2004 data), Office of National Statistics).
The outer estates of Nottingham (Bulwell, Clifton, Bestwood etc) are areas of high unemployment, low skills and often disengagement from mainstream activities. Whilst the tram on its own will not solve these social problems it helps provide access to training and employment. GNP working with the City, Job Centre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council has developed a Making the Connection model that aims to target those in deprived communities on long term benefit or single parents who may wish to re-enter the labour market. Access to affordable transport is cited by both participants and managers as a major inhibitor in reconnecting these people to mainstream services and longer term jobs.
Twenty First Century Solutions: It is also impossible to neglect the civic pride element the tram has brought to the city. The symbolism has, I believe, had a positive effect on the perceptions many people have of Nottingham. Whilst the boundary issues of Nottingham ensure that it is often cited for negative crime and drugs stories, the tram has been symbolic of a more modern and dynamic city. Many visitors and new students have commented on the modern face of the city symbolised by the tram and reflected in the developments it has encouraged and enabled.
http://www.netphasetwo.com/07/pdfs/121207/Martin Gawith GNP Statement of Evidence.doc
Modal shift
Light rail is proven to attract motorists out of cars - their use has dropped by nearly 19% in Croydon since Tramlink tram began
operations in 2000. Significant modal shift - 20%-40% - from the private car has occurred in other cities where LRT has been introduced. 22 million car trips a year have beentaken off roads by UK light rail schemes.
Experience in the UK and abroad shows that LRT promotes regeneration.Light rail can produce significant inward
investment in a locality. Light rail has a strong positive impact on employment and property prices Since Croydon Tramlink was built, nearby residential property prices have risen significantly. Light rail can help focus development, rather than encouraging urban sprawl. Rails in the ground make a political statement of commitment. Traffic-free areas encourage more shoppers. Trams do not destroy the atmosphere.
Trams produce minimal pollution at the point of use and reduce overall demand for power by the use of regenerative braking. Tramways can also cut noise pollution by reducing cars and buses in a city centre. Vehicles that run on steel rails are at least three times more energy efficient than those with rubber tyres on tarmac. LRT does not depend on fossil fuels. Trams can provide greater capacity than car and bus with less environmental impact
http://www.lrta.org/LRTA_PR07-4a.pdf
New light rail schemes are far better at attracting motorists and cutting congestion than improvements to bus services, according to a new report, launched today (23/2/05).
What light rail can do for cities (produced for pteg-Passenger Transport Executive Group by consultants Steer Davies Gleave, and available at http://www.pteg.net/lightrailandcities.htm) reviews the record of the seven operational UK light rail schemes. It finds that UK light rail is delivering on ridership, regeneration and modal shift. The reports findings include:
· Typically, light rail achieves six times the level of traffic reduction achieved by major improvements to bus services. Around 20% of rush hour light rail users have switched from the car - compared with between 4% and 6.5% for bus improvement schemes. At the weekends, up to 50% of light rail passengers previously travelled by car
· All UK light rail and tram systems are popular and are near or at capacity in the rush-hours. UK light rail now takes 22 million car journeys off the road every year
· When passenger numbers are high, light rail can be more cost effective than the bus alternative
· Tram schemes have played an important part in delivering regeneration and shaping how and where it occurs. All UK tram schemes have led to increases in commercial and residential property values
http://www.nexus.org.uk/wps/wcm/con...+the+bus+for+getting+people+out+of+their+cars
In comparing light rail and busway costs it is important to ensure a like for like comparison. The CPT(UK) in their submission to the ETRA Inquiry said that "For a complete new system on reserved track . . . the capital cost [of a busway] could be similar to that of a light rail line". Buses have a role in short journey, lower volume applications and trams are more economic where passenger demand requires at least a 10 minute tram service. This takes into account that:
in terms of capacity two buses are needed for one tram;
in terms of speed two buses are needed for one tram;
in terms of life span between three and five buses are needed for one tram; and
the higher staff/passenger ratio on tramway systems will result in broadly similar operational costs per passenger at higher traffic volumes.
Benefits of Light Rail
The costs of LRT systems must be set against their proven benefits;
tramways are successful in attracting people out of motor cars. A modal shift of 15%-20% is achieved on UK tramwayssomething never achieved with buses;
rail systems are capable of supporting regeneration; the DLR is the most outstanding example of this. Research in Manchester and Croydon has demonstrated similar effects;
LRT can benefit the environmentnot only do trams not emit pollution at the point of use, but they can also use electricity from renewable resources;
LRT can be used to serve and encourage new developments without disfiguring the landscape with congested roadsit is noticeable that new housing schemes in the Thames Gateway are predicated on rail services (DLR to Barking etc). Future developments will need to be based around heavy and light rail services if they are not to generate "M4" congestion phenomena.
Given the lower benefits of a bus-based scheme a tramway will frequently offer better value for money.
2. WHAT LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL
The LRT Forum consider that the success of a light rail system should be gauged by:
Capacity
Greater efficiency in transporting between 1,500 and 8,000 passengers per hour than other public transport modes, such as bus, metro or heavy rail and the private car.
Modal shift
Achievement of modal shift from the private car to public transport.
LRT schemes provide an acceptable alternative to use of the car in terms of quality, security, frequency, reliability and image. Modern LRT schemes have demonstrated modal shift of between 17-20% based on research by Centro/GMPTE. Both Croydon and Nottingham have been positively welcomed by the residents and businesses which has contributed to passenger usage. While upgrading of bus services produces increased passenger flows these are generally attributable to changes in travel patterns by existing public transport users rather than to shift from car to bus.
Optimised highway use
Light rail provides the highest level of passenger carrying capacity per metre of road width compared with bus and car usage.
Reliability
Light rail is more reliable in terms of frequency and waiting time than bus, given fixed track and junction priority, contributing to higher economic productivity, and less stress suffered by individuals.
Environmental benefit
Light rail is capable of delivering improvements to the cityscape urban fabric: the integration of walking and cycling, reduction in air/noise pollution, reduction in road traffic accidents. It also has a role in encouraging social inclusion. DLR and Croydon have demonstrated regeneration effects.
Safety and accessibility
Safety and accessibility are major integral elements of modern light rail schemes. Level floor boarding, passenger help points, CCTV, lighting, and the use of conductors, contribute to a safe, and accessible secure environment.
Integration
Integration of transport modes and networks is fundamental to the success of public transport including light rail. Integration requires planning of convenient multi modal interchanges, use of multi-modal ticketing schemes and consistent fares structures, provision of passenger information on a modal basis, and compatible passenger treatment (eg consistent passengers' charters). Planning of park and ride facilities and encouragement of feeder bus services assist the public to make use of light rail.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/378we44.htm
Twenty five years ago the Coalition Government of Sir Charles Court in Western Australia closed down the Fremantle railway line. The stated rationale was that buses would do the job better as they were cheaper and more flexible. In reality they wanted to build a freeway down part of the rail reserve. For the transport planners trains were a symbol of the old economy and WA was going for the car in a big way, with buses to pick up those few who couldnt manage a car, and with freeways to service the rapidly sprawling suburbs. The land use assumptions were part of their package the idea that Australian cities would turn back in and redevelop around the train system was not imaginable.
As soon as the rail line was closed patronage on the replacement buses for the line fell by 30% and resolutely remained there over the next four years as I began the campaign to bring back the Fremantle train and build a decent service across the city. In 1983 the ALP Government was elected with a mandate to restore the train service. The 30% lost patronage immediately returned to the old diesels much to the amazement of the transport planners.
http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/Documents/Newman-Dissent.doc
Last edited:
AlexS
Established Member
When Mr Metroland says Railway Experience, he doesn't mean train spotting - he means railway work
Some of which I happen to know isn't all that different to working your average computer - just with a bit more thinking involved!
He can tell you himself what he got up to if he wants but I will vouch for him that he's got the credentials on the railway to have an idea what he's on about.
Some of which I happen to know isn't all that different to working your average computer - just with a bit more thinking involved!
He can tell you himself what he got up to if he wants but I will vouch for him that he's got the credentials on the railway to have an idea what he's on about.
- Status