Liverpool Underground Circle Line

[tbtc]

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

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

You judge something to the best. Even bus systems.

Ever feel you're banging your head against a brick wall? :roll:

I'll try to keep this simple for you. My local bus route (in Sheffield) has some traffic light priority, long stretches of bus lanes, schematic maps, branded buses with their "Overground" colour, "smart card" technology, adverts, real time information (PC, mobile phone and bus stop displays)...

I know your attitude is along the lines that 'the poor people in the provinces should jolly well just try to copy London', but up here in the real world we *do* have these things. We even had some of them before London did

However, despite all these "toys", bus use is stagnant (as it is in most of the UK). In fact, here in Sheffield buses have struggled to compete with the tram (for example, this month Middlewood lost it's last remaining bus to the city centre; it used to have a bus every five minutes (81-84) now it only has the tram). We even have a "tram feeder" minibus to link into the tram, because a significant number of people will use trams (but won't use buses).

Other than throw buckets of money on artificially cheap services / regulate all services, what do you suggest we do? :roll:

Buses have their place, as do trams, light rail, heavy rail, car sharing lanes and other options. One "solution" won't work everywhere.

 

[inner-city]

Ever feel you're banging your head against a brick wall?

yes.

Buses have their place, as do trams, light rail, heavy rail, car sharing lanes and other options. One "solution" won't work everywhere.

Very true. But many came on this thread defending trams at all cost. Liverpool does not need them, the prime point of this thread.

Also state of the art eco tram-like bendy-bus systems (which Sheffield does not have) do exactly the same - but at a fraction of the cost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When Mr Metroland says Railway Experience, he doesn't mean train spotting - he means railway work

Anyone can take tickets.

 

[Metroland]

Well we can take it you lost the argument then: Not only have you come here and insulted people, you have provided no 3rd party evidence much on anything you have said - your argument remains fairly unconvincing. Personally I would support investment in trams, trains AND buses. But, I'm not going to defend trams at all cost, my chief reservation is this:

'Frank McKennna, chairman of the private sector consortium Downtown Liverpool In Business, said the message to industry was that Liverpool lacked "the collective drive to turn dreams into reality".

"The delays caused by the fact there were so many agencies involved, all failing to find agreement, has cost the city dear," he said. "This is yet another example of local politicians and officials arguing among themselves rather than getting the job done." '

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/14/politics.communities


£70 million before any track is laid, no wonder this is the highest cost place in the world to stick a tram!


However, the system you describe is very like the one in York:

'Private Eye’s ‘Dr B Ching’ has been taking a look at First Group’s ftr (which stands for “future” public transport!) bendy buses that have been operating in York since 2006.

The system is very similar to the bendy bus BRT scheme proposed for Bristol, and we learn that First Group boss, the maybe/maybe not Labour donor, Moir Lockhead insisted in 2005 that, “ftr is the perfect solution for local authorities in the battle against congestion.”

Alas, now York City Council reveals that there’s been a 1.9% drop in bus use between 2006-07 and 2007-08 - in the time, in fact, since “the perfect solution” got underway.

Satisfaction rates among the public have fallen too. In 2003-04 71% were satisfied with their bus service in York. Today that figure is just 68% while there’s also been huge amounts of complaints about ticketing and delays.

Fans of open government will no doubt be interested to learn too that the architects of this cut-price public transport tripe - First Group boss Lockhead and, then, Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling - met to specifically discuss ftr in October 2005.

But alas we shall never know what was said as department of Transport officials say “no notes were produced” of this meeting.

Nice to see such transparency and openess between big business and government around our future transport needs isn’t it?'

http://thebristolblogger.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/brt-york-notes/

 

[inner-city]

No link to that text. The guy
seems to have experience on OHL design, not urban planning.

A part of the design team for most tram system in the UK, knows something about the systems. He is rightly saying:

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.

Not very flattering from one of the design team is it? He also said to me that trams offer no more than modern eco tram-like bendy-bus systems - which have an attractive people pulling image. Have tram-like bendy-buses and call them Tram-Bus, or any other distinct name and they will catch on big time - a positive image. For Liverpool he advocated a monorail in the centre and new developments in the dock areas (some in a World Heritage Zone) - Liverpool had the world's first high level electric rail system.

What you posted was people attempting to justify an expensive system. They may be suitable for the application in many respects, but Liverpool clearly does not need them, when an underground is there waiting for ease of expansion. What the city needs is all the disused rail infrastructure merged into Merseyrail and a monorail in the centres and dock areas linking with car parks (running through them) and Merseyrail connections.

Have a rapid transit underground transport system (using the world's oldest tunnel- what a selling point) with direct airport connections and business will flood in. The egg must come before the chicken. A expensive trundling tram to Kirkby is not going to impress Shanghai businessmen to invest.

BTW, the Welsh want to be on Merseyrail too, it is such a success. They want the current diesel Wrexham to Bidston line electrified. Merseyrail is also at Bidston. This gets people from North Wales and south-west Wirral to Liverpool centre quickly and they want a direct access to the airport (when it comes). There are plans to electrify the line and merge into Merseyrail with the Welsh paying - using overhead lines and 3rd rail after Bidston, using dual-pickup trolling stock.

All very nice, and Merseyrail now reaches Chester too with plans to extend to Skelmesdale from Kirkby and to Burcough from Ormskirk looping to Southport on the Burcough curve. All nice indeed using existing trackbed or lines. All on the peripherals. However, the core of the system in Liverpool is not being touched and has an abundance of disused underground tunnels. The priority is Liverpool centre, not trams or fiddling with the outer edges. That is where resources should be directed - that should be the focus.

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.

You started the insults not me - I haven't insulted. BTW, I am a consultant and have to understand many systems and businesses quickly then come to a conclusion to solve a problem(s) - I override people who have been in their own field for decades - I find many locked into a rigid mentality. I see that in you. I find trams and things easy to grasp and quickly concluded they are a waste of time in Liverpool - a ploy to get government money to justify an inept dept.

 

[Mojo]

Not very flattering from one of the design team is it? He also said to me that trams offer no more than modern eco tram-like bendy-bus systems - which have an attractive people pulling image.

No, they don't! The only example you have given is London, which is a completely different system with lots of public money thrown at it. Even then all it has proven is that passenger numbers have increased. Do you actually know what the modal shift from car to bus is, in London? I will tell you - it is 5% (yes, five percent).

 

[Metroland]

BTW, I am a consultant and have to understand many systems and businesses quickly then come to a conclusion to solve a problem(s) - I override people who have been in their own field for decades - I find many locked into a rigid mentality. I see that in you. I find trams and things easy to grasp and quickly concluded they are a waste of time in Liverpool - a ploy to get government money to justify an inept dept.

You are a consultant? ha, ha, ha! I'd never employ you, you are hopeless and cannot present evidence based data or even debate on a enthusiast forum? You clearly know very little about transport. I don't believe you, nor believe you have any qualifications. If you are a consultant no wonder we are in a mess.

Why are you on a rail forum anyway, doesn't seem very professional if you are in practice.

 

[inner-city]

Well we can take it you lost the argument then:

No. I clearly won.

Not only have you come here and insulted people,

In your world. You started the insulting not me.

'Frank McKennna, chairman of the private sector consortium Downtown Liverpool In Business, said the message to industry was that Liverpool lacked "the collective drive to turn dreams into reality".

I quite agree. A prime base of the regeneration must the expansion of the rapid transit underground with direct airport connection. Not outdated inappropriate trams.

£70 million before any track is laid, no wonder this is the highest cost place in the world to stick a tram!

We don't need wasteful trams.

 

[Metroland]

I'd change career mate, you keep stating these things over and over again, and remain as persuasive as a wet weekend in Skegness. Anyone can come on here and say 'I don't like this, I think that is better'. Well that's not all that interesting frankly, it means nothing.

Present the data, set it out like I think you know what you are talking about. Until then I'll consider you are a spotty six former and treat you as such.

What are you qualifications, I'd like to check you out. If you are employed, I shall be contacting your employer. I'm already making enquires to find out who you are and what your motives are. I note you have posted on other forums.

 

[inner-city]

You are a consultant? ha, ha, ha! I'd never employ you,

You would. The problem with you is that think you are cleverer than what you actually are. You lack simple analysis skills. Sad really.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

you keep stating these things over and over again,

If it is said long enough the likes of you may take some in.

 

[Metroland]

You win arguments by presenting real world examples, case studies, data, facts and quotes. That is why you are not winning the argument with me.

 

[inner-city]

No, they don't! The only example you have given is London,

One has not been fully implemented yet. London is about the one that gets near. The buses are not eco tram-like bendy-buses.

Cities should not be wasting money on trams and building small, or large, underground loops in the centres. Do it properly instead of using an outdated super expensive system.

 

[Metroland]

Cities should not be wasting money on trams and building small, or large, underground loops in the centres. Do it properly instead of using an outdated super expensive system.

Says who?

 

[inner-city]

You win arguments by presenting real world examples, case studies, data, facts and quotes. That is why you are not winning the argument with me.

One one ever would with train freak. I presented the objections to Liverpool's Line 1. Yet this went over your head - selective amnesia. You are waste of time - obsessional.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Says who?

Anyone with half a brain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What are you qualifications, I'd like to check you out. If you are employed, I shall be contacting your employer. I'm already making enquires to find out who you are and what your motives are. I note you have posted on other forums.

Are getting MI5?

 

[Mojo]

One has not been fully implemented yet. London is about the one that gets near. The buses are not eco tram-like bendy-buses.

A while ago you were using London as evidence that buses can create "sustained modal shift." Then it was mentioned how much money that is spent in London, every year, propping up its bus network. I then mentioned that it only created modal shift of 5%. Now you're no longer using it as an example

 

[inner-city]

Do you actually know what the modal shift from car to bus is, in London? I will tell you - it is 5% (yes, five percent).

Which in London is a hell of a lot of people in a city that big.

 

[Metroland]

Pathetic. Please present data, your professional qualifications, who you are, or just go away Why should I listen to someone so arrogant?

This 'train freak' has presented data, case studies and links. The bus freak just keeps telling us he alone knows better. Sorry, i don't believe you. And why do you feel the need to persuade us anyway, did you really think you were going to get an easy ride?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are getting MI5?

No, but I know BS when I see it, I've also seen you in action on another forum. If its political, I'd get another job as well, because it's going to become even more embarrassing for you shortly.

 

[90019]

Diesels are filthy, and noisy and vibrate and like driving a tractor.

Have you been living under a rock?
Diesel technology has moved on a lot. We have a 3 year old BMW 120d, it sounds a bit diesely when you start it up, but once you dtart moving it is very quiet, and i've been in petrol cars that you get more vibrations from.

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.

So how is the power put down from the 1.6 petrol engine to the wheels?
It must have a gearbox of some sort, otherwise the engine would sit running serving no purpose.

8 year guarantee and the power splitter too.

8 years? great, that means that approximately every 8 years, every prius will get a new battery, and even more toxic waste is going to be dumped.

Total tripe. Toyota do not make the batteries.

No, but they do put them in the cars and then they have to dispose of them afterwards, and currently that involves dumping them on a site by the factory, because they can't do anything else with them.


Please, stop talking out of your arse on a subject you obviously don't know much about.

Actually, if you do know so much, tell me, what place does it come on the list of least CO2 emitting vehicles in the UK, and can you tell me what, if any, cars are in front of it, or the same as it?

Oh, and in case you're interested, for eco-friendlyness, taking into account energy and materials being used to produce the car as well a fuel economy and the distance it's predicted to last before being scrapped, a Hummer is more efficient.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Total tripe. Toyota do not make the batteries.

Actually, I'm going to have to bring this up here:

The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution. That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

Still think your beloved Prius isn't damaging the environment?

 

[tbtc]

state of the art eco tram-like bendy-bus systems (which Sheffield does not have) do exactly the same - but at a fraction of the cost

We used to be "bendy buses" (well before the London ones), we may be getting some of the ones cascaded from London...

...but apart from that we poor provincial people have all of the other physical features - eco friendly, new technologies, all that jazz. But, for the umpteenth time, the reason people give up their cars in London is because of the bottomless barrel of cash thrown at public transport there. Maybe we should put a sign on the side of our buses saying "this is a tram" to fool gullible passengers?

Because councils have little controll over bus provision (other than subsidising a few evening/ sunday journeys), it's understandable that local government seek to build things like trams to ensure some controll over transport in their town/ city. Until the competition rules change, we'll be stuck in this mess.

Unless, of course, London had the "competition" that the rest of our buses have been subject to - all of a sudden the massive subsidies would stop, and you'd end up with the fragmented mess we all have (where some routes have three operators, but other areas have no service)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which in London is a hell of a lot of people in a city that big.

...and I'm sure it was very expensive to get that 5% (bear in mind that Stagecoach have managed even bigger modal shifts in Cambridge without ridiculous London levels of public subsidy, or daft "ftr" buses designed to pretend they are trams).

The 5% modal shift in London is a lot less sucessful than the percentage shift from cars to trams in Manchester etc

 

[The_Rail_WAy]

Bring back the trolley buses!





...I'l get me coat.

 

[90019]

Bring back the trolley buses!





...I'l get me coat.

You might regret suggesting that if he doesnt like them!

 

[inner-city]

A while ago you were using London as evidence that buses can create "sustained modal shift."

I never wrote that at all. London is an example for what can be done with buses and they haven't gone the whole hog. The brainwashed on this forum were on about buses being a 4th rate mode of transport and useless. Which of course is tripe.

Then it was mentioned how much money that is spent in London, every year, propping up its bus network. I then mentioned that it only created modal shift of 5%. Now you're no longer using it as an example

It is still about the best, but can be a lot better.

It is clear you all have this rat in corner attitude to successful bus systems. This thread was about Liverrpool having to divert from a needeless tram system to developing its essential disused underground infrastructure.

Only one or two homed in on that. I would have though some would have said, brilliant I hope it all gets going and get the oldest rail tunnels in the world operational. Maybe some asking what it entailed. How old are the tunnels? How many stations? What exactly is there? What will it give the city? Not a bit of it!!! I though people here were supposed to know a bit about rail systems and interested in them. Just an unconvincing obsessional stream of abusive drivel (mainly from one loony) about how good trams are (which they are not) and how bad buses are (which the latest systems are not). Then I posted details of new technology in electric buses in Shanghai using supercapcitors. Silence - not what they want to hear. Laughable indeed.

Even when I quoted a designer of many of the UK trams system who thinks they are outdated. Selective amnesia then sets in. Then it gets personal (sign of losing) insults, ridiculous slanted subjective quotes from newspapers, etc. A little objective viewing can go a long way. People here should try it.

Which by the way, is not what this thread is about. It is about directing resources from a misconceived tram system to extending an existing underground rapid transit rail system in a particular city

 

[dan_atki]

Even when I quoted a designer of many of the UK trams system who thinks they are outdated. Selective amnesia then sets in. Then it gets personal (sign of losing) insults, ridiculous slanted subjective quotes from newspapers, etc. A little objective viewing can go a long way. People here should try it.

And if the insults continue the thread will be locked. Please debate in a civil manner.

 

[inner-city]

...and I'm sure it was very expensive to get that 5% (bear in mind that Stagecoach have managed even bigger modal shifts in Cambridge without ridiculous London levels of public subsidy,

How anyone can compare Cambridge, little more than a town, with London? But they do!!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And if the insults continue the thread will be locked. Please debate in a civil manner.

No do not lock the thread, as that is what the insulters want. Just deal with them directly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You might regret suggesting that if he doesnt like them!

It doesn't go on rails so he will

 

[Metroland]

The brainwashed on this forum were on about buses being a 4th rate mode of transport and useless. Which of course is tripe.

They may or may not be, nobody has said they are not needed or shouldn't be invested in and improved. But if your case was so strong, you'd do a lot better than present the evidence you have already and could back up any points that are thrown at you. You started the thread - you need to persuade people not the other way about - of course we're going to be pro rail/tram in the main, what do you expect?

Saying 'I say this', is not persuasive. I can say, I don't like Boeing aircraft, or Ford cars, but unless I can back that up and give reasons with supporting evidence (that's examples, data, case studies, links) it means no more than me saying I don't like the colour brown. Its like debating with a blamange. It's not even 6th Form level. The designer you keep quoting, with no link, may have ulterior motives of his own. Its not persuasive.

 

[90019]

It doesn't go on rails so he will

I was referring to you

 

[dan_atki]

No do not lock the thread, as that is what the insulters want. Just deal with them directly.

Any more telling a moderator how to moderate will result in you receiving a warning. You are not blameless in throwing insults about either.

 

[tbtc]

How anyone can compare Cambridge, little more than a town, with London? But they do!!!

Yet more patronising attitudes :roll:

The facts are that it's cheaper per passenger to shift people to public transport the Cambridge way, we have all the modern gadgets outside London and that the Manchester Trams have a bigger modal shift than the York "ftr".

Simple

 

[Tom B]

No do not lock the thread, as that is what the insulters want. Just deal with them directly.

Moderators and administrators will do what they believe to be best, NOT act as your henchmen.

Edit: dan_atki beat me to it - the point stands however.

 

[90019]

NOT act as your henchmen.

Why not?!

 

[yorkie]

inner-city - while your proposal would be nice, unfortunately there are many flaws in your argument.

Firstly, it is not well-researched. There is no estimate for costs other than "doubting" it will cost more than the £400m cost of the trams because some "tunnels are already there". A flaky argument.

Secondly, you claim tram schemes are developed by "train spotters", this seems absurd. Why would a train spotter want a tram? And if someone who develops tram systems happens to be a train spotter in their free time, what difference would that make? I can't see the point in using the "train spotter" insults in this argument - there's no need for it!

Thirdly, you claim that the 'ftr' is no better than a tram. I challenge you to travel round Manchester on a tram, then go to York and sample the awful 'ftr' and you will see there is a HUGE difference. The ftr is just a bendy bus, with none of the advantages of a tram and all of the disadvantages of a bendy bus. The only good thing about it is that they have conductors - but so did the Routemasters, and that didn't make them trams. I live in York and I hate the bloody 'ftr'; it's expensive, slow, it zig-zags, and it is as unpredictable in a bus and you can get HUGE gaps of up to 50 mins then about 3 turn up at once, just like with any other bus. It's also a danger to other road users - a tram is far less of a danger as the track is fixed and they are predictable, the tram won't attempt an overtake and then cut in while overtaking you for example!