Are you going to come and personally pay for all of this magic money tree investment outside of the 'Core Valley lines' NotATrainspott'? Because no-one else is. Look at the procurement documents released today. There is nothing specified outside of the 'Core Valley lines'. Zero.
I did look at these procurement documents. All I see is the most generic details about 'capital works to implement the South Wales Metro'. That could mean pretty much anything.
Quite. But by your own admission, Manchester is now lumbered with a transport system designed when public transport use in the city (and arguably, the city as a whole) was at its nadir, not one which reflects current demands. This wouldn't be a problem if TfGM had the honesty to accept that something different is needed now, and the money to do something about it. But so reluctant are they to admit that they have been lumbered with a second rate transport system, their only solution is to ruin yet more of the heavy rail network by pointless conversion, rather than provide what would actually work best. The parallels with South Wales are obvious.
No. Metrolink was designed to handle low passenger numbers more efficiently than the HR system it replaced. It was also designed to handle passenger growth for the next few decades. It has done that job very well. As demand has increased on the Bury and Altrincham lines, it has been met with increased capacity. The system has more capacity to give, but it will naturally reach its limit. That is when they can start to think about ways to build on and improve it. A heavier metro takeover would be little more than a 3CC built in a tunnel and some platform extensions. You've ignored my point about 2CC - was this an admission of defeat? Following your logic, it must have been, because they were changing the nature of the network.
As for your other points, are you saying that every tunneled metro system in the world except London's is stagnating? If so, why are so many other countries building them? Do we in Britain know something they don't, in our infinite light rail-based wisdom?
No. British cities had some of the worst de-urbanisation problems in Europe after WW2. Other cities which kept their urban high density had every reason to invest in metro systems. We only started Metrolink after medium-sized cities in Europe found out that subways weren't a good use of money. After WW2, many cities spent huge amounts of money ripping out trams in their city centres and replacing them with pre-metros because they thought they wouldn't mix with cars. They found out that street-running systems could be just as efficient at getting people into the city centre, at a fraction of the cost.
The only other lines vaguely comparable to tunneled metro in Britain are Merseyrail, T&W Metro and the Glasgow suburban networks. I don't know about the other two, but Merseyrail doesn't seem to me to be stagnating, and new trains are being procured on the assumption of 40% more passengers by 2028. If Merseyrail is stagnating, might that be something to do with there having been no system expansion in 23 years, and Liverpool's anaemic economic performance since 2008?
Merseyrail stagnated because the city did, and the city did because of a variety of factors. In its stagnation, the transport system couldn't efficiently handle lower demand, so it stagnated further. Merseyrail was built for the time when urban Liverpool was full of people working and living in close proximity. When the car and slum clearance came around, that was no longer the case. Passenger numbers went down, revenues went down, but costs could not. The network started losing more and more money, making it economically necessary to cut services further.
Whatever the position, I'm just glad that no-one was around in the early 70s to suggest that Liverpool's heavy rail lines should have been ruined with trams. O often wonder whether the disdain some people express towards Merseyrail stems from the fact that it's completion, at the time the Picc-Vic link was cancelled, was probably the last time a major public spending decision was made in favour of Liverpool rather than Manchester.
I don't have any disdain for Liverpool. Why do so many arguments on this site boil down to anti-Liverpudlian sentiment?
As for the notion that Metrolink has played any serious role in Manchester's growth in recent years, I think that might be a bit more down to colossal public and private sector investment, in particular concentration of public sector jobs (Manchester being the only place outside London to have increased public sector employment since 2010). Still, 10 out of 10 for chutzpah.
MediaCity created a need for transport, but MediaCity happened partly because that transport could be provided. Could MediaCity have happened in Liverpool? Almost certainly not. Changes which are trivial for Metrolink would be a massive undertaking when you're forced to use only heavy rail technology. How much did it cost to add on the MediaCity branch? A few dozen million. How much would a similarly simple Merseyrail branch have cost? Hundreds of millions, and for no additional benefit.
Your talk of misplaced pride is amusing. Which is worse, taking pride in an expensive system which transports a large number of people quickly and comfortably, or taking pride in a system whose chief attraction is, by your own admission, cheapness, just because It's the only system the short-sighted penny-pinchers who run Britain would pay for?
If cheapness means a network can be modified to suit the needs of a city more easily, then it is no bad thing. If Metrolink were as bad as you say, why don't normal people think it? If they think Metrolink is a waste of space and that we should bring back HR everywhere, why are they not demanding it? Why did the public not revolt when the initial conversion was proposed and then performed?
And again!
Have you actually looked at a map of Cardiff? If so can you please tell me exactly what roads in the City Centre you think are suitable for joint use and how there will NOT be an increase in congestion? How do you intend to cross the river?
And why are you still mentioning Manchester? It has no relevance!
You know, I was actually referring to the idea that the tram would take forever to get around these new western suburb developments. Out in the suburbs street running normally means less street running than in city centres, because it's easier to separate trams from other road users. However, the use of street running means you don't have to build expensive tunnels or viaducts. Look at what the Toton extension of the NET looks like. It serves those western suburbs of Nottingham very well without being as slow as traditional road traffic.
Your failing to appreciate Cardiffs almost unique world status in having a major sporting stadium right in its fairly compact centre. Road closures are part and parcel of city life associated with the many sporting events that take place their. Trams will present huge problems as they will mix with the folk who think they are in a traffic free zone.
You've obviously never been down St Mary's on a Saturday night, running a tram down it is a receive for disaster.
Ah, I see. The tram would appear overnight without warning. Innocent matchgoers would have no way of knowing they're travelling along a tram route so will be knocked down en masse. The Police would have no input on street running designs or protocols and would be helpless to stop it all.
Trams have a much smaller and more predictable kinematic envelope than normal road vehicles, due to the peculiar consequences of being restricted to tracks. They can also shift huge volumes of people, on a per-vehicle level but also on a system level. It would be far, far more efficient for trams to carry matchgoers into the city centre than buses.
If street running near the stadium happens, it would be designed with reference to match days. If pedestrian numbers would be too high for it to be safe for the trams to run, then the system would have to be designed to cope. Edinburgh's system is designed for the few times a year when Princes Street is shut because it becomes a static event venue. Otherwise, it provides an invaluable service moving huge volumes of people to and from Murrayfield.
