Have you actually looked at a map?
Please tell me how you are going to get 2 tram tracks down here?
<iframe src="
https://www.google.com/maps/embed?p...80!4f-19.528370143033996!5f0.7820865974627469" width="600" height="450" frameborder="0" style="border:0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
And tell us how you are going to give access to it?
Em, I have. Your embed doesn't work, so I can't see if you are looking at any bit in particular, but that road looks absolutely ideal for street running LR. Of course, it might involve a little more than just embedding the rails in the existing lanes, but it's still eminently feasible. Street running doesn't mean you have to share traffic lanes. You could have the two tram tracks directly adjacent and parallel to the road embedded in grass.
Do you actually know where Cardiff Rhoose Airport is?
Yes, I do. It has a shuttle bus to the vaguely nearby station serving the village of Rhoose, which has an hourly service on the Vale of Glamorgan line. That's really pushing the definition of an airport rail link. A shuttle can be acceptable, but it's only for an hourly service. That's really quite crap. The biggest improvement that would need to be made is higher frequency. Then, if possible, having a branch providing a station right outside of the airport. Thankfully the airport is located somewhere which makes it reasonably viable to have a rail link, as an otherwise standard suburban rail service can just be extended there rather than special services needing to be run. With LR, the cost of adding a branch to the airport terminal would be much lower than the equivalent HR branch, while the possible benefit would be pretty much the same.
Believe me, there is no more room for development in Cardiff. If anything, it is now starting to suffer from over-development at the expense of the surrounding areas.
You really don't understand how compact Cardiff as a a city is if you are suggesting LR will get passengers any closer to their destinations than the 3 main HR stations do.
There is plenty of room for development in Cardiff. When you've got semi- and post-industrial areas directly adjacent to the existing urban development, there's no problem. Sure, the bits which are currently busy might be effectively full, but there's space for the city centre to grow. That growth is good - it means more jobs and opportunities for Cardiff and for Wales. Good public transport will make those opportunities available to people living well beyond the city centre.
The Bay is the only place where LR could possibly make a difference. But as I have said, it would just be a duplicate of the frequent, high-end, high-capacity shuttle bus service that already exists, following the exact same route.
Here's the Bay Car. I doubt if a tram would provide a significantly better experience.
http://www.cardiffbay.co.uk/listings/the-baycar-cardiff-bay/
Wasn't one of those problems with a split network being the extra changes need to reach HR services at Central from the Valleys?
Why is a shuttle bus service from Central better than a direct service all the way from the Bay up to the places where people live? If Bay services are in addition to the ones already running via Central then no one is losing out. If you're headed for an HR destination, you get a service via Central. If you're heading for the Bay, you get one of them. If Cardiff city centre is so compact and walkable, then Queen Street will be fine and will see both services.
Providing a public transport system which is so low quality that it cannot attract new custom is penny-pinching, and counter-productive. If LR systems are so automatically wonderful, and so unbelievably cheap that super-duper provision is possible for all, can yiu explain why TfGM can't provide enough trams for passengers to get seats on an outbound tram at 9 on a Saturday?
Does ATW provide enough trains for passengers to get on an outbound train at 9 on a Saturday?
The plural of anecdote is not data. Metrolink provides more services. Sure, they're not going to always provide enough capacity, but they're moving far more people to begin with. The business case is made by the amount of people a system moves about, not some occasional problems about people being left to stand. If Metrolink meant that the existing number of passengers were having to stand, you would have a point, but it's not.
Give me strength ! No-one is asking fir the equivalent of the St Pancras chamoagne bar. Are you seriously suggesting that there is some good engineering reason why bus stop-type shelters cannot be provided on light rail platforms ? If so, that suggests that light rail systems are being built to excessively low standards.
I thought this was pretty easy to understand. If you're building a new stop in the middle of a street, then any space used to provide waiting shelters is space not available for pedestrians or other road users. There isn't unlimited space available in city centres. Out in the suburbs where there's plenty of space, there isn't so much of a problem. If LR takes over an HR station with pre-existing waiting rooms, there's no reason to knock it down.
For about the fourth time, can you please explain why these two things are mutually exclusive ?
They aren't mutually exclusive. But, having higher frequencies means people won't use the waiting rooms so much. You never have unlimited cash to spend on a scheme and money spent on under-used waiting rooms is money not able to be spent on things which actually make transport even better.
People will not switch to a public transport system which, despite being more expensive than heavy rail over equivalent distances, is so low spec that there is not even somewhere dry to wait.
To wait for less time than they probably spent walking to the stop. If you're going to have to wait 15 minutes, you'll want somewhere to sit down. If you're waiting for 3 minutes, you really don't care.
In an era of generally rising rail use ? Forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed. Where do you get these statistics from anyway ?
I got the figures from
here. Did other lines see such massive increases in passenger numbers?
Those services can be provided without destroying the HR capabilities of the existing lines they branch off from. As has been pointed out to you approximately 1.3 million times, from the available evidence, the only olace where street running is planned is the city centre, where it would be pointless in terms of extending scope of service, and would lead to substantially reduced capacity and much worse journey times.
Haven't we heard that freight will continue to run on the Valleys after LR conversion? If so, then HR capability is going to be retained. Is there a truly compelling reason for HR passenger services to continue running?
What's the benefit of HR over LR running on segregated ex-HR lines? Having a toilet on board the train?
Can you provide any hard evidence to back up your cost claims? Such as official studies into the costs of the two modes? Vehement insisting is one thing but without any evidence......
Equally, where's the evidence that LR isn't cheaper than HR?
That study you want is very likely in the hands of some civil servants in Cardiff. There will be a business case document for LR conversion, which will set out each of the ways the upfront investment is justified.
Most of us suspect that it's because you can dumb down the network with fewer less well paid staff and keep the rolling stock costs downy by providing standing space not seats like Metrolink.Whilst this approach may work on new lines over realtively short distances where there was no or poor public transport previously there will be a tipping point of attractiveness on longer distance networks.
How do less well paid staff make the network less attractive?
People want frequency and convenience, because the railway has to work around the people's lives rather then people's lives around the railway. LR gives the railway much more flexibility to do that.
Given that ATW staff have been told recently by their MD that TfW are expecting the bidders to employ more not fewer staff the magic chimera of reduced staffing costs looks like a mirage.
What you're advocating is a system where there is no possibility of staffing cost savings whatsoever. How can you criticise LR for something your system can never do? If HR can't reduce costs, there's little reason to invest large sums of money into it. Capital investments are justified by the benefits they provide. If there aren't going to be as many benefits, then the capital investment isn't going to happen.
