Liverpool Underground Circle Line

[inner-city]

LIVERPOOL HAS UNDERGROUND EXTENSIONS WAITING TO BE USED

Liverpool has nearly 4 miles of disused rail tunnel under its
centers and inner city. So, why is this half-baked tram idea being
pursued?

Wapping Tunnel: 1.26 miles: 2.03 km
Waterloo Tunnel: 2.07miles: 3.34 km
Dingle Tunnel: 0.5 miles: 0.8 km

Also, the disused Haymarket Tunnel running under the centre of
Birkenhead is 0.75 miles long.

Liverpool has two underground stations waiting to be re-commissioned,
Dingle and St James' at Parliament Street, and provision for another two in
underground tunnel cuttings, Byrom Street and the Cavendish Cutting.

Merseyrail has the potential to be the most comprehensive "metro"
system, underground/overground, in the UK. If all the disused lines,
trackbed, stations and tunnels are brought back into use and seamlessly
merged in. Merseyrail will cover more than London's Underground in
percentage terms of its served population.

Top class cities have underground systems. Second tier cities have
trams. Manchester wanted an underground train system, but could not afford
it, so went for makeshift 2nd rate trams. So Liverpool with a plethora of
disused underground infrastructure under its city goes for ....trams. Yes,
trams. Well Manchester has them don't they. They have no idea.

Merseyrail has in underground rail:

• Six underground stations.
• Two stations at the end of tunnels (viewed as partial underground stations)
• One disused underground station
• Two disused underground stations in tunnel cuttings (viewed as underground)
• At least one station can be built into a tunnel vent cutting (viewed as
  underground)
• Stations can be cut into tunnels (e.g., one in the disused Haymarket
  tunnel in Birkenhead, and an essential station for the Royal Liverpool
  Hospital)
• There are four underground tunnels awaiting re-commission.

So, that is 11 underground stations, which would be 13 if two stations are
cut into the tunnels, and around 5 miles of underground tunnel
awaiting our use.

DfT KNOWS NOTHING OF THE TUNNELS

The Department for Transport in Westminster, regarding the re-use of the
tunnels, has stated "No such discussions with Merseytravel have taken
place".

MERSEYTRAVEL INEPT

Merseytravel need some decent people in their ranks and someone
should tell them about what we have ready and waiting under our feet.
They are unable to focus on what is essential to project the city forwards
- the South Parkway Station white elephant and needless tram scheme
proves that. They have lost the plot. They need big changes in that
organisation.

UNDERGROUND CIRCLE LINE MAINLY INTACT TO RE-USE

above a 1913 map showing the rail lines very well - the reason it is used. The
city is far bigger than this now in area. All the Liverpool area shown on the
map is now built on.

• The proposed Circle Line loop line is in blue.
• The blue and pink are existing disused tunnels
• The blue and green is predominantly cut and cover not tunnelling.
• The blue only is existing used line.
• Tunneling where cut and cover meets existing tunnels.
• The red is the existing unused Wapping tunnel, which is not on the Circle
  Line. This can be used to link the Wirral with Edge Hill and beyond if need be.
• The new stations are marked
• The long blue/pink line is the disused Waterloo Tunnel
• The spur to the south is nice to have bringing in two districts onto the
  Merserail by diverting the Northern Line, and not part of the proposed Circle
  Line. Easily done by cut & cover across parkland and down a duel carriageway.

It is easy to see the great enhancement it makes to the city's underground.
And approx 80% of the Circle Line is already in place. It would create superb
seamless connectivity all over the Liverpool region, especially when Liverpool
John Lennon airport gets a station.

An underground Circle Line is Cheap

Expensive trams are just not needed. Focus should be on extending
the existing rapid transit underground system. That will project the city
forwards. This Circle Line should be the first phase.

The disused Dingle Tunnel is a half a mile long complete with an underground
station. How much would it cost these days to bore that tunnel and build
the station? £400 million? It is there for free.

There are two underground stations awaiting re-commission and one
station can be accommodated in the Waterloo Tunnel in a cutting wide
enough at Byrom St. Other stations can be cut into tunnels and others
left behind when cut & cover tunneling forming a Circle Line.

This new tunnel section would run from Dingle through Lodge Lane
regenerating two inner-city areas. Underground stations being
introduced in London have been a great catalyst for regeneration.

The city centre could have an outer city centre underground Circle
Line for a knock-down price, by constructing a section of tunnel, which
would be mainly cut & cover over parkland to complete the circle. This Circle
Line only uses one of the long disused tunnels, the Waterloo Tunnel.

The other tunnel, the Wapping - one of the oldest rail tunnels in the world -
by Stephenson - is not a part of this Circle Line. It can be brought into
commission later when funds allow. It crosses a currently used Northern
Line tunnel and can be branched into the Northern Line tunnel giving
great seamless connectivity from the Wirral Lines to the eastern lines of
Prescot and St. Helens. Work started on this this branch in the 1970s,
but was cancelled.

It is easy to see the great enhancement this Circle Line makes to the
city's underground. And approx 80% of this Circle Line idea is already in
place. It would create superb seamless connectivity all over the Liverpool
region, especially when Liverpool John Lennon airport gets a station.

AN UNDERGROUND CIRCLE LINE PROPELS THE CITY FORWARDS

An extended underground Circle Line would give:

1. city regeneration
2. sustainable future growth
3. higher profile image
4. attract tourists
5. attract outside business investment
6. attract outside property investment
7. attract overall growth of the airport when Merseyrail
   is extended to it
8. overall growth of the Liverpool Region
9. permanent social improvements in the inner-city areas

All the above points point to extending the underground to achieve city
growth.

NO MORE WHITE ELEPHANTS

We don't need another folly like South Parkway station. Trams will be a
another white elephant. The cost of them both is over £400 million.
Would bringing this Circle Line into being cost that? I doubt it, as most is
in place. And the Circle gives so much bang-for-buck.

NORTH END LOOP LINE EASY TO RE-COMMISSION

The north end Canada Dock line from Edge Hill to Kirkdale is still in
operation for freight. There is talk of reopening this line to Merseyrail
passengers to serve the new Liverpool FC stadium. Many stations are
still there and would be re-opened. The line could form a loop into the city
centre by re-using an old 1840s tunnel, the Waterloo Tunnel from Edge
Hill to Waterloo Dock. To bore such a long tunnel would cost £500
million - it is there waiting to be re-used complete with provision for a
station at Byrom St. It was last used in 1971 to take troops
to Northern Ireland.

Football fans could change at Edge Hill for Manchester and London lines
too. Or change for Lime St if need be. All seamless on Merseyrail.

Although not in this Circle Line idea, there is also the Wapping Tunnel of
similar length to the Waterloo Tunnel, also waiting to be re-used, so a
saving of £1 billion overall before you start. Either of these tunnels can
form the north end loop.

OUTER STATIONS CAN FORM LOCAL TRANSPORT HUBS

Stations on the north end Canada Dock Branch can form local transport
hubs. Hybrid/electric tram-like bendy-buses can operate from the rapid
transit Merseyrail stations and serve the local districts. There is no need
to run very expensive trams from the centre to the districts not served by
Merseyrail. The transport system can be integrated to compliment the
various transport modes with seamless computer ticketing.

A modern tram-like bendy-bus

We don't need dreaming of over expensive outdated tram systems and
other train spotter projects - having modern looking full glass fronted
trams is still trams. They were dropped 50 years ago for good
reasons and the reasons are valid today. We need to see the proper
positive impact such a rapid transit underground extension(s) can give to
the people of the Liverpool City Region. Expensive trams partially just
plug a gap that can be filled by modern hybrid/electric tram-like
bendy-buses - the other gap by an extended Merseyrail. Extending the
underground will propel the city forwards like no other transport system.

ST. HELENS AND SOUTH END LINES CAN LOOP INTO THE CENTRE

An electrified St Helens Merseyrail Line could enter Edge Hill and then drop
down the Waterloo Tunnel and continue around the Circle Line and back
up to Edge Hill and out again back to St Helens. They have access to
Liverpool Waters, Moorefields (business sector), South Docks, Central
(shopping) and all other stations along the way without changing. They
come into Liverpool centre, loop around the main points and then back
out, as the Wirral lines do. The Circle line makes this possible. A line
from St. Helens to Chester, via Liverpool centre, on Merseyrail can be
accommodated too. All is possible if this cheap Circle Line is built.

The same maybe possible with a south end city loop too. Re-use the
trackbed from Halewood to Broad Green and a loop is formed along the
Northern Line to Hunts X, Gateacre, Childwall, Broad Green, Edge Hill and
into the centre and back again.

So three loops, north end, south end and St. Helens. All using this outer
city centre Circle Line as the mechanism. This Circle Line is the core and
must be the next transport project in Liverpool.

MASSIVE POTENTIAL OF UNDERGROUND

All in all we could have a highly comprehensive underground system, that
could be extended even further using trackbed and disused stations. The
potential is enormous. This is where focus should be, not expensive
needless trams

Other cities around the world would drool at having what Liverpool has waiting
to be re-commissioned. Liverpool ignores it and goes off in a foolish
direction!!!

Doesn't Merseytravel know what disused infrastructure is here waiting for
re-use? I doubt it after putting forwards a needless expensive tram
project. It is about time the government came in and had a look at what
those people do and tel them what to do.

-----------

 

[John_158]

Very interesting indeed and i agre 100% espiecially with the re-opening of the Line that runs from Canada Dock through Bootle Baliol Rd Junction and edge lane as i wouldd say that re-opening Edge Lane Station would be an advantage to the retail park and the new park that is currently being built on the former Bus Depot site also would probably cut down the trafic on thus raoad by half.

A Station at Edge Lane and the re-opening of the line would be ideal for diverting Trains to and from Southport in the event of engineering work and would save millions in Rail Replacement Bus contracts as people whant to travel by train and not BUS.

 

[robertclark125]

Well, some plans are being examined to use some existing disused tunnels, following the failure of the merseytram project

Incidentally, it is not physically possible to join the Northern and Wirral Lines at Moorfields, as the Queensway road tunnel runs between them. The norhern line runs above it, the wirral below.

 

[90019]

Top class cities have underground systems. Second tier cities have trams. Manchester wanted an underground train system, but could not afford it, so went for makeshift 2nd rate trams. So Liverpool with a plethora of disused underground infrastructure under its city goes for ....trams. Yes, trams. Well Manchester has them don't they. They have no idea.

Whilst I may agree with the points you've made, this one strikes me as odd.
You can't really make a sweeping generalisation like that. I mean, what about cities that can't have an underground for other reasons?

Mind you, I'm really starting to loathe trams. Edinburgh's currently a mess because of the bloody things. :mad:

 

[Mojo]

Mind you, I'm really starting to loathe trams. Edinburgh's currently a mess because of the bloody things. :mad:

But when they're running, you'll be the envy of many other cities who want such a fantastic way of getting around.

The latest stats show that 50% of second generation tram users in England on a Saturday used to drive and it's over 20% in the weekday peaks.

 

[90019]

But when they're running, you'll be the envy of many other cities who want such a fantastic way of getting around.

Bloody won't.

They're pretty useless. They go from town to a part of Leith where the building of loads of new flats has essentially been abandoned.
They're absolutely no use whatsoever to most of the population of the city, despite the huge problems they're causing.

 

[Ruddocp]

While I would love to see this happen very much, it quite simply isn't. A scheme on this scale is not going to be cheap in any way, despite the tunnels already being there. Merseytravel aren't exactly rolling in cash are they? And the dft are not going to pour that much money into a project, particularly if its outside london. Also I dunno what your problem with trams are, maybe you should go to Sheffield, have a go on the supertram. You might change your mind. I'd be surprised if dft didn't know about the tunnels actually, because there are plans for (some) expansion of the network, just not on the same scale as yours. I'm not sure if this would affect the disused tunnels at all, but there have been a number of problems recently with water ingress into the loop line tunnels, due to the water table rising significantly since the local industry stopped pumping it out of the ground.

 

[Mojo]

They're absolutely no use whatsoever to most of the population of the city, despite the huge problems they're causing.

Tram schemes provide value to a much larger area than the route of their network, encouraging Park & Ride facilities from a wide area, encouraging people to divert their journey routes to use them and increasing land values in areas near stations.

"The Salford Quays extension [of Manchester Metrolink] cost £150 million but created over 3,000 permanent jobs, stimulated £60 million of investment by business and boosted the economy of Greater Manchester by £70 million a year."

Wherever you look at cities with rail or tram networks, they rarely cover the entirety of the city, but they transform the visual perception of the areas in which they run, supporting regeneration. In contrast, road schemes divide areas and bus schemes only serve them.

 

[90019]

Tram schemes provide value to a much larger area than the route of their network, encouraging Park & Ride facilities from a wide area, encouraging people to divert their journey routes to use them and increasing land values in areas near stations.

Yes, except for a couple of major issues:

1. The trams were originally going to go past the Parliament as well, but that was built elsewhere, so they no longer serve that purpose.
2. They were going to serve the large numbers of people moving into new flats in places such as Platinum Point in Leith, however, the building there has been essentially abandoned, with absolutely nothing happening.

What use are they?

• They run from town to the airport, which is great! Except that we already have a specific bus service that covers that.
• They go down to Newhaven, brilliant! Except that all the newbuild work there has ground to a halt.
• They go down Leith Walk! Great, so do at least 8 buses, and they will continue to do so when the trams are running.

The trams will cover a very small portion of the city that already has easy access to the centre. They won't run anywhere on the south side of the city, the won't run out to the east. They'll run about 3 miles to the north, and then a few miles out to the west along a single line to the airport.

So, essentially, they're of no use whatsoever to anyone in the south or east, which is about 2/3 of the city, nor are they of much use to us on the north side, as we have plenty ways to get into town already, and on the west they'll only benefit those living near to Queensferry road.

 

[inner-city]

SLOW TRAMS

Propsed Merseytram Line 1 is a 50 minute service to Kirkby. Buses have to stop at
every stop? I trams does. Outside of rush hour the bus journey time
decrease while the tram time remains the same.

TRAMS HOLD UP TRAFFIC IN CITY CENTRE

The tram speeds around the city centre were abysmal when modelled and
drew lots of comment by the designers. This is because of too many tight
corners, no tram segregation and the city centre loop configuration itself
being too small.

MERSEYRAIL FAR FASTER THAN TRAM OR CAR

What is the point of considering tram time to Kirkby from the city centre
when the rapid transit Merseyrail train does it in less than half the time. Why
would Kirkby people ever consider the tram for a journey to the city centre
with rapid transit Merseyrail available? The Merseyrail station at Kirkby
served by a shuttle bus circulating the whole of Kirkby is the answer.

Why would Kirkby car owners ever consider the tram when they can park
in the Merseyrail station and be in the city centre less than 20 minutes later?
Quicker than if they had driven.

THE TRAM AVOIDS HIGHLY POPLULATED AREAS

The proposed tram line from the city centre to Kirkby totally avoids the large
population of Anfield, and the football grounds, because it poses bottlenecks.
Getting the Canada Dock branch line onto Merseyrail serving Tuebrook, Anfield,
etc, serves these highly populated areas. They could have shuttle buses
serving these areas taking people to the rapid transit Merseyrail stations. And
the station will also serve the football grounds.

Buses currently serve several high density and congested areas.

MODERN HYBRID BENDY-BUSES ARE FAR CHEAPER THAN TRAMS

Modern hybrid/electric bendy-buses with similar dedicated segregation (bus
lanes) will achieve the same as the Line 1 tram for all routes to
Kirkby, for far less cost than this one tramline.

TRAM REMOVES A BUSY CARRIAGEWAY

The tram will take out one whole side of an already busy dual carriageway
at West Derby Rd. West Derby Rd isn't a natural route for people from
Kirkby to take into the city centre, so not benefitting the current users of
West Derby Rd to alleviate traffic on it. The rail line down the roads will
separate communities too.

TRAMS ARE LITTLE DIFFERENT TO BUSES

Buses, even as they are, are nearer to these trams in performance, than
trams are to real rapid transit Merseyrail. A tram-like bendy-bus in bus
lanes will do exactly the same without the cost of track and ugly overhead
lines and masts.

=============================

Merseytram came about because public money was available, they had a guided bus scheme rejected and Mersey Travel had to justify its existence - hence an unneeded tram scheme when the city is full of disused rail infrastructure, including near 4 miles of underground tunnels, awaiting re-commission into the existing Merseyrail underground.

The limited technology of the day introduced trams.

Firstly, why did we have trams in the first place? Trams came about as the internal combustion engine, and road vehicles, were not developed enough. In the late 1800s an electric vehicle beat the hell out an internal combustion vehicle in pulling power. The problem was the electricity to drive the motor - overhead wires could do that. To keep the vehicle in line at all times with the overhead electric pickup wires the vehicle had to be on rails. The ride was superb compared to glorified cart wagons on cobbled streets. No contest, trams came about.

An 1898 internal combustion engines bus

An electric tram - no contest they beat buses hands down

Now let us look at why a comprehensive tram scheme in Liverpool (and other cities) was abandoned 50 years ago.

As the internal combustion engine improved radically, vehicle bodies and suspension improved along with pneumatic tyres and tarmac roads too. This gave greater safety, comfort and smooth ride. The flexible bus was more suited to the needs than running on fixed rail lines.

Cities were rebuilding and extending after WW2 and now faster buses was the answer. Buses were:

• cheap,
• flexible,
• do not cause traffic jams, which the tram was renowned for,
• can stop anywhere,
• do not have ugly dangerous overhead cables in city streets,
• do not not vibrate adjacent buildings,
• do not screech going around tight city street corners.
• as comfortable as trams
• etc

Trams were quickly phased out in cities. All cities abandoned trams. Few people mourned their passing.

What do trams offer us today over a modern comfortable air suspension tram-like bus like this?

The answer is very little indeed. In city streets the tram is still in traffic jams and causing them, so not faster than modern buses. Currently trams are more eco in cities as emissions are zero. New hybrid/electric buses are very low emission and zero kerbside emissions, the most damaging emissions, when stopped at bus stops and traffic lights - the engines are off and they take off on the electric motor. The full electric bus will be highly feasible as superior motors and great advances in battery technology progresses. Not to mention superior suspension

In London LED information displays at bus stops - informing of the waiting for the next bus - and inside the buses with automated voice announcements improve the service immensely.

Running modern buses on dedicated bus lanes mean the tram has no edge on a modern bus. The bus lanes can be used by other vehicles in off-peak times too, so no waste.

Modern hybrid/electric bendy-buses carry 120 passengers compared to 87 on double-deckers.

A modern tram scheme is horrendous in capital cost to implement to a comparable modern hybrid/electric bus scheme, and offers no more.

So, in tram vs modern electric/hybrid bus, the bus wins.

Taking passengers via rails means the travel is rapid. The only reason for rail transport is the dedicated, traffic free, rail track and rapid progress shifting many hundreds of people very quickly from district to district. There is an exception to this rapid only use for rails. In Paris its Metro is just below the road surface on rubber wheels with stations at bus stop frequencies in many cases, but not all. But Paris also has the RER rapid transit rail system which meshes in with the slower Metro.

All in all, running passengers over rails is for rapid transit. Road passenger transport does it better through existing streets, many laid out in he Middle Ages. Putting trains on city streets, that is what trams are, is a rather dumb idea.

So, in rail vs rail transport - underground/metro vs. trams. The underground/metro wins as it is rapid transit.

Trams can only compete with buses, and as highlighted above fail in comparison. They incorporate the worse of both bus and rail.

The Liverpool Region has an underground/metro rapid transit rail system. Liverpool also has an abundance of disused rail track bed, overground stations, underground tunnels and underground stations awaiting recommission. To implement trams over extending the rapid transit rail system when the infrastructure is largely available to extend is bordering on madness.

Trams are not rapid transit.

The Liverpool Region is engaging in massive regeneration projects that require rapid transit systems. Two projects, Wirral and Liverpool Water will require rapid transit access to all major districts to succeed. Without it they will fail.

Having rapid transit underground stations in districts that previously did not have such access, will revive the districts. Evidence from other cities has proven that.

Taking a tram route through a city street area will not increase travel time compared to a modern hybrid/electric tram-like bus.

Liverpool has an existing underground/metro rapid transit rail system, with an abundance of disused rail infrastructure awaiting re-commission. Choosing any other method of rail transport over extending the rapid transit rail network is total and utter expensive foolishness. Folly!!!!

No case for trams

The case for trams is so slim it is not even worth considering. In Liverpool's case, they cannot compete with the rapid transit rail system for inter-district people shifting and cannot compete with modern buses in city streets.

In Liverpool the screaming need is to extend the existing rapid transit underground system - which has most of the infrastructure in place to extend into. This propels the city forwards

.

 

[tbtc]

The disused Dingle Tunnel is a half a mile long complete with an underground
station. How much would it cost these days to bore that tunnel and build
the station? £400 million? It is there for free

...but it's not really free, is it?

The cost of updating existing tunnels to today's modern standards (easily accesable, health & safety etc) means that it'd still cost a fortune to reopen an old line.

As for the rest of this thread, it's a real shame that public transport enthusiasts are so divisive - why can't we accept that there's a place for trams/ underground/ heavy rail/ buses/ guided buses etc?

Also, in Edinburgh's case, the new tram there links the two biggest shopping centres and the airport to the city centre, as well as some major employment areas (like the civil service in Leith, the Edinburgh Park area), links to the national rail network too. Whilst it's not being built in an easy fashion (!), the route at lesat serves most "big" areas.

 

[Tom B]

• They run from town to the airport, which is great! Except that we already have a specific bus service that covers that.
• They go down to Newhaven, brilliant! Except that all the newbuild work there has ground to a halt.
• They go down Leith Walk! Great, so do at least 8 buses, and they will continue to do so when the trams are running.

Not to mention the fact that many people who currently/previously catch buses will, by the time the trams start running, have got fed up with the delays and fare increases, and taken alternative transport!
If the trams ever do start running, this is....

Leith Walk is just that at the moment - walking pace traffic!

Whilst trams may be a welcome addition in cities with a poor alternative, Edinburgh has one of the best - if not the best - bus network in the country!

 

[Mojo]

MODERN HYBRID BENDY-BUSES ARE FAR CHEAPER THAN TRAMS

Modern hybrid/electric bendy-buses with similar dedicated segregation (bus
lanes) will achieve the same as the Line 1 tram for all routes to
Kirkby, for far less cost than this one tramline.

Not true. Per passenger km, trams are cheaper than buses due to the longer life of vehicles; lower numbers of drivers required per passenger; efficiency (steel on steel is better); fuel efficiency (copper wire is more efficient than "alternative fuels," not to mention fossil fuels) and the higher modal shift which trams create.

TRAM REMOVES A BUSY CARRIAGEWAY

The tram will take out one whole side of an already busy dual carriageway
at West Derby Rd. West Derby Rd isn't a natural route for people from
Kirkby to take into the city centre, so not benefitting the current users of
West Derby Rd to alleviate traffic on it. The rail line down the roads will
separate communities too.

Railways are the best method of transport to create social mobility and aid regeneration. Roads divide, buses serve.

TRAMS ARE LITTLE DIFFERENT TO BUSES

Buses, even as they are, are nearer to these trams in performance, than
trams are to real rapid transit Merseyrail. A tram-like bendy-bus in bus
lanes will do exactly the same without the cost of track and ugly overhead
lines and masts.

People aren't stupid. York 'ftr' proved this. Buses, no matter whether the wheels are covered in plastic and how mch you curve the front have a poor social image. Their right of way is not respected very much.

Now let us look at why a comprehensive tram scheme in Liverpool (and other cities) was abandoned 50 years ago.

As the internal combustion engine improved radically, vehicle bodies and suspension improved along with pneumatic tyres and tarmac roads too. This gave greater safety, comfort and smooth ride. The flexible bus was more suited to the needs than running on fixed rail lines.

Trams were removed for the same reason lots of the railways were - lack of political will and the belief that the car would solve all of our transport needs. To an extent it has, but as bus use has declined rapidly we have had an increase in the use of our rail network and, what most people notice, a huge increase in car ownership. There are more households with two cars than with no cars.

The answer is very little indeed. In city streets the tram is still in traffic jams and causing them, so not faster than modern buses. Currently trams are more eco in cities as emissions are zero. New hybrid/electric buses are very low emission and zero kerbside emissions, the most damaging emissions, when stopped at bus stops and traffic lights - the engines are off and they take off on the electric motor. The full electric bus will be highly feasible as superior motors and great advances in battery technology progresses. Not to mention superior suspension

Trams attract far more passengers than buses can ever dream. They are more popular with car drivers. I, for one would never be caught waiting at a bus stop but am more than happy to take a train or tram if it's convenient. The average bus "improvement" scheme creates modal shift of 6%, which then tails off even after a few months - perhaps people are swayed by the glossy literature but realise that a "Showcase" bus is little different from a normal one. 45% of tram users in Dublin used to drive prior to its introduction.

In London LED information displays at bus stops - informing of the waiting for the next bus - and inside the buses with automated voice announcements improve the service immensely.

Anyone who has relied on such technology knows that it is unreliable at best. These systems simply do not work. London iBus has had a go at improving that, but it's still a long way off from the live information screens on a railway station platform.

A modern tram scheme is horrendous in capital cost to implement to a comparable modern hybrid/electric bus scheme, and offers no more.

It's cheaper in the long term, even if you don't count the economic benefits. If you do, as seen in Manchester, tram schemes can re-gain their capital costs in less than two years from its introduction. Even prior to the opening of Dublin's "Luas," land values in some areas en-route increased by up to 20%.

Buses don't create regeneration, they merely serve it. In contrast, railways and trams create construction and permenant jobs, creating direct inward investment in the areas in which they operate.

 

[90019]

• do not cause traffic jams, which the tram was renowned for,
• do not have ugly dangerous overhead cables in city streets,
• do not not vibrate adjacent buildings,

False.

Buses do cause traffic jams.
Trams don't always have overheade cables, for example, the trams in Bordeaux
And buses can vibrate adjacent buildings, especially if they are older buildings.

 

[inner-city]

...but it's not really free, is it?

The cost of updating existing tunnels to today's modern standards (easily accesable, health & safety etc) means that it'd still cost a fortune to reopen an old line.

To upgrade the existing Dingle tunnel and underground station will cost a hell of a lot less than 400 million. You do not need to cost it in detail to see that, as most of it is there. Also it is what it brings to an inner-city area. The bottomless pits these districts are for public money, can be seriously reduced or eliminated altogether.

As for the rest of this thread, it's a real shame that public transport enthusiasts are so divisive - why can't we accept that there's a place for trams/ underground/ heavy rail/ buses/ guided buses etc?

The thread is specifically about Liverpool. Liverpool had the most comprehensive tram system in the country and got rid in 1957 - for good reason which stand today. Liverpool has a plethora of used freight line, trackbed, tunnels and stations than can be merged into the Merseyrail Metro system. This is where the prime focus and direction of money and resources should be, not on another White Elephant project.

Also, in Edinburgh's case,

Please look at the negative aspects of trams - which are real downers, and apply to all cities. Merseytram is clearly designed for mass movement of people, which the existing Merseyrail does very well indeed. So, this quarter-baked scheme is not to compliment but compete. New overground dedicated track splits communities (the other side of the tracks) - of which these trams cannot shift people fast. In short they are trains on the outskirts and huge buses (well a train) in the centres causing jams. So why is this uneeded trams system being built?

 

[Mojo]

New overground dedicated track splits communities (the other side of the tracks) - of which these trams cannot shift people fast. In short they are trains on the outskirts and huge buses (well a train) in the centres causing jams. So why is this uneeded trams system being built?

Trams are a perfectly good alternative for trains for medium-use corridors. They don't "split" communities - it's easier to cross a tramtrack on street than a railway line. Average speed of Light Rail is faster than buses.

Why it's being built - "heavy" rail is more expensive, less flexible and buses are awful things which nobody likes using.

Negative aspects of trams:
- High initial capital cost (cheaper in long-term)
- Difficult to obtain Government funding (political issue)
- Requires roads to be dug up (in the long-term there's less traffic and a better local environment)
- Impossible to divert in case of incidents (nothing can be done about that, but it's highly rare)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think that trains & trams are the BEST way for moving people around medium and heavy use corridors and agree that they both have their place. Buses are no true alternative for the majority of places and I think we should be looking to cut back our urban bus networks rather than expand them. Build more railways & trams - bus links, cycle tracks and car parks at tram stops and railway stations to ferry people into our city centres.

 

[inner-city]

Buses do cause traffic jams.
Trams don't always have overheade cables, for example, the trams in Bordeaux
And buses can vibrate adjacent buildings, especially if they are older buildings.

Buses do cause jams, but the two and three car trams block centres - a trains on a city street a rather a dumb thing, as anyone in who has ever been Strasbourg has experienced when one comes into the street. You feel the vibrations first, then 100s of people are disgorged into a small city street.

The Bordeaux system is very expensive.

Technology is making the hybrid bus more attractive to the point trams have to dropped. Fully electric tram-like hybrid buses appears the way not expensive inflexible trams.

Run these on bus lanes with LED information signs inside and at bus stops, and computer touch-in ticketing as London Transport use, and they stick to timetables and people will use them in droves. Very efficient and comfortable. The bus lanes can be used for other vehicles out of bus hours, which is not the case for many dedicated trams lines. Putting trains in city streets is a dumb idea - and that is what a tram is, a train. We originally only got trams (trains on a street) because of the poor technology of the 1800s - see my post above.

In 30 years the trams lines will be ripped up again as they were in the 1950s - wel in Liverpool they wil be.

The point is:

• We need to shift lots of people all at once, fast, from district to district - Merseyrail and extending this underground/metro provides this with largely ready-made infrastructure awaiting.
• We need in-fill transport that the rapid inter-district system will not provide - cheap, hybrid/electric tram-like bendy-buses does that.

It is that simple. Not difficult is it?

Merseytram was clearly a big people mover system, although not fast, to compete and eclipse Merseyrail. It is just not needed. We already have that functionality in Merseyrail which seamlessly connects all over the region and extended will connect with John Lennon airport and the new massive constructions at Liverpool and Birkenhead Docks

Buses now can use Ultracapacitors not batteries and are charged at the each bus stop. Normal trams are dead with appalling overhead wires everywhere.

"China is experimenting with a new form of electric bus (capabus) that runs without powerlines using power stored in large onboard electric double-layer capacitors, which are quickly recharged whenever the electric bus stops at any bus stop (under so-called electric umbrellas), and fully charged in the terminus. A few prototypes were being tested in Shanghai in early 2005. In 2006, two commercial bus routes began to use electric double-layer capacitor buses; one of them is route 11 in Shanghai.

In 2001 and 2002, VAG, the public transport operator in Nuremberg, Germany tested a hybrid bus which uses a diesel-electric drive system with electric double-layer capacitors.

Since 2003 Mannheim Stadtbahn in Mannheim, Germany has operated an LRV (light-rail vehicle) which uses electric double-layer capacitors to store braking energy."

Electric double-layer capacitor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These ultracapacitors are now so advanced they are claimed they can replace a battery set and used for all electric cars, reaching 400 miles range - we shall see.

This new technology means implementing a expensive tram scheme is folly and such schemes put on hold.

 

[Mojo]

Bendy Buses are very unattractive for road vehicles such as cycles. On the other hand the route of a tram is 'guaranteed' which makes it easy for cyclists to predict their movements.

Trams don't have to have overhead wires. The Ultra Light Rail concept allows for lightweight vehicles which don't require roads to be dug up or for overhead wires to be installed (although it is an option) - http://www.ultralightrail.com/.

As I've said already - you will not get the same levels of patronage on a bus route that you will with trams. You can use trams as an alternative to buses as they can penetrate areas that trains can't - by running on shared track.

 

[inner-city]

Trams are a perfectly good alternative for trains for medium-use corridors. They don't "split" communities - it's easier to cross a tramtrack on street than a railway line. Average speed of Light Rail is faster than buses.

The long segregated tracks are fenced off splitting communities - as rail tracks are famous for.

Trams are not cheaper in the long term as a "tram set" is millions. Buses use mass produced cheap auto components, and as electric/hybrid is filtering in, these will be standard components in truck, etc all over the world.

Why it's being built

Because the government was convinced they are good value for money, which they have now gone cold on. Although Merseytram may get the go-ahead to get unemployment up in the coming recession and produce a folly.

Heavy rail shifts many very fast, so it is a dedicated role. Overland in cities it is not that clever. Underground it is brilliant. Liverpool can have both, as it is all there waiting.

Buses do the fill between stations, or hopper in the local district to the nearest Metro station. As occurs in parst of London - Southgate comes to mind.

I think that trains & trams are the BEST way for moving people around medium and heavy use corridors and agree that they both have their place.

In a city with no heavy rail metro (Liverpool has one, which can be about at least 1/3 larger), I can see that trams can be used for mass people shifting from the outskirts and crawl though city streets in the centre. In short it is a poor mans underground metro - with big disadvantages in the city centre.

Underground stations that pop up in centres enhance a district, look at the Jubilee Line in London, the station is a highly animated spot. A surface line cuts a district and may do the opposite. Indeed, as an e.g., the overground Merseyrail station at Kirkby is not actually in the town centre as the track is divisive.

Liverpool and Birkenhead can have stations popping up in districts in the essential centre and inner-city districts - some are still there unused. There are cuttings in tunnels nearly big enough for a station. The 4 track Haymarket tunnel running under Birkenhead is wide enough for a station with rock cutting. Chose your spot for a station or two.

BTW, if the Wapping Tunnel in Liverpool is re-used and merged into Merseyrail, it will be the oldest used section of any underground metro in the world (1829). It may be the oldest used rail tunnel, of any type, in the world too - some may want to confirm that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bendy Buses are very unattractive for road vehicles such as cycles. On the other hand the route of a tram is 'guaranteed' which makes it easy for cyclists to predict their movements.

As I've said already - you will not get the same levels of patronage on a bus route that you will with trams. You can use trams as an alternative to buses as they can penetrate areas that trains can't - by running on shared track.

A trams or bendy-bus holds the same perils for a cyclist.

New advanced bendy-buses, with advanced ticketing, satellite info displays and dedicated buses lanes (used by others off-peak), will be a new and attractive experience for passengers and will get patronage. They do exactly, what a tram does - one on rubber wheels, one on steel rails and ugly overhead wires.

The money to implement trams can be, in Liverpool's case, be better used to enhance an existing underground system bringing great benefits to the city, inner-city and surrounding towns.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


============================================
What the Liverpool Region needs in transport is quite simple. It breaks down into four parts.

1. Underground/Overground Rapid Transit Rail - The Hard-Core of the System

Underground/Metro

A rapid transit rail system shifts people quickly. Merseyrail is good at this.
The system can be massively extended in time if disused underground and
overground, tunnels, lines and stations are brought back into use.

The outer stations can form local transport hubs with local buses serving the
local areas. A fast Merseyrail train can be taken from Liverpool or Birkenhead
centres to any outlaying transport hub station and a local bus taken from
there for a short local journey.

The first priority is to get this city centre Circle Line constructed out of
mainly disused tunnels..

Merseyrail does not move people around the centre too well. A city centre
monorail can do this effectively.

2. City Centre & Docks Monorail

City Centre Monorail

A monorail can serve the city centre, extend to the south docks, reaching
Albert Dock & Echo Arena and the north docks serving the new Liverpool
Waters. This gives a historical connection with the old Overhead Railway.
A monorail will move people around the city centre very quickly.

City centre stations can be on the side of buildings, such as department
stores giving direct access, and run though multi-floor car parks. A monorail
can drop to ground level and serve main line and Merseyrail stations giving
excellent connections. The trains can be just two cars and run at frequent
intervals and need not have a driver, as the London Docklands Light Railway.

These days monorails are: cheap to construct, are unobtrusive, do not
create traffic jams and are not affected by surface traffic jams.

3. Local Buses

Tram-like bendy-bus

Buses should be predominately local operating from Merseyrail station
transport hubs.

In the sections of the region that Merseyrail does not serve, hybrid/electric
tram-like bendy-buses can operate on dedicated bus lanes. Or even a small
tram network that runs into a Merseyrail station platform, such as Sandhills,
for a quick change onto Merseyrail, into the centre via underground.

4. Modern Computer Ticketing

London leads the way with its Oyster cards, where passenger "touch-in" and
"touch-out" of buses and stations. The cars are credit card sized and can
be topped up with money from machines or local shops. This improves flow
immensely and means all transport is seamless. The system is already
designed and can be bought off-the-shelf.
----------------

Of course, this cannot be done all at once. The priority must be to get
the Liverpool centre underground Circle Line up and running
and secondly, introduce hybrid electric bendy-buses
on some routes as an interim measure.

These transport points will propel the city forwards, not poorly thought out Merseytram. South Parkway Station is an expensive White Elephant and Merseytram will follow if implemented

 

[Mojo]

The long segregated tracks are fenced off splitting communities - as rail tracks are famous for.

I don't know what tram tracks you've been looking at, but I've never seen on-street tram tracks with fences next to them. Even a few parts (not all of it) of the Midland Metro where it runs on segregated track akin to a "proper" railway doesn't have fences along it

Trams are not cheaper in the long term as a "tram set" is millions. Buses use mass produced cheap auto components, and as electric/hybrid is filtering in, these will be standard components in truck, etc all over the world.

What a load of nonsense! Reports into the subject have shown that trams *are* cheaper.

"Professor Richard Knowles of the University Salford also told the annual conference of the Royal Geographical Society last week...that light rail is cheaper to run per passenger kilometre than buses." It's even better when you consider that bulk purchasing of trams and other light rail vehicles can reduce costs by between 15% and 30%." - Transport Times Sept 2005.

A trams or bendy-bus holds the same perils for a cyclist.

No they don't. A report commissioned for the West of England into a rapid transit system for Bristol showed that on-street trams are much safer for cyclists and pedestrians than bendy buses because people are more aware of their route and the right of way of rail vehicles is respected more. Cyclists would prefer trams than bendy buses.

New advanced bendy-buses, with advanced ticketing, satellite info displays and dedicated buses lanes (used by others off-peak), will be a new and attractive experience for passengers and will get patronage. They do exactly, what a tram does - one on rubber wheels, one on steel rails and ugly overhead wires.

There is no proof in that whatsoever. Regardless of how much plastic you put over it, it is still a bus. People DO NOT like buses, they have a poor social image. The York scheme (of which you have provided a photograph) has not attracted the kind of modal shift that tramways have. The West of England report I mentioned above acknowledged that a tram would have higher ridership than exactly the same "advanced bendy-bus" that you have provided a photograph of.

The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway is a PR disaster and rapidly becoming a white elephant. There are strong words coming from Whitehall that it has been a waste of money and should never have been built, and it hasn't even opened yet! Future schemes are very unlikely to happen on that scale.

 

[90019]

Also, in Edinburgh's case, the new tram there links the two biggest shopping centres and the airport to the city centre, as well as some major employment areas (like the civil service in Leith, the Edinburgh Park area), links to the national rail network too. Whilst it's not being built in an easy fashion (!), the route at lesat serves most "big" areas.

But they don't serve about 2/3 of the city, nor do they serve any of the other large shopping areas, for example, Fort kinnaird.
They only serve an area which already has good transport links to the city because of it's proximity (Leith, I'm about 50 yards from the sea, and yet only 3 miles from the city centre), the airport, which as I've mentionned, already has a special express bus service from the centre of town, and an area to the west which also already has a good bus service.

Please don't try and tell me that the trams in Edinburgh are a brilliant idea. I live here, in an area that will be served by them; I know what I'm talking about.

 

[inner-city]

I don't know what tram tracks you've been looking at, but I've never seen on-street tram tracks with fences next to them.

Segregated tracks where the trams does 60 mph are fenced off. People cannot freely pass over the tracks splitting communities.

"Professor Richard Knowles of the University Salford also told the annual conference of the Royal Geographical Society last week...that light rail is cheaper to run per passenger kilometre than buses." It's even better when you consider that bulk purchasing of trams and other light rail vehicles can reduce costs by between 15% and 30%." - Transport Times Sept 2005.

So quite old then. My posts have given the technology changes of buses, that have not been universally implemented, and bendy-buses hold more people. Depends on what buses he was on about.

I suppose saying a rail forum bendy-buses outdo something on rails will meet with blindness.

People DO NOT like buses, they have a poor social image.
..
The York scheme (of which you have provided a photograph) has not attracted the kind of modal shift that tramways have.

Once again, it was quite clear...New advanced tram-like bendy-buses, with:

• advanced ticketing,
• satellite info displays
• dedicated buses lanes (used by others off-peak, so no total waste),
• traffic light priority

will be a new and attractive experience for passengers and will get patronage. They do exactly, what a tram does - one on rubber wheels, one on steel rails and ugly overhead wires.

If the three lines of Merseytram were implemented using tram-like bendy-buses and dedicated bus lanes, Oyster cards, etc, there would be no difference in performance. And both will be attractive transport options. The difference is the trams cost the earth and bendy-buses do not. In Liverpool the tram money is better spent on Merseyrail underground - NOT TRAMS.

Liverpool is full of wide boulevards. Many as wide as motorways with very wide central reservations. Cheap cut and cover tunnels just below the surface can extended Merseyrail - as happened in Paris and Budapest. Then the empty corridors where Merseyrail does not currently reach can be filled with a seamless metro system. All in the future after the extensive existing rail infrastructure is reused.

The West of England report I mentioned above acknowledged that a tram would have higher ridership than exactly the same "advanced bendy-bus" that you have provided a photograph of.

None have implemented to the levels I have given.

The Cambridgeshire Guided Busway is a PR disaster and rapidly becoming a white elephant.

Guided buses are a dumb idea full stop.

 

[Mojo]

Once again, it was quite clear...New advanced bendy-buses, with advanced ticketing, satellite info displays and dedicated buses lanes (used by others off-peak, so no total waste), will be a new and attractive experience for passengers and will get patronage. They do exactly, what a tram does - one on rubber wheels, one on steel rails and ugly overhead wires.

No, they don't! They are still buses. The general public are not stupid. Whatever you call them they are still rubber-tyred vehicles which are less efficient than trams. Unless I was hit with a pretty big stick (in transport planning terms), I would never catch a bus. Who says trams require overhead wires, it is not always needed, technologies without wires *do* exist. And it is purely subjective in your view that overhead wires look horrible, it's like wind power turbines.

http://citytransport.info/PhotoCD/1144_05a.jpg
http://citytransport.info/PhotoCD/4552_68a.jpg
http://citytransport.info/Digi/35643568a.jpg
http://citytransport.info/Digi/3565a.jpg
http://citytransport.info/Digi/832a.jpg
(from Citytransport.info)

If the three lines of Merseytram were implemented using tram-like bendy-buses and dedicated bus lanes, Oyster cards, etc, there would be no difference in performance. And both will be attractive transport options. The difference is the trams cost the earth and bendy-buses do not.

As I said above, trams are far cheaper in the long-term than buses.

 

[inner-city]

No, they don't! They are still buses. The general public are not stupid. Whatever you call them they are still rubber-tyred vehicles which are less efficient than trams.

A passenger car whether on rubber tyres on tarmac or on steel wheels on steel rail is still, er, er, er, a passenger car.

You make the mistake of comparing the existing antiquated bus fleets. You also fail to see that a fully comprehensively implemented tram-like bendy-buss system will do the same as trams. Which it clearly can. If you fail to see the obvious well nothing anyone ever writes will make you see it.

The cost of implemented Merseytram is horrendous for three lines. The same routes using dedicated bus lanes, info displays, etc, using tram-like bendy-buses is buttons in comparison. The money left over from Merseytram can re-open a few of the Merseyrail underground tunnels.

Trams are yesterdays technology, only introduced because buses in the 1800s were little more than cart wagons. Times have changed - trams have not.

As I said above, trams are far cheaper in the long-term than buses.

You believe that. Times change and technology has changed radically in the past 5 years, to the point tram schemes have to be put on hold.

In Liverpool's case they are waste of expensive time, preventing the necessary expansion of an underground rail system.

 

[tbtc]

But they don't serve about 2/3 of the city, nor do they serve any of the other large shopping areas, for example, Fort kinnaird.
They only serve an area which already has good transport links to the city because of it's proximity (Leith, I'm about 50 yards from the sea, and yet only 3 miles from the city centre), the airport, which as I've mentionned, already has a special express bus service from the centre of town, and an area to the west which also already has a good bus service.

Please don't try and tell me that the trams in Edinburgh are a brilliant idea. I live here, in an area that will be served by them; I know what I'm talking about.

Of course one tram line isn't going to serve everywhere. However, if you were building one tram line (which is what the money is there for, at first), then you'd want it to link the central area (Princes Street etc) with the Airport, the two big shopping malls (Ocean Terminal and The Gyle), Haymarket Station, major office areas (Edinburgh Park/ Gyle area and Leith), Leith Walk.

Of course these areas already have a good bus service (mainly the 22), because that's where the existing demand is - it'd be crazy to build a tram to a part of the city that only had a token bus service.

It's the same as when they built the trams here in Sheffield, they linked the main shopping/ employment/ leisure areas (Meadowhall, Crystal Peaks, Hillsborough etc).

The Edinburgh tram doesn't go to Fort Kinnaird, or the new Hospital, or lots of other places, but it's just one line at the moment.

The logistics of building the thing, on the other hand, I'm not defendng, especially considering the negative impact it's had (and will have, given the changes) on local buses. And don't get me started on the "logic" of the council doing this at the same time as other major projects (like the Portobello roundabout, and...) :roll:

 

[Mojo]

Trams are yesterdays technology, only introduced because buses in the 1800s were little more than cart wagons. Times have changes - trams have not.

A modern tram car is certaintly different than an old one. The second generation tram systems are very different than the first generation schemes which were all scrapped, bar Blackpool.

You believe that. Times change and technology has changed radically in the past 5 years, to the point tram schemes have to be put on hold.

Do you know what the New Approach to Appraisal is? If you read it, you will see that Government policy is swayed against rail transport in favour of roads. That's why trams were scrapped.

 

[inner-city]

A modern tram car is certaintly different than an old one.

Putting a glass bubble on the front of a tram kids no one. It is still a
tram. Trams were a revolutionary mode of transport in the 1890s. 50
years on they were outdated.

Do you know what the New Approach to Appraisal is? If you read it, you
will see that Government policy is swayed against rail transport in
favour of roads. That's why trams were scrapped.

Not in urban areas it is not. Preventing congestion and meeting Euro
city emissions targets is on the agenda - they thought trams could do
both but were disappointed, especially in the cost. Emissions
reductions were minimal as trams cause congestion and kerbside (idling)
emissions went up. Inter town or city it may be road.

It is this sort of thing that is a big problem. Building maintenance men
are at risk. Ladders can fall on the wires, etc. I remember them in
Liverpool as a kid. Painters hated them. No one mourned the passing
of trams.

WW2. American P51 Mustangs being taken from Liverpool Docks to the
Rootes Aircraft factory at Speke airport - the Dock Rd is at the bottom of
the hill. They are in partial knock-down form (the wings are clipped
exactly to get through the Liverpool streets) to be assembled at
Liverpool airport and marked for RAF or USAAF - and tested and
delivered by girls. One building has its roof temporary covered because
of incendiary damage.

Look at the ugly overhead wires. Opposite the Green Goddess tram out
of sight, the wires were attached to the building.

 

[Mojo]

You seem to be stuck in the past. A modern tram is more like a train rather than the first generation vehicles.

"If passenger flows justify the expense, we consider that there is ample evidence light rail offers high quality, accessible, urban transport that is comparable in whole system costs to high quality bus systems and is more likely to achieve modal shift from cars, reduce congestion and assist regeneration than any other urban mass transit system currently available" - Transport Select Committee

Have a look at all the reasons for trams and why buses just aren't up to the job: http://www.pteg.net/PolicyCentre/LightRail/

It is buses, with their rapidly declining patronage, poor fuel efficiency (regardless of how you power them) and slow speeds which are "past it."

 

[Metroland]

Buses are

[*]cheap - debatable - they wear our quicker than rail transit, the fares aren't that cheap very often either

[*]flexible - a little more. But fixed routes send our signals of dependability - as well as creating urban generation. There is very little evidence buses do this, especially as they are usually used by the lower social classes.

[*]do not cause traffic jams, which the tram was renowned for - Rubbish, trams are better at attracting car drivers onto public transport and can shift more people per hour thanks to passenger dwell times.

[*]can stop anywhere - not anywhere, but no more than a cheap tram system

[*]do not have ugly dangerous overhead cables in city streets - many of London's trams had underground third rail. Modern trams could be battery power in city centres.

[*]do not not vibrate adjacent buildings - not true, rails can span more ground than tarmac, generally you get a lot of vibrating with heavy buses and trucks which do most of the road damge

[*]do not screech going around tight city street corners - No just belch out highly poisonous diesel particulates.

[*]as comfortable as trams - ha ha! next one

Buses have been losing passengers since the 40s on a continuous basis. They are low class, cheap and nasty. The only places they are gaining passengers in where they have high subsidy like London or give the tickets away. Only the UK and US ripped out their tram systems, much to do with General motors in the US. No other European city did much - all these places are positively enhanced!

Seems like a lot of spin to me, I can back all that up, doubt you can. I believe where these fancy bendy buses have been applied, like York, passengers are down now, and other routes have had to be axed. In London they have caused accidents, and are due to be replaced by the next gen routemaster.

'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.'

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

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against buses, but lets not pretend they are as attractive to passengers and a decent tram or rail system.

Evidence on patronage transfer from car

% transfer from car

Light rail 12.5-20%
Guided bus 3%
Bus lane 3-10%

Source

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2005/amt/02.htm

Trains and trams are also more environmentally friendly than buses and much faster, and not so dependent on petroleum.

gCO2 pass km

Buses 107.3 - some small cars are better
Light rail 78 - as low as 42 for Manchester and Croydon trams
LUL 65
National rail 60

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/pdf/passenger-transport.pdf


First rule of mass transit, unless it is good, people will not use it. The only time buses might have worked if we had a congestion charge, which are now politically impossible.

Most of where rail and light rail suffers in this country is the silly red tape, planning and consutants which added hugely to costs

Some more info here

http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt.htm

You might have a point about a heavy rail underground AND a bus system RATHER than the tram, however, I think some of your bus points are not founded in much real knowledge or expertise. The government have admitted they don't like tram systems very much, because they are too successful in getting people out of cars, and which lowers their tax take. They would rather tax the motorist rather than provide comprehensive public transport. Too many accountants, not even political will to improve quality of life.

 

[Tom B]

I would advise those who don't think buses have a place in a large city, to look at the system in existence in Edinburgh prior to the tramworks starting.