Liverpool Underground Circle Line

[Metroland]

Nobody ever said buses do not have a place Tom! In Edinburgh there is a pathological hate for the trams, the public simply do not understand the buses in some of the main streets are up to capacity and a light rail system is needed.

 

[inner-city]

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

That is the problem. A train in a city street - they just don't go. Trains are not for city streets. Totally unsuited to such an environment.

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

Read my posts re: electric or hybrid tram-like bendy-buses and all the frills. They are are bang up to date and cheap all around.

 

[Metroland]

Unfortunately this ignores the evidence - I don't think Zurich, Amsterdam, Nottingham or Manchester have much problem with trams in city streets, especially as much of the suburban areas of these places were built around trams - and cheap doesn't mean they are attractive enough for people to use them - even if they are really cheap. See the post about the York BRT system losing passengers after all the spin it would be as good as a tram!

I would think the Cambs BRT system will be a disaster now that the Cambridge congestion charge is likely to be kicked into touch and possible funding problems for the eco towns. I understand the busway is full of cracks, even before the buses start to run. Never a good idea to put concrete roadways with little play on fen soils.

 

[Mojo]

That is the problem. A train in a city street - they just don't go. Trains are not for city streets. Totally unsuited to such an environment.

If they're unsuited to a city environment, then why do they support regeneration, create jobs and improve the locale like nothing else has been able to do?

 

[inner-city]

You might have a point about a heavy rail underground AND a bus system RATHER than the tram, however,

I talk for the Liverpool region, which may implement a needless super expensive tram system in favour of extending an existing underground. Trams are just a waste of time in the city. They may be suitable for others, but not Liverpool.

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.

In general state of the art bendy-buses (not to mention impending eco technology) implemented properly as a full system can do the same and cost less - and have less nuisance impact of segregated lines, etc. Keep up with the times. Things have moved on.

 

[Metroland]

No all the evidence is, they don't attract passengers - a bus is a bus - its a thing you ride in when you can't afford a car in general. What is the point of having a cheap and nasty system is nobody uses it? Liverpool *might* need the heavy rail system and bus rather than a tram, but I think you are running away with bendy buses with a bit of plastic on the side - they aren't a new thing. Bus competition closed many branch lines and tram lines from the 1920s. If these systems were so good, they wouldn't constantly lose passengers and be full of cars and most cities regret the passing of the trams.

I get the impression you seem to to think that heavy rail loop on the cards if the city went with the bus. History shows, expensive consultants are employed, budgets get cut and nothing gets built.

 

[Guinness]

Unfortunately this ignores the evidence - I don't think Zurich, Amsterdam, Nottingham or Manchester have much problem with trams in city streets....

I agree. Manchester doesn't have a problem with Trams - its the lower capacity Buses that cause the Congestion Problems in the City Centre..

 

[bunnahabhain]

I agree. Manchester doesn't have a problem with Trams - its the lower capacity Buses that cause the Congestion Problems in the City Centre..

Just look at Nottingham for an example of how trams work, and work properly.

 

[inner-city]

If they're unsuited to a city environment, then why do they support regeneration, create jobs and improve the locale like nothing else has been able to do?

The government has become very cool on trams as they are not the big regeneration mover they were promised - they are not a new thing, so all was known before they went into this, so shows a high degree of ministerial naivety.

Sheffield and Croydon have been relative failures. Bang for buck not worth it. I would not like to live next to a tram line. An underground metro is out of sight. Liverpool has it laying here.

You will find most cities can have a small city centre underground loop that runs overground in the outer regions. That is where the focus should be to shift people. They realise you can't have an underground rail system on the cheap overground.

Look at the plethora of subways in Spain in the past 20 to 30 years.

 

[Mojo]

The government has become very cool on trams as they are not the big regeneration mover they were promised

And what do you have to back that up?

"Metroland" has already posted the reason that tram schemes have stalled.

"Without Metrolink it is highly unlikely that the successful regeneration of Salford Quays would have taken place. The Salford Quays extension 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."

"Without exception all UK modern tram schemes have had beneficial effects on both commercial and residential property values." - PTEG/TfL

 

[inner-city]

No all the evidence is, they don't attract passengers

Getting a simple point would be helpful for yourself.

- a bus is a bus - its a thing you ride in when you can't afford a car in general.

It is a thing you ride in to get from one point to another, like trains and trams.

I get the impression you seem to to think that heavy rail loop on the cards if the city went with the bus. History shows, expensive consultants are employed, budgets get cut and nothing gets built.

Cancellation of needless trams enhances improvement of the underground most certainly. As that is where growth and regeneration can emerge - good, wise investment.

 

[Mojo]

It is a thing you ride in to get from one point to another, like trains and trams.

Around 5% of bus users on improved bus schemes are former car drivers - compared with between 20% and 50% on all tram schemes. And the evidence shows that whilst tram patronage continues to grow in the years following their introduction, bus usage drops. The same applies for the "high technology, super-douper, rapid eco bus" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Tom B]

Nobody ever said buses do not have a place Tom! In Edinburgh there is a pathological hate for the trams, the public simply do not understand the buses in some of the main streets are up to capacity and a light rail system is needed.

In some places, they are indeed up to capacity.

However, there's been a lot of movement from private cars onto buses - because the service is so good, and funnily enough people are thus using it.

Things aren't helped by the Firstbus services which run practically empty yet clog up road space - very few genuine passengers (ie not OAPs) use them.

 

[inner-city]

"Without Metrolink it is highly unlikely that the successful regeneration of Salford Quays would have taken place. The Salford Quays extension 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" - PTEG/TfL

Advanced tram-like bendy-buse systems were not around then. I'm sure they would have gone with them and the result just the same. They wanted an underground but it was too expensive. Liverpool has one, and extensive rail infrastructure awaiting, so no need for trams there. But the city has plans to build a tram system.

I am not convinced by Metrolands points. They just don't add up in an advanced direct bendy-bus vs trams comparison. And will not add up when new electric/hybrid technology appears very soon.

 

[Mojo]

Advanced tram-like bendy-buse systems were not around then. I'm sure they would have gone with them and the result just the same. They wanted an underground but it was too expensive. Liverpool has one, and extensive rail infrastructure awaiting, so no need for trams there. But the city has plans to build a tram system.

An advanced bus system was looked at for the Docklands area of London but is was rejected because it wouldn't have created the levels of regeneration they wanted. The DLR was chosen instead - and look at it now. I wouldn't hesitate to call it the most successful rail scheme ever.

I am not convinced by Metrolands points. They just don't add up in an advanced direct bendy-bus vs trams comparison. And will not add up when new electric/hybrid technology appears very soon.

And your points have no grounding whatsoever. Quotes from official reports and well-respected transport commentators have appeared in this thread, but none from you. Some people (myself included) have studied this to great depth and except on low-use corridors they have absolutely no place. What makes you think that untried and untested "hybrid" technology will make any difference? A bus is a bus, a rail vehicle is a rail vehicle. Buses don't work because of the nature that they are rubber-tyred vehicles, which don't have a guidance system.

 

[90019]

Nobody ever said buses do not have a place Tom! In Edinburgh there is a pathological hate for the trams, the public simply do not understand the buses in some of the main streets are up to capacity and a light rail system is needed.

I'm sorry, but are you saying that we don't know our own bloody bus system?
Yes, some may be up to capacity, but that is because of the increased ridership throughout the city in the past decade. And a light rail system serving a small amount of the population is not going to help.

Do you really think the trams are going to help?

Do you know why there are issues with the buses here? It's probably not helped by the fact that we have two main competeing companies in Lothian and First, but then adding to the mix in the city we have MacEwans, Stagecoach, National Express, CityLink, etc. Then added to the retarded traffic management schemes that have obviously been thought up by people who don't understand how traffic works, "ooh, but we closed off roads and made people to pay to park, why is the traffic worse?", becuase you just moved the ****ing problem! You think the council are right? You think they're doing a good job? You think it's a good idea?
My friend, I have lived here for almost 18 years now, half of them within a mile of the city centre, currently about 3 miles away, i understand this city a hell of a lot better than you do, I travel on the buses myself a lot, I use the public transport, I'm around it when out on my bike, I can see what's going on, and we do not need the trams. You think the council know what they're doing? Well, here's an example of something about 200yds from me; there's a junction, it's on an s curve, with a cycle track crossing the middle, a main road goes round these bends, and another smaller one joining it. I use this junction a lot. There are traffic lights, but no lights for pedestrians to cross. Now, the logical thing to do would be to put lights in for pedestrains and bikes, and alter the sequence, but no, the council want to spend huge amounts of money redoing the whole junction, straightening the road, adding a tiny cul de sac and putting in 3 pedestrian crossings there, next to each other at a huge cost, blocking a main road for probably years. Still think the council do things right? What about when they closed The Mound one day, gridlocking the whole city centre? Or when they did it again, only a matter of weeks later? Or what about blocking off a road, reopening it, blocking it again, and now, recently, reopening it again within the space of a few years? Or just resurfacing a road that keeps collapsing in on itself because of a river underneath it, almost annually without strengthening it?
Anyway, back to the trams. As I've explained in a previous post, they won't serve over 2/3 of the city, and the main area they're going to serve was going to have huge numbers of newbuild flats and houses, but that's all ground to a complete halt, so now they're serving Ocean Terminal, which already has multiple bus services from the city, the airport, which has a specific express bus from the centre of town, and the Gyle, which also has multiple bus services that stop right outside the entrance rather than just nearby.
Which would you rather take? A tram which goes from near you to near where you want to go, or a bus that goes from near you to exactly where you want to go?

/rant


Sorry if that doesnt read well, and it probably goes all over the place, but i can't structure things like that logically
It's why I failed my exams last year

 

[Tom B]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that we don't know our own bloody bus system?
Yes, some may be up to capacity, but that is because of the increased ridership throughout the city in the past decade. And a light rail system serving a small amount of the population is not going to help.

Do you really think the trams are going to help?

This is true. The route from my home to uni (25) is packed out on a daily basis (thanks, SNCC) but trams will have absolutely no effect.

Do you know why there are issues with the buses here? It's probably not helped by the fact that we have two main competeing companies in Lothian and First,

To be fair, as I said in my previous post, nobody with half a brain uses Firstbus.

Well, here's an example of something about 200yds from me; there's a junction, it's on an s curve, with a cycle track crossing the middle, a main road goes round these bends, and another smaller one joining it.

Is that the funny junction near Newhaven/Trinity?

 

[90019]

This is true. The route from my home to uni (25) is packed out on a daily basis (thanks, SNCC) but trams will have absolutely no effect.

Yep, I get the 23 home most weekdays and a lot of the time it's fairly packed, as it is in the morning on the way, but, because most of the people get on at Goldenacre in the morning, and most are off by then in the afternoon, they're not going to help at all.

To be fair, as I said in my previous post, nobody with half a brain uses Firstbus.

Actually, i know a few. And when they tried to run the 23, they were really good, but Lothian forced them off the route by putting huge amounts of their own buses onto it (at the last stop there'd be 4 buses, then 2 at the stop before and 2 at the one after, it was rediculous, but first abandoned the route after a couple of months )

Is that the funny junction near Newhaven/Trinity?

It is indeed, It's just down the road from me, and actually I really love it, if you get a green light coming along Lower Granton Road, they're a couple of cracking corners (I've been wanting to say that all day ), really well cambered as well. Good fun on a bicycle too, from trinity, down the cobbled hill, straight across, and round the corner, just missing waiting traffic as you round the corner. Brilliant fun

 

[tbtc]

It's a real shame that public transport enthusiasts are so against other forms of public transport to their favourite mode... Surely there's a place for bus/ guided bus/ tram/ rail/ subway/ First Edinburgh Bus*

(* - actualy - scrap the First Edinburgh Bus reference, I was clearly getting carried away!)

 

[inner-city]

In some places, they are indeed up to capacity.

However, there's been a lot of movement from private cars onto buses - because the service is so good, and funnily enough people are thus using it.

London has come along way. The new buses drop their suspension at bus stops and ramps emerge for pushchairs and wheelchairs, satellite info systems on and off the buses, Oyster cards accepted so no hanging around bus stops, bus lanes and traffic light priority makes them zip through London traffic. The Tube like maps and signage makes them easy to use as well - this is essential and it also give a go-ahead image too. They are a great success and fill the gaps of the Tube wonderfully. Far better than any tram scheme. TfLondon have done a great job. I use them regularly and the info systems work, telling you how long the next bus will be at the stop.

People who slag buses know nothing of modern bus systems. Doing what London did using state of the art eco tram-like bendy-buses and they are a few levels higher again. That is where we should be looking.

BTW, the ride on London bendy-buses is very, very good, they pitch and roll far, far less than d-deckers and even normal single deckers. I also went on one of the hybrid buses they have and they are far quieter than the full diesel buses. The future is electric/hybrid bendy-buses. But the tram-like bendies - implementing what London did in making full system out of it.

Before anyone slags the London bendies, they are not suited to the streets, not bending directly centre. Someone screwed up big time in not specifying the right models.

..and Routemasters are a joke.

 

[90019]

It's a real shame that public transport enthusiasts are so against other forms of public transport to their favourite mode

Oh, buses most certainly arent my favorite, at times, far from it. And I do actually quite like trams, they're just a stupid and completely unecessary thing for Edinburgh

 

[Metroland]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that we don't know our own bloody bus system?
Yes, some may be up to capacity, but that is because of the increased ridership throughout the city in the past decade. And a light rail system serving a small amount of the population is not going to help.

Do you really think the trams are going to help?

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying people don't know the purposes of a tram system. Its not a tram OR a bus, its a tram AND a bus. Tram systems are most successful when buses feed them and vice versa- see Nottingham. The trams merely relieve the busiest parts - its not a question of a small network V a large one.

 

[90019]

London has come along way. The new buses drop their suspension at bus stops and ramps emerge for pushchairs and wheelchairs.

Those ramps are bloody dangerous, getting off the 23, because it's the last stop, they have to switch the engine off, and when they do, the ramps fly out about 8 inches then disappear again at high speed, almost got my ankle twice in the past few weeks.

 

[Mojo]

What's wrong with the evidence?

Buses and trams do compliment each other, but buses are no suitable alternative for rail on medium and heavy usage corridors.

Edinburgh is certaintly a "special" case, it actually has a bus network on which patronage and satisfaction are actually quite good. But being buses they still suffer from the same problem that buses do, a poor social image meaning modal shift is limited.

 

[90019]

The trams merely relieve the busiest parts

Which is exactly what they're not going to do in Edinburgh!

 

[Metroland]

Which is exactly what they're not going to do in Edinburgh!

Er no, we can model this with computers and have real experience. Its all to do with dwell times, passenger loading/unloading. This is what the consultants came up with, people that study transport, which was why the scheme was approved - apart from the modal shift element.

Max capacity passenger per hour per direction

Standard bus 2,500-4,000
Busway 4,000-6,000
Guided bus 4,000-6,000
Tram/Light rail 12,000-18,000

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

Getting a simple point would be helpful for yourself.

I've provided all the evidence, if you care to read the links. I don't argue ******** and platitudes, I can back it up, how about you? Provide me with solid evidence of a modal shift I might believe you.

 

[90019]

Er no, we can model this with computers and have real experience. Its all to do with dwell times, passenger loading/unloading.

Yes, and of course, that's incredibly useful in an area which is no longer going to have the expected population because of the 'credit crunch' meaning that there is no longer any demand for the newbuilds in Leith and there are now a lot of building sites sitting abandoned.

When was this research done?
Did it factor in the large population that is no longer going to be there to use it?

 

[inner-city]

But being buses they still suffer from the same problem that buses do, a poor social image meaning modal shift is limited.

You should use an up to date bus system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I do actually quite like trams, they're just a stupid and completely unecessary thing for Edinburgh

Ditto Liverpool.

 

[Metroland]

So you pair keep saying it means nothing. You need to start using evidence, not just saying, this might happen, that might happen, I prefer the colour green, isn't it a lovely day. It does not move the debate forward.

The Edinburgh trams scheme was studied by Transport professionals, not some bloke sitting at a bus stop with a copy of the daily record. Please Google the official reports and learn something real about the different modes, not just, I quite like the look of these buses. It means nothing, not a thing.

 

[Mojo]

You should use an up to date bus system.

What evidence do you have that an "up to date bus system" will create sustained modal shift?