Milton Keynes MRT

[vuzzeho]

This isn't exactly new news, but I just learned about it. Milton Keynes is planning an MRT system. This is to be done through trackless trams and will consist of 3 lines. I wanted to make a thread to hear what others thought about the scheme. I think light rail would probably be better, but it seems like MK's kryptonite is gadgetbahns.

Some thoughts:
There's a lot of empty space in the East. A branch off the pink line after Willen might help.
Extending the lines to the villages right outside MK (Deanshanger, Newton Longville, etc) might be beneficial as good termini.
Milton Keynes Central will probably need a lot of work done if they want good interchange between NR, MRT, and buses.
An eastern entrance to Bletchley (proposed by EWR) could work well with an MRT stop.
Could a future MRT line follow the Marston Vale line and provide a more frequent service than EWR?
Everything is localised around MKC. Are there any smaller hub spots for lines to interchange?

Here's a document about it too: https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/si...c Outline Business Case Executive Summary.pdf

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bodykitted bendy buses and neglecting the rest of the woeful bus network. An absolute white elephant just like the execrable DRT system.

Milton Keynes just needs very high quality conventional bus operation, not this absolute waste of money. It doesn't have the density of development to really justify more. I would personally do this by way of putting in for regulation and doing an all-area single tender to one operator as per Jersey/Guernsey with very stringent quality and coverage criteria, based on "what can you do us for this money"; the Council lack the skill to plan a network themselves (as this nonsense demonstrates).

If the concern is Gadgetbahnen, this is a Gadgetbus of the worst order.

As for light rail it'd be lovely but Milton Keynes lacks the density to make it work. Electric (battery) conventional single deck bus is the way.

Interchange is probably a bit moot; car and taxi journeys are so fast that a need to change buses is a killer to usage (never mind driving - it becomes quicker to cycle). The way the network was in the 2000s was that everything ran cross city with a few variants so most needs (from estate to larger centre) could be served direct.

 

[vuzzeho]

Bodykitted bendy buses and neglecting the rest of the woeful bus network

It seems like more than that. While I think the trackless tram concept is a bit dumb, the consultation mentioned working on the bus network to provide services more about feeding into the MRT network. Additionally, the ARUP document and plans seem to suggest a 'substantially segregated' MRT. That said, I absolutely agree that the rest of the network needs a comprehensive overhaul. It's useless.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems like more than that. While I think the trackless tram concept is a bit dumb, the consultation mentioned working on the bus network to provide services more about feeding into the MRT network.

If it doesn't run on rails, it's a bendy bus; the definition of a tram is a RAIL vehicle with street running. MK has relatively little traffic congestion so segregation is unnecessary, though a few strategic and better designed bus lanes and overtakes may be of help. Feeder services won't work; the car is so fast that it kills the whole idea - the network has to be based, as it was in the 2000s, on providing for as many needs as possible via direct services. Only those with no other option will make journeys involving changing buses - as I said, cycling would be faster, never mind driving.

Optically or radio guided buses aren't trams. They're a waste of money; the sole point of guided buses is to be able to get a two lane bus road with a cycle path onto a double track ex rail formation and to provide a means of keeping cars off it (though personally I'd just put up cameras for that and gain some income from drivers who can't read signs). If not needing to do that, you may as well have the driver drive it rather than sit there bored watching people tap in.

That said, I absolutely agree that the rest of the network needs a comprehensive overhaul. It's useless.

And there's only so much money. The conventional network must be the priority, not this nonsensical white elephant.

I utterly, utterly resent my tax money being frittered away on this nonsense while the conventional network is beyond useless and a white elephant DRT provides cheap taxi journeys for a tiny proportion of users who manage to get one. A world class conventional electric bus network is what we need.

 

[vuzzeho]

If it doesn't run on rails, it's a bendy bus; the definition of a tram is a RAIL vehicle with street running.

I agree. It's a bus and I'm not sure it should be.

MK has relatively little traffic congestion so segregation is unnecessary,

I think segregation would still be quite useful. And as the city grows, traffic will too. Better to avoid issues now.

the network has to be based, as it was in the 2000s, on providing for as many needs as possible via direct services.

What routes would be better for that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think segregation would still be quite useful. And as the city grows, traffic will too. Better to avoid issues now.

I don't. It will complicate junctions and add traffic signals, neither of which we want. Growth should be handled by dualling the single carriageways with bus lanes where there is congestion - reserved land is available to do this.

The solutions to MK's transport ills are mostly to be found in smaller German and Dutch towns, not big cities. It might take up a big area, but due to the low density it's really a small city in how it acts.

What routes would be better for that?

Short of sitting down and trying to draw out a map of the 2001 network I'd struggle to say in detail, but the base of it was services that ran either Bletchley-Wolverton or Bletchley-Newport Pagnell via CMK and via different sets of estates, later adding in the "cross city" Westcroft to Kingston routes. They provided for most needs direct, or with a reasonably OK frequency of connections due to multiple routes to each of the main centres.

People who don't know Milton Keynes often suggest Barcelona style V and H routes, but Milton Keynes is too fast by car for most people to accept changing due to the time penalty of doing so.

Aside from the rather ragtag fleet of breadvans and the short operating day, Julian Peddle's MK Metro had it pretty good, to be honest. To get back there would require big subsidy input, but that would be better use of funds than this white elephant.

 

[318266]

I'd sum this up as "would make better sense as a tram or a segregated busway"

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd sum this up as "would make better sense as a tram or a segregated busway"

I'd sum it up as "would make better sense putting the money into a quality conventional electric bus network with appropriate bus lanes and overtakes".

 

[vuzzeho]

I think this scheme as a tram works best. I am biased towards rail but I think it makes the most sense. While I agree with you, Bletchleyite, that MK needs far better public transport before the MRT starts, supposedly in 2028, I think that the MRT is still a very good move that should be taken forwards (in a less gimmicky iteration). I would love to discuss what MK needs on another thread, but staying on topic, I was wondering if Station Square would need a lot of rebuilding to fit the system in?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think this scheme as a tram works best. I am biased towards rail but I think it makes the most sense. While I agree with you, Bletchleyite, that MK needs far better public transport before the MRT starts, supposedly in 2028, I think that the MRT is still a very good move that should be taken forwards (in a less gimmicky iteration).

I don't. Milton Keynes lacks the density and obvious routes for it to be viable. It's a city where conventional bus is the only realistic option.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to take a tram into town - but the huge sums of money it would cost, both to build and in terms of ongoing operating subsidy, would give the city a conventional electric bus network which would be truly world class rather than just three routes covering hardly any of the city.

I would love to discuss what MK needs on another thread, but staying on topic, I was wondering if Station Square would need a lot of rebuilding to fit the system in?

It needs redoing anyway, it's rubbish as it is (was another example of the Council not being very good at things - having tendered operations I'd give the new operator a lot of influence over a new design).

 

[vuzzeho]

It needs redoing anyway, it's rubbish as it is (was another example of the Council not being very good at things - having tendered operations I'd give the new operator a lot of influence over a new design).

True. I think the bus/MRT interchange at MKC should be a structure in itself, not just a very long shelter. Maybe it'll use the design language of the proposed stop design, seen here.

 

[cactustwirly]

I don't. It will complicate junctions and add traffic signals, neither of which we want. Growth should be handled by dualling the single carriageways with bus lanes where there is congestion - reserved land is available to do this.

The solutions to MK's transport ills are mostly to be found in smaller German and Dutch towns, not big cities. It might take up a big area, but due to the low density it's really a small city in how it acts.



Short of sitting down and trying to draw out a map of the 2001 network I'd struggle to say in detail, but the base of it was services that ran either Bletchley-Wolverton or Bletchley-Newport Pagnell via CMK and via different sets of estates, later adding in the "cross city" Westcroft to Kingston routes. They provided for most needs direct, or with a reasonably OK frequency of connections due to multiple routes to each of the main centres.

People who don't know Milton Keynes often suggest Barcelona style V and H routes, but Milton Keynes is too fast by car for most people to accept changing due to the time penalty of doing so.

Aside from the rather ragtag fleet of breadvans and the short operating day, Julian Peddle's MK Metro had it pretty good, to be honest. To get back there would require big subsidy input, but that would be better use of funds than this white elephant.

You say Milton Keynes by car is too fast, so what benefits do bus lanes add? If there's no congestion they become pointless.
If they're not properly designed they make bus travel slower and unreliable like London Road on Reading (the congestion has added a 10 minute penalty to buses and has made a previously 15 minute interval route into a 5 and 25 minute one making it almost useless)

 

[Bletchleyite]

You say Milton Keynes by car is too fast, so what benefits do bus lanes add? If there's no congestion they become pointless.

They should be used where congestion does occur. There are a few places.

 

[GusB]

Milton Keynes is planning an MRT system.

MRT? You'll have to explain this.

Is it BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) by another name?

 

[Bletchleyite]

MRT? You'll have to explain this.

Is it BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) by another name?

It is a form of bus rapid transit, yes.

 

[vuzzeho]

MRT? You'll have to explain this.

Is it BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) by another name?

Yeah, basically. The proposal (not sure if this is the right term, correct me if not) also mentions a rejig of other local bus services to better serve the 'MK MRT' 'stations'.

 

[AlastairFraser]

As for light rail it'd be lovely but Milton Keynes lacks the density to make it work. Electric (battery) conventional single deck bus is the way.

If apartment blocks are built close to the key arteries in a lot of areas, would light rail close to some of the horizontal grid roads (e.g. H3 and H6) make sense?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If apartment blocks are built close to the key arteries in a lot of areas, would light rail close to some of the horizontal grid roads (e.g. H3 and H6) make sense?

Aside from the city centre and peripheral centres like Bletchley such development is not happening. The opposition would be massive; any Council advocating it would be out of power for a very long time.

Light rail has no realistic place in Milton Keynes (and nor does this scheme). The density just isn't there and any attempt to seriously densify it would meet with huge opposition. Electric conventional bus is the way.

 

[cactustwirly]

Aside from the city centre and peripheral centres like Bletchley such development is not happening. The opposition would be massive; any Council advocating it would be out of power for a very long time.

Light rail has no realistic place in Milton Keynes (and nor does this scheme). The density just isn't there and any attempt to seriously densify it would meet with huge opposition. Electric conventional bus is the way.

It's happening in other areas. The councils have huge targets and have to build them somewhere

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's happening in other areas. The councils have huge targets and have to build them somewhere

It absolutely won't (and shouldn't) happen here. There are plenty of other places to build (brown and greenfield) within the city boundaries. The city could easily treble in size without impacting upon its fundamental structure.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Aside from the city centre and peripheral centres like Bletchley such development is not happening. The opposition would be massive; any Council advocating it would be out of power for a very long time.

Light rail has no realistic place in Milton Keynes (and nor does this scheme). The density just isn't there and any attempt to seriously densify it would meet with huge opposition. Electric conventional bus is the way.

I don't see why the opposition would be massive (apart from historical parts like Stony Stratford and the nicer bits of Bletchley). The new parts are hardly the most beautiful place on earth.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see why the opposition would be massive (apart from historical parts like Stony Stratford and the nicer bits of Bletchley). The new parts are hardly the most beautiful place on earth.

Because there's no way you could continue to have fast roads with residential property overlooking them, and the ease of travel by car is one of the key things people like about the city.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Because there's no way you could continue to have fast roads with residential property overlooking them, and the ease of travel by car is one of the key things people like about the city.

Depends if you replace the closest semis along the key corridors with blocks of flats. You wouldn't need to demolish all of the suburbs, just small strips.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends if you replace the closest semis along the key corridors with blocks of flats. You wouldn't need to demolish all of the suburbs, just small strips.

Now you're definitely getting into "stuff that absolutely is not going to happen".

 

[AlastairFraser]

Now you're definitely getting into "stuff that absolutely is not going to happen".

MK is already close to the expansion limit and the place was built to provide housing, it's probably one of the least NIMBY places in the country...

 

[Bletchleyite]

MK is already close to the expansion limit and the place was built to provide housing, it's probably one of the least NIMBY places in the country...

I can see that you're not at all familiar with the city - hypocritical though it is it is surprisingly NIMBY! But you're not proposing IMBY, you're proposing compulsory purchasing homes to build more homes - you do get that occasionally but it's not common because it will be so strongly opposed.

It hasn't reached any limits. It has no specific green belt and is still expanding out and can continue to do so, plus there's brownfield land to develop.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I can see that you're not at all familiar with the city - hypocritical though it is it is surprisingly NIMBY! But you're not proposing IMBY, you're proposing compulsory purchasing homes to build more homes - you do get that occasionally but it's not common because it will be so strongly opposed.

It hasn't reached any limits. It has no specific green belt and is still expanding out and can continue to do so, plus there's brownfield land to develop.

At some point, expansion of MK will hit a brick wall. Aylesbury Vale is rammed full of NIMBYs in the parts adjacent to MK, Central Beds and the Marston Vale isn't that much better after the remaining brownfield sites are built on. You can build a bit more out towards Northampton, but not too far.

Hence the long term need for densification (and a decent high-capacity interurban transit system). MK Council can lie to residents and say this won't happen, but it will one day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At some point, expansion of MK will hit a brick wall. Aylesbury Vale is rammed full of NIMBYs in the parts adjacent to MK, Central Beds and the Marston Vale isn't that much better after the remaining brownfield sites are built on. You can build a bit more out towards Northampton, but not too far.

Hence the long term need for densification (and a decent high-capacity interurban transit system). MK Council can lie to residents and say this won't happen, but it will one day.

I can absolutely guarantee you that, aside from in new estates which are of higher density and possibly a redevelopment of the very poor quality housing in some older estates like the Lakes and Netherfield where a good offer to the residents above the actual property value might get buy in, that will not happen.

Development, by the way, has already started to creep into Aylesbury Vale and South Northants.

Buying up suburbs on a compulsory basis and densifying them is a fantasy of YIMBY urbanists who live in cloud cuckoo land and is not going to happen anywhere on a large scale. I would probably consider betting my (suburban 3 bed terrace) mortgage on that.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I can absolutely guarantee you that, aside from in new estates which are of higher density and possibly a redevelopment of the very poor quality housing in some older estates like the Lakes and Netherfield where a good offer to the residents above the actual property value might get buy in, that will not happen.

Development, by the way, has already started to creep into Aylesbury Vale and South Northants.

Buying up suburbs on a compulsory basis and densifying them is a fantasy of YIMBY urbanists who live in cloud cuckoo land and is not going to happen anywhere on a large scale. I would probably consider betting my (suburban 3 bed terrace) mortgage on that.

We should at least trial the concept in some of those estates - if the Lakes Estate (which is already reasonably high density from what I remember) was redeveloped as mixed social-private, no loss of social housing units and at a density high enough to sustain a tram line into Central MK via Bletchley centre and Stadium MK, that would be a good start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We should at least trial the concept in some of those estates - if the Lakes Estate (which is already reasonably high density from what I remember) was redeveloped as mixed social-private, no loss of social housing units and at a density high enough to sustain a tram line into Central MK via Bletchley centre and Stadium MK, that would be a good start.

You don't need one estate like that to sustain a tramway. You need the whole route to be like that.

In MK, bus is the way. Tram is unlikely ever to be viable. Keep that for a new new city - one designed around that.