Tramways: Which towns and cities would benefit most?

[Gareth]

Whilst this is true, I think it misses two of the chief benefits of trams: permanence and sexiness.

1) Permanence. Trams in these days aren't just going to change route with no notice, or be cut, or have their frequency reduced to once a day. This makes people more likely to base living decisions etc on them and so actually use them.
2) Sexiness.
2a) People who wouldn't think about using a bus will use a tram.
2b) Politicians and local authorities who wouldn't invest in improving bus infrastructure will in trams because they're sexy.

They're also a much smoother/comfortable ride. More like a train in that respect.

 

[edwin_m]

Dare I say that battery powered buses would be a LOT easier to introduce to cities than new trams? No need to dig up roads and loads of flexibilty to change routes as time goes on! Maybe put up trolley wires on some parts for charging batteries en route? You get the lack of air and noise pollution in the streets as well. I think Cambridge will benefit greatly if the guided buses are all converted to battery power (and trolley wires put up in the guided sections for battery charging/supplementary power) if only to make the best of Cambridge's unique situation.

Battery buses have their place, generally for routes with lower numbers of passengers, and there are huge numbers of routes in the UK where the battery bus will be the best long-term solution assuming batteries continue to improve as everyone seems to expect. It does however still have particulate emissions from tyres, which it is suggested are a big proportion of total vehicle pollution (brake wear also produces particulates but battery vehicles should largely eliminate this by regenerative braking).

However a tram has lower energy consumption due to the efficiency of the steel wheel compared to the rubber tyre. When the passenger numbers are high enough then it has lower operating costs per passenger, as trams can be much larger than buses so driver wages and other costs are shared across more passengers. So to justify trams we're probably looking for somewhere with a thousand or more passengers per hour all travelling the same route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

loads of flexibilty to change routes as time goes on

This is a disadvantage (from a passenger perspective), not an advantage. Though cities with lots of tram routes do tweak them from time to time - Manchester has swapped the pairings of the ends, and Den Haag reroutes stuff entirely on occasion.

 

[Iskra]

Leeds, Leeds, Leeds!

Which must surely be one of the biggest places in Britain, if not the whole of Europe without some sort of tram system or metro/underground railway.

Leeds being the obvious one in my mind, but also Newcastle/Gateshead should have some form of tram to complement the Metro system particularly linking to the Metrocentre shopping complex.

Just because other cities have them, it doesn't make trams the right solution for Leeds.

As a Leodensian/Loiner. I don't believe trams are the answer. They would add to Leeds' traffic problems, not solve them. The roads simply aren't spacious enough for trams.

The only suitable mass transit for Leeds would be an underground (not going to happen due to the incredible expense) or some form of elevated light railway/monorail.

 

[tasky]

They're also a much smoother/comfortable ride. More like a train in that respect.

The brand new low-floor trams in cities like Brussels basically feel like being on a metro

 

[tasky]

Just because other cities have them, it doesn't make trams the right solution for Leeds.

As a Leodensian/Loiner. I don't believe trams are the answer. They would add to Leeds' traffic problems, not solve them. The roads simply aren't spacious enough for trams.

Here's the full extent of the Leeds Corporation Tramway network that operated until 1959 - they seemed to fit then!

 

[Chester1]

Here's the full extent of the Leeds Corporation Tramway network that operated until 1959 - they seemed to fit then!

View attachment 65549

Not quite the same level or traffic or safety laws...

I have never understood Leeds obsession with having trams. Is it because Sheffield and Manchester have trams? It would be better value for money to build a high quality bus priority system, for West Yorkshire to use its bus franchising powers, electrify more lines out of Leeds and have an integrated rail and bus ticketing system.

 

[Iskra]

Here's the full extent of the Leeds Corporation Tramway network that operated until 1959 - they seemed to fit then!

View attachment 65549

Car ownership and usage has increased massively since then. A tram network isn’t going to magically remove all the cars. The issue is with fitting cars, trams and buses on the same congested roads. Trams and cars are both bigger nowadays too.

 

[tasky]

Car ownership and usage has increased massively since then. A tram network isn’t going to magically remove all the cars. The issue is with fitting cars, trams and buses on the same congested roads. Trams and cars are both bigger nowadays too.

Leeds has a fixed amount of road capacity in the city centre (unless you want to start knocking down buildings and putting more motorways through it). The question is whether you want to allocate that road space to cars, the most inefficient form of urban transport available, or to an efficient rapid transit system.

 

[Iskra]

Leeds has a fixed amount of road capacity in the city centre (unless you want to start knocking down buildings and putting more motorways through it). The question is whether you want to allocate that road space to cars, the most inefficient form of urban transport available, or to an efficient rapid transit system.

Yes I agree, which is why I said earlier an underground or elevated system would work in my opinion. But, unless you are going to build a very comprehensive tram network, which clearly isn’t going to happen, vehicle congestion is going to remain an issue in Leeds city centre.

 

[HSTEd]

Mini metros or buried tramways don't necessarily cost that much, especially with 2.4m width tram trains that can use existing infrastructure as required.

 

[edwin_m]

Mini metros or buried tramways don't necessarily cost that much, especially with 2.4m width tram trains that can use existing infrastructure as required.

A 2.4m width tram costs about the same as a 2.65m one, but only allows either 2+1 seating or a very cramped arrangement of 2+2. If you're going for a tunnel then the tiny bit extra on the TBM diameter ought to be worthwhile for that increase in capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

A 2.4m width tram costs about the same as a 2.65m one, but only allows either 2+1 seating or a very cramped arrangement of 2+2. If you're going for a tunnel then the tiny bit extra on the TBM diameter ought to be worthwhile for that increase in capacity.

A lot of these systems probably have longitudinal seating anyway.
2.4m trams are also a lot easier to fit down city streets, indeed in Nottingham the tram goes down (a pair of) regular city streets near each other.

 

[PartyOperator]

Yes I agree, which is why I said earlier an underground or elevated system would work in my opinion. But, unless you are going to build a very comprehensive tram network, which clearly isn’t going to happen, vehicle congestion is going to remain an issue in Leeds city centre.

Displacing cars is surely the biggest benefit? Trams don't need to share the road with cars, they should be given exclusive right of way. Trams are usually narrow enough to fit separate cycle lanes and wide pavements in too. The only way to reduce vehicle congestion is to reduce the number of cars, which banning cars from certain roads achieves. Tunnels through the city centre would probably make sense in Leeds, but roads full of cars are by far the biggest problem here. There won't be any car congestion on the roads if there are no cars on the roads.

Leeds is particularly congested because it decided to become 'The Motorway City of the Seventies'. Bristol and Birmingham are similar. If you stick a huge motorway into the centre of your city, it will become choked up with cars and no amount of public transport will change this. If you get rid of the motorway, you'll have fewer cars and less congestion. If you can get rid of the road and simultaneously provide a high-capacity, fast alternative way for people to get into the city, even better.

 

[Gareth]

Blocking off roads for cars just puts more congestion on the remaining roads. The best way to get people out of cars is affordable and efficient public transport. For large cities, that means metros and trams on the key arteries.

 

[Iskra]

Displacing cars is surely the biggest benefit? Trams don't need to share the road with cars, they should be given exclusive right of way. Trams are usually narrow enough to fit separate cycle lanes and wide pavements in too. The only way to reduce vehicle congestion is to reduce the number of cars, which banning cars from certain roads achieves. Tunnels through the city centre would probably make sense in Leeds, but roads full of cars are by far the biggest problem here. There won't be any car congestion on the roads if there are no cars on the roads.

Leeds is particularly congested because it decided to become 'The Motorway City of the Seventies'. Bristol and Birmingham are similar. If you stick a huge motorway into the centre of your city, it will become choked up with cars and no amount of public transport will change this. If you get rid of the motorway, you'll have fewer cars and less congestion. If you can get rid of the road and simultaneously provide a high-capacity, fast alternative way for people to get into the city, even better.

You are being totally idealistic and unrealistic. Unless you cater for a lot of journey opportunities, you aren't going to replace that many cars are you? That's why if Leeds does ever get a tram (or any other mass transit) it needs to be an extensive network, not just a token gesture or it won't make a dent in the problem.

Leeds also lack a decent local heavy rail system, so is over-reliant on a ridiculous amount of buses, which further accentuates the problem.

 

[geoffk]

There is a plan for a line in Preston using part of the old Longridge branch.

 

[edwin_m]

A lot of these systems probably have longitudinal seating anyway.
2.4m trams are also a lot easier to fit down city streets, indeed in Nottingham the tram goes down (a pair of) regular city streets near each other.

I don't think anyone does longitudinal seating on both sides at 2.4m width - there wouldn't be much room down the middle. And the layout of a low-floor tram is constrained by the need for the running gear to protrude above floor level, which would certainly rule out longitudinal seating in those areas (look at the space between them on a Nottingham tram).

I agree some cities have to accept narrow trams due to street width restrictions. But you raised the issue as a reason to make tunnels narrower, and if the city centre part is in tunnel this probably bypasses any narrow streets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a plan for a line in Preston using part of the old Longridge branch.

That's a trial run using the cheap and nasty "Trampower" tram. Probably roughly equivalent to the Parry People Mover, but with an early-Vivarail-style (now sorted, of course) tendency towards self-immolation. I wholly expect it to be unsuccessful, much as I think Preston would benefit from (proper) trams.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think anyone does longitudinal seating on both sides at 2.4m width - there wouldn't be much room down the middle. And the layout of a low-floor tram is constrained by the need for the running gear to protrude above floor level, which would certainly rule out longitudinal seating in those areas (look at the space between them on a Nottingham tram).

Nottingham trams have both 2+2 seating and sections of 2 tranverse seats and longitudinal seats on the opposite sides at various sections.

They are significantly narrower but I still think they are easily serviceable.

That said, 2.65m trams would be the ideal, but we have to consider that reducing system capital costs will be a significant driver in getting schemes built.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think anyone does longitudinal seating on both sides at 2.4m width - there wouldn't be much room down the middle.

The Parry People Mover used on the Stourbridge branch is 2.4m wide, and there is tons of room.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_139

And the layout of a low-floor tram is constrained by the need for the running gear to protrude above floor level, which would certainly rule out longitudinal seating in those areas (look at the space between them on a Nottingham tram).

True, though there's the option of going for a layout with a "vehicle" with no bogies, because it's articulated to the next one. Quite a lot of narrow trams in mainland Europe have had a low-floor centre section installed in that way.

 

[PartyOperator]

You are being totally idealistic and unrealistic. Unless you cater for a lot of journey opportunities, you aren't going to replace that many cars are you? That's why if Leeds does ever get a tram (or any other mass transit) it needs to be an extensive network, not just a token gesture or it won't make a dent in the problem.

Leeds also lack a decent local heavy rail system, so is over-reliant on a ridiculous amount of buses, which further accentuates the problem.

You're being naive if you think traffic will reduce without closing roads to cars and you're being unrealistic if you think you can just build an extensive network overnight. I'm not proposing instantly banning all cars, just saying that existing roads are the ideal place to put trams. Cars lose one road, everyone going that way gains one tramway. Plenty of European cities have successfully reduced traffic and they've done that primarily by taking road space away from cars and giving it to more efficient forms of transport like bicycles and trams.

 

[Iskra]

You're being naive if you think traffic will reduce without closing roads to cars and you're being unrealistic if you think you can just build an extensive network overnight. I'm not proposing instantly banning all cars, just saying that existing roads are the ideal place to put trams. Cars lose one road, everyone going that way gains one tramway. Plenty of European cities have successfully reduced traffic and they've done that primarily by taking road space away from cars and giving it to more efficient forms of transport like bicycles and trams.

Closing roads will just move and accentuate the problem on other roads, not solve it.

I'm not saying it can be done overnight, I'm saying either do it properly or don't bother.

The existing roads are not the ideal place to put trams, they are not wide enough. Do you even know Leeds?

 

[tasky]

Closing roads will just move and accentuate the problem on other roads, not solve it.

This isn't usually how it works - in practice it's been observed that having more road space for cars induces demand for car journeys and often makes traffic work, and closing roads actually decreases it. The latter phenomenon is called 'traffic evaporation'. The misunderstanding is based on the fallacy that there are a fixed number of journeys.

A review of a few recent examples from Wikipedia

Braess's paradox has a counterpart in case of a reduction of the road network (which may cause a reduction of individual commuting time).[4]

In Seoul, South Korea, a speeding up of traffic around the city was seen when a motorway was removed as part of the Cheonggyecheon restoration project.[5] In Stuttgart, Germany, after investments into the road network in 1969, the traffic situation did not improve until a section of newly built road was closed for traffic again.[6] In 1990 the temporary closing of 42nd Street in New York City for Earth Day reduced the amount of congestion in the area.[7] In 2008 Youn, Gastner and Jeong demonstrated specific routes in Boston, New York City and London where that might actually occur and pointed out roads that could be closed to reduce predicted travel times.[8] In 2009, New York experimented with closures of Broadway at Times Square and Herald Square, which resulted in improved traffic flow and permanent pedestrian plazas.[9]

In 2012, Paul Lecroart, of the institute of planning and development of the Île-de-France, wrote that "Despite initial fears, the removal of main roads does not cause deterioration of traffic conditions beyond the starting adjustments. The traffic transfer are limited and below expectations".[4] He also notes that some motorized travels are not transferred on public transport and simply disappear ("evaporate").[4]

The same phenomenon was also observed when road closing was not part of an urban project but the consequence of an accident. In 2012 in Rouen, a bridge was burned by an accident; during the two following years, other bridges were more used, but the total number of cars crossing bridges was reduced.[4] Similarly, in 2015 in Warsaw, a bridge was closed; authorities observed an increased use of other roads and public transport, but half of the vehicles usually crossing the bridge "disappeared" (52,000 out of 105,000 daily).[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess's_paradox#Traffic

 

[edwin_m]

Nottingham trams have both 2+2 seating and sections of 2 tranverse seats and longitudinal seats on the opposite sides at various sections.

They are significantly narrower but I still think they are easily serviceable.

That said, 2.65m trams would be the ideal, but we have to consider that reducing system capital costs will be a significant driver in getting schemes built.

The point I was making is that they don't have longitudinal seating on both sides in the same part of the saloon. And I've already pointed out that narrower vehicles don't save any money, unless the city has particular width constraints that would be costly to overcome. Regardless of the seat layout narrower width reduces the standing room. If passenger numbers are lower then going for shorter vehicles instead would be cheaper and reduce traffic disruption - but I've also made the point that with smaller vehicles of any type you lose the economies of scale and it's questionable whether a tram is worthwhile.

 

[AndyHudds]

Not quite the same level or traffic or safety laws...

I have never understood Leeds obsession with having trams. Is it because Sheffield and Manchester have trams? It would be better value for money to build a high quality bus priority system, for West Yorkshire to use its bus franchising powers, electrify more lines out of Leeds and have an integrated rail and bus ticketing system.

What's the answer for Leeds though, the city is choking and creaking under current traffic levels. The bus network is at the mercy of the aforementioned heavy traffic. I work at St James' and it takes 20 minutes in a morning for the 16 to chug up there, Beckett Street is nose to tail and in the evening it can take longer than 20 minutes back to the city.

What's the answer? Something needs to change but there is no quick fix as everyone keeps dragging their feet and not coming up with any solid plans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bus network is at the mercy of the aforementioned heavy traffic.

Because the UK does bus lanes wrong. Bus lanes need to be designed with overtakes etc so the bus only stops when it wants to. The Germans and Dutch have known this for years.

 

[tasky]

What's the answer for Leeds though, the city is choking and creaking under current traffic levels. The bus network is at the mercy of the aforementioned heavy traffic. I work at St James' and it takes 20 minutes in a morning for the 16 to chug up there, Beckett Street is nose to tail and in the evening it can take longer than 20 minutes back to the city.

What's the answer? Something needs to change but there is no quick fix as everyone keeps dragging their feet and not coming up with any solid plans.

Any other European country would have built a metro there by now, probably across the whole West Yorkshire conurbation taking in Bradford as well. It's the largest urban area in Europe without a metro or light rail system and there isn't anything especially unusual about the city that means one wouldn't work. It's not a quick fix but it would have been done by now if Alastair Darling hadn't cancelled the Leeds tram in 2005. I agree with other posters than an underground would be better, but trams would still be good.

Here's the letters page from the time from the Yorkshire Evening Post: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/opinion/a-city-betrayed-1-2136196

 

[tasky]

Just came across this proposal for South Hants light rail

http://www.lrta.org/southhants.html



It did get some government funding but was cancelled in 2005 by Darling (again - he has a lot to answer for)

Hampshire County Council with Portsmouth City Council are promoting a light rapid transit (LRT) system between Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth, which would be Phase 1 of South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT). SHRT is a proposal for a modern rapid transit system which will provide fast, frequent and reliable public transport services. It will offer an attractive alternative to travel on the increasingly congested road network in southern Hampshire, and form an integral part of the local public transport system.
The first phase of SHRT comprises a 14km light rail project linking Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth, including a tunnel under Portsmouth Harbour and 16 stops along the route. Interchanges will be made with the bus stations in Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth and railway stations at Fareham, Portsmouth Harbour and Portsmouth and Southsea. About 70% of the route is on segregated alignment (disused railway) with the remaining 30% on-street. An immersed tube tunnel one kilometre in length forms the link across Portsmouth Harbour. The light rail vehicles, with low floor access, will take under 30 minutes to complete the end to end journey with an anticipated frequency of 7 1/2 minutes during the day and 15 minutes in the evening. This represents a significant journey time saving compared with the equivalent road journey and is therefore an attractive alternative. Provision is made for a separate cycle shuttle service through the tunnel.

The tunnel under the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour will be constructed in sections and lowered into a trench dredged in the seabed. In addition to being a cost -efficient method of constructing the crossing it will allow less deep workings and so enable stops to be built at both Gosport Esplanade and The Hard Interchange in Portsmouth. During construction there will be changes to the way the harbour is used. Consultations have been held with harbour users to find ways of minimising disruption.

Various modes of transport were studied for this route but public consultation and technical assessment supported the choice of a tram.

The ferry link will be retained too, although it is likely to evolve into a different type of business if the SHRT harbour crossing if the tunnel is as successful as predicted.

Phase 1 of the scheme between Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham is being promoted by Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City Council. The scheme is only likely to be built with significant funding from the private sector, and it is likely that a private sector consortium will operate the tram system for the two authorities.

Much of the outline engineering work is now complete, and an assessment of the impacts of the scheme during construction and operation has been carried out.

An application for powers to design, construct and operate the scheme was made to the Department of the Environment, transport and the Regions (DETR) on 6 March 1998. Following the Public Inquiry carried out in 1999, the Secretary of State will decide whether to grant these powers.

Funding for the construction of the scheme will primarily be generated through a public / private sector partnership under the Private Finance Initiative. A business case is being prepared for consideration by the DETR and treasury, in a bid to secure the necessary public funding element. A strong business case will attract the interest of the private sector and maximise their contribution to the capital costs.

Following government approval a private sector consortium will be chosen through a competitive process. It is expected to take about 18months from invitation to tender before contracts are awarded and construction commences.

Following detailed design, the construction period would last for about three years. Building the tunnel is likely to take up most of this period, with other sections being completed in a shorter time. After the system has been commissioned, the first fare paying passengers would be able to travel between Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth.

Light rail services are also envisaged along the Fareham-Southampton corridor, in part sharing Railtrack's existing route. These services would connect with the Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth route and provide a direct link between Southampton and Portsmouth city centres and the residential and employment centres in the corridor. The County Council is working with Railtrack to pursue the technical issues associated with developing the system. The development of SHRT will continue to involve the wider community and Hampshire Economic Partnership has expressed its support for the proposals.

 

[takno]

Closing roads will just move and accentuate the problem on other roads, not solve it.

I'm not saying it can be done overnight, I'm saying either do it properly or don't bother.

The existing roads are not the ideal place to put trams, they are not wide enough. Do you even know Leeds?

What do you believe are the problem areas in Leeds? I don't live there anymore but I don't recall any roads which would be more of a problem in Leeds than anywhere else. If anything I'd say Leeds has a substantial number of wide roads into the centre, and lots of road space when you get there, making it unusually well-suited to trams