Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I thought that the Arhus tram system closed in 1971 - I remember seeing the ancient small 4-wheel cars running on 2 routes past the central station when visiting the city as a child in 1966. On topic - I lived in Reading for 6 months in 1980 and recall that it had an excellent municipal bus service, which I understand is still extant. In my opinion, the town is too small and the roads too narrow for a tram system - the previous network closed before WW2 and I don't think it had any reserved track.
If the country cannot afford to build them, than we should cancel the remainder of HS2 and borrow to spend on local transport systems that will replace a lot of local journeys (the car journeys that are often most damaging for the environment, because they are frequent and short).
Thankfully, I believe that, in a decade, we will be in a suitable economic position to invest in both.
That would be silly. HS2 is needed and cutting it down was the biggest mistake ever. HS2 needs to go Manchester and Leeds but that’s a discussion for another thread.
That would be silly. HS2 is needed and cutting it down was the biggest mistake ever. HS2 needs to go Manchester and Leeds but that’s a discussion for another thread.
In terms of decarbonisation, it would have more impact per pound spent if we focused funding on local networks.
But the overall point is that we can afford to do both.
If the country cannot afford to build them, than we should cancel the remainder of HS2 and borrow to spend on local transport systems that will replace a lot of local journeys (the car journeys that are often most damaging for the environment, because they are frequent and short).
Thankfully, I believe that, in a decade, we will be in a suitable economic position to invest in both.
I'm gonna be a bit blunt. I said I was the daughter of a geographer and a civil engineer, so for me the reality kicks in hard when you talk about other transport lines and the business cases for them versus the case for a Reading system.
Thing is, budgets for other links are neither here nor there. The money goes to projects that are more likely to be useful for more people, and the existence of funds for HS2 does not mean that there's a pot set aside for every other town to get nice new stuff
I talked to my mum about this the other day and she told me more about my dad's experience managing the construction of the Nottingham system (I'd forgotten he'd done that but if anyone can combine geographical knowledge with civil engineering prowess it's my parents, so I naturally asked them about it). The expense and hassle he encountered with that project made him say, as a civil engineer, that Reading won't be getting trams. The link to Mereoak would still ultimately have to climb hills at some point. The Basingstoke Road, a good place for the tram with a lot of amenities on the route, goes up and down like no-one's business -- it's at least a storey's worth of elevation above the IDR and it still climbs up before ultimately dropping down via Kendrick Avenue -- with a couple of schools and the student village to create demand for the current bus routes -- and London Road (and if you've ever tried to walk those routes with a gammy ankle it would probably be the same as a tram trying to get up that hill.
I also took the attached picture yesterday while waiting for a train to Twyford to get to Henley (itself a hilly town at the foot of the Chilterns). The platform I'm sitting on is at ground level on the side where most people enter the station from the town centre. But as you can see, it's a whole storey up from the drop-off area and car park and you will have to tackle that situation at some point to link the north of town, Caversham Bridge etc etc with the town centre. I rarely use that side of the station but you'd have to construct many more viaducts to carry the trams around on a level and that's going to push the costs up to the stratospheric level.
Reading being a gap town and not really having the topography for trams is important as a factor in where the money gets allocated for new infrastructure. (If I have £70, I can't both have a new PS5 game AND a trip to Chessington; it's one or the other and I make a decision based on what's most useful for me at the time. I'd love both but it's not possible to have both.) So realistically, your arguments kind of ignore most of the practical issues, even without the fact that new infrastructure would require the town becoming a building site for the foreseeable future; ten years on from the station renovation there's still hoardings around the site of the old bus station etc and no real sign of much happening to bring that plaza to life. God knows how long it would take to do anything.
For those of us who live and work there, sure, trams would be cool. For someone who lived and worked in Eastern Europe and travels there when Putin isn't tearing the place up with his tanks I would love the feel of a vintage communist-era Tatra clanging down Bath Road to the office! But I think what people are trying to say is that the practical issues with ir, not just the cash but the engineering required, may not represent the best value for money when there are already adequate bus and train links around the place.
I totally, totally get your desire, but unfortunately, the logistics are not on your side here, not with the modern needs and layout of the town. It's fun to imagine and I keep saying I have zero beef with trams as a method of transport -- I wish I could use them every day. But there's hard logistic and financial barriers to them happening for Reading in particular.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In terms of decarbonisation, it would have more impact per pound spent if we focused funding on local networks.
But the overall point is that we can afford to do both.
We could look at what we have already and build on that rather than just rip up the streets and add to the clutter, in the same way there's a rebellion against things like fast fashion and single-use plastics. The trend is towards doing more with what we already have rather than just adding more.
If there wasn't already decent public transport I'd be more likely to agree but coupled with what I've been saying about the terrain and my dad's experience of actually building a system elsewhere, it's highly unlikely the business case would be sound.
I'm gonna be a bit blunt. I said I was the daughter of a geographer and a civil engineer, so for me the reality kicks in hard when you talk about other transport lines and the business cases for them versus the case for a Reading system.
Thing is, budgets for other links are neither here nor there. The money goes to projects that are more likely to be useful for more people, and the existence of funds for HS2 does not mean that there's a pot set aside for every other town to get nice new stuff
I talked to my mum about this the other day and she told me more about my dad's experience managing the construction of the Nottingham system (I'd forgotten he'd done that but if anyone can combine geographical knowledge with civil engineering prowess it's my parents, so I naturally asked them about it). The expense and hassle he encountered with that project made him say, as a civil engineer, that Reading won't be getting trams. The link to Mereoak would still ultimately have to climb hills at some point. The Basingstoke Road, a good place for the tram with a lot of amenities on the route, goes up and down like no-one's business -- it's at least a storey's worth of elevation above the IDR and it still climbs up before ultimately dropping down via Kendrick Avenue -- with a couple of schools and the student village to create demand for the current bus routes -- and London Road (and if you've ever tried to walk those routes with a gammy ankle it would probably be the same as a tram trying to get up that hill.
I also took the attached picture yesterday while waiting for a train to Twyford to get to Henley (itself a hilly town at the foot of the Chilterns). The platform I'm sitting on is at ground level on the side where most people enter the station from the town centre. But as you can see, it's a whole storey up from the drop-off area and car park and you will have to tackle that situation at some point to link the north of town, Caversham Bridge etc etc with the town centre. I rarely use that side of the station but you'd have to construct many more viaducts to carry the trams around on a level and that's going to push the costs up to the stratospheric level.
Reading being a gap town and not really having the topography for trams is important as a factor in where the money gets allocated for new infrastructure. (If I have £70, I can't both have a new PS5 game AND a trip to Chessington; it's one or the other and I make a decision based on what's most useful for me at the time. I'd love both but it's not possible to have both.) So realistically, your arguments kind of ignore most of the practical issues, even without the fact that new infrastructure would require the town becoming a building site for the foreseeable future; ten years on from the station renovation there's still hoardings around the site of the old bus station etc and no real sign of much happening to bring that plaza to life. God knows how long it would take to do anything.
For those of us who live and work there, sure, trams would be cool. For someone who lived and worked in Eastern Europe and travels there when Putin isn't tearing the place up with his tanks I would love the feel of a vintage communist-era Tatra clanging down Bath Road to the office! But I think what people are trying to say is that the practical issues with ir, not just the cash but the engineering required, may not represent the best value for money when there are already adequate bus and train links around the place.
I totally, totally get your desire, but unfortunately, the logistics are not on your side here, not with the modern needs and layout of the town. It's fun to imagine and I keep saying I have zero beef with trams as a method of transport -- I wish I could use them every day. But there's hard logistic and financial barriers to them happening for Reading in particular.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We could look at what we have already and build on that rather than just rip up the streets and add to the clutter, in the same way there's a rebellion against things like fast fashion and single-use plastics. The trend is towards doing more with what we already have rather than just adding more.
If there wasn't already decent public transport I'd be more likely to agree but coupled with what I've been saying about the terrain and my dad's experience of actually building a system elsewhere, it's highly unlikely the business case would be sound.
I'm gonna be a bit blunt. I said I was the daughter of a geographer and a civil engineer, so for me the reality kicks in hard when you talk about other transport lines and the business cases for them versus the case for a Reading system.
Thing is, budgets for other links are neither here nor there. The money goes to projects that are more likely to be useful for more people, and the existence of funds for HS2 does not mean that there's a pot set aside for every other town to get nice new stuff
I talked to my mum about this the other day and she told me more about my dad's experience managing the construction of the Nottingham system (I'd forgotten he'd done that but if anyone can combine geographical knowledge with civil engineering prowess it's my parents, so I naturally asked them about it). The expense and hassle he encountered with that project made him say, as a civil engineer, that Reading won't be getting trams. The link to Mereoak would still ultimately have to climb hills at some point. The Basingstoke Road, a good place for the tram with a lot of amenities on the route, goes up and down like no-one's business -- it's at least a storey's worth of elevation above the IDR and it still climbs up before ultimately dropping down via Kendrick Avenue -- with a couple of schools and the student village to create demand for the current bus routes -- and London Road (and if you've ever tried to walk those routes with a gammy ankle it would probably be the same as a tram trying to get up that hill.
I also took the attached picture yesterday while waiting for a train to Twyford to get to Henley (itself a hilly town at the foot of the Chilterns). The platform I'm sitting on is at ground level on the side where most people enter the station from the town centre. But as you can see, it's a whole storey up from the drop-off area and car park and you will have to tackle that situation at some point to link the north of town, Caversham Bridge etc etc with the town centre. I rarely use that side of the station but you'd have to construct many more viaducts to carry the trams around on a level and that's going to push the costs up to the stratospheric level.
Reading being a gap town and not really having the topography for trams is important as a factor in where the money gets allocated for new infrastructure. (If I have £70, I can't both have a new PS5 game AND a trip to Chessington; it's one or the other and I make a decision based on what's most useful for me at the time. I'd love both but it's not possible to have both.) So realistically, your arguments kind of ignore most of the practical issues, even without the fact that new infrastructure would require the town becoming a building site for the foreseeable future; ten years on from the station renovation there's still hoardings around the site of the old bus station etc and no real sign of much happening to bring that plaza to life. God knows how long it would take to do anything.
For those of us who live and work there, sure, trams would be cool. For someone who lived and worked in Eastern Europe and travels there when Putin isn't tearing the place up with his tanks I would love the feel of a vintage communist-era Tatra clanging down Bath Road to the office! But I think what people are trying to say is that the practical issues with ir, not just the cash but the engineering required, may not represent the best value for money when there are already adequate bus and train links around the place.
I totally, totally get your desire, but unfortunately, the logistics are not on your side here, not with the modern needs and layout of the town. It's fun to imagine and I keep saying I have zero beef with trams as a method of transport -- I wish I could use them every day. But there's hard logistic and financial barriers to them happening for Reading in particular.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
We could look at what we have already and build on that rather than just rip up the streets and add to the clutter, in the same way there's a rebellion against things like fast fashion and single-use plastics. The trend is towards doing more with what we already have rather than just adding more.
If there wasn't already decent public transport I'd be more likely to agree but coupled with what I've been saying about the terrain and my dad's experience of actually building a system elsewhere, it's highly unlikely the business case would be sound.
I think what I am proposing is more light rail than classic trams, and we are genuinely reaching the reasonable expectations for passenger number on Reading's bus system unfortunately, so we do need an alternative. Now something else I hadn't thought is a more frequent service + additional stations on the routes out of Reading station on the railway, and large park & ride car parks at those stations (plus feeder buses serving residential areas).
Now, of course congestion on the railway would still be an issue, but that would avoid the greatest issues with congestion and parking in Reading town centre.
It's quite fascinating to read all these suggestions about possible improvements to public transport in Reading and the surrounding area as I live nearly in the middle of it all!
Reading's topology makes it very difficult to plan an efficient tram or light rail network, but many of the suggestions seem to concentrate on getting people into and out of the town centre and making connections to the railway. I suggest that this is a solution looking for a problem.
The town consists of a number of 'lobes' of higher ground between the low lying water courses. These are:
the Thames which makes a 'U' shaped loop flowing around the edge of the Chiltern escarpment south from Goring then east between Reading and Caversham before swinging back northwards towards Henley
the Kennet in its broad valley joins the Thames east of the town centre having flowed through the gap between the long gravel and clay ridge running along southern Thames bank and the edge of the higher land coming from the east where the Oracle shopping centre now stands. This was where the Saxon settlement had its origins
finally there is the Loddon flowing northeast from Basingstoke and which also occupies a broad flood plain before joining the Thames at Shiplake near Twyford.
The road from London to Oxford and to Bath and Bristol divided in Reading, that to Oxford following the Thames Valley and that to Bath and Bristol running along the Kennet valley. The town developed on the higher grounds between these rivers, initially westwards from the West Gate of Henry II's Abbey along the roads to Oxford and Bristol and also from the old Saxon centre at what is now The Butts. The result was that the town expanded as trade improved in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it was tightly constrained so as not to build in the flood plains. Its 'grid' is very fine, as are those of many towns which expanded in the same period, and roads are not really suitable for trams.
The only corridor where trams might work and there is room to build them is that towards the M4 motorway along the recently built A33 which acts as a by-pass to the original Basingstoke Road. This has more space as it has been built in the Kennet floodplain and the Bus Rapid Transit route to the Mereoak Park and Ride just south of the motorway has been built along it at a cost of £eyewatering. This South Reading Corridor is the only largish area left within the RBC's control which can see significant development for both employment and housing.
As for central Reading's congestion, the Local Plan produced in 2019 foresaw and need for a net gain of between 53,000 and 112,000 sq m of office space over the next five or so years. What has actually happened since then is that office space in Central Reading has decreased by about 74,000 sq m. So demand has fallen. While there is congestion in the peak hours over a wide area in the town and its surroundings and people complain they still drive because, for their particular journey, even with the delay, the car journey is still quicker than that possible by bus.
If, for example, parking charges were increased or the number of car parking spaces reduced to try to force a reduction in car use the retail business in the town centre would be hit hard. There are not only offices there.
So, my choice to improve public transport in Reading and its immediate suburbs would be incremental improvements to the bus service. Where I live I use it if I need to get into the town centre as it's the easiest way for the distance. I don't think any of my neighbours avoid using the bus because it might affect their self-image - the service is excellent and the buses all relatively new. For travel from further afield improving the rail offering might be a possibility but it should be noted that the railway lines run along the river valleys and, largely, houses are spaced back up onto the higher ground. Those villages and small towns close to the rivers in these valleys have kept their stations, Aldermaston, Theale, Goring and Streatley and so on.
Trams are fun and nice. But they are not suitable, with the possible exception of one corridor, for Reading.
I think that Reading is going to have to look at a Norcot Jcn Park and Ride to Thames Valley Park tramway at some point (via Portman Road, underpass to Gt. Knollys St, Tudor Rd, Station, Forbury Road, Kenavon Drive, viaduct up the canal, and finally Suttons Seeds Business Park). Albeit necessary, th
at will be quite expensive,
Apart from the incredible cost of a tramway, and the chaos during the building, there's nowhere at Norcot junction for the car park without demolishing a lot of houses or the industrial estate!
Apart from the incredible cost of a tramway, and the chaos during the building, there's nowhere at Norcot junction for the car park without demolishing a lot of houses or the industrial estate!
If Reading wants to take more cars off Oxford Road and London/King's Road, then something better than a bus is going to be needed. Network Rail have said no to a station at Thames Valley Park, because of Great Western Main Line congestion and Tilehurst station is close to its realistic passenger usage ceiling.
So a tram or light rail system is your only real option, because of Reading's unfortunate position (when it comes to interurban transport) on a major railway junction and several key main lines.
There are plenty of vacant or underused units on the Portman Road industrial estate, and the area between Scours Lane/Oxford Road/Wigmore Lane and the railway would be perfectly located for a Park and Ride.
In the interim, the 16/17/18 diverting through that would help deal with some of the traffic issues, and then when the time is right, it could become the terminus of an initial west to east tram line easily.
I think not... Largely because there's several large and well used units there (including a useful branch of Screwfix and the Climbing Hanger) but also because we don't want to encourage more traffic driving through Tilehurst to park there - it's too close to the center.
Note that the council was very against the proposed development of a 'Drive Thru Greggs' at that location, for loss of green space and traffic related reasons.
As you know, I don't disagree, but a tram running along Portman Road is quite a significant lateral distance from London/Kings Road and notably, it's in the valley whereas the latter ultimately tips out into the IDR/Berkley Avenue and up along Tilehurst Road/Bath Road, which I presume is where most of the demand is from.
I see what you're suggesting with regard to mirroring the 17 in tram format along a different alignment, but again that goes up the hill at Norcot Jn.
One of the issues with Reading's bus network right now is the lack of circular connectivity. All routes start/end/go through the centre and that means if you're going from (for example) Tilehurst to Caversham, Calcot to Green Park or Kennet Island to the University etc. you're having to go in on one spoke and out on another. This adds considerably to journey time with connections and generally slow buses, making those journeys impactical or unattractive.
I think not... Largely because there's several large and well used units there (including a useful branch of Screwfix and the Climbing Hanger) but also because we don't want to encourage more traffic driving through Tilehurst to park there - it's too close to the center.
Note that the council was very against the proposed development of a 'Drive Thru Greggs' at that location, for loss of green space and traffic related reasons.
Sorry for the slow reply - this one must have slipped my attention.
1) Large and well used units - sure, but there are other areas of poorly used industrial estate land close by that they could relocate to, and the land is more valuable for transport reasons.
You wouldn't really induce more traffic through Tilehurst to reach the P and R - most of the traffic from out west continues down Oxford Road into central Reading at the moment, and a lot of that traffic would stop at the P&R instead, especially given central Reading's absurd parking prices.
A "Drive Thru" food business would behave in a different way - traffic would come off the Oxford Road to use it, and then loop back on it via Norcot Junction roundabout, which would cause issues with the capacity of that roundabout.
With a Park and Ride, traffic would go to the Park and Ride, park there and continue by public transport, not returning for hours later (so no immediate build-up of traffic returning to their original route at Norcot Junction).
As you know, I don't disagree, but a tram running along Portman Road is quite a significant lateral distance from London/Kings Road and notably, it's in the valley whereas the latter ultimately tips out into the IDR/Berkley Avenue and up along Tilehurst Road/Bath Road, which I presume is where most of the demand is from.
I see what you're suggesting with regard to mirroring the 17 in tram format along a different alignment, but again that goes up the hill at Norcot Jn.
The tram would continue through Newtown to reach TVP and the existing Park and Ride there too, it's not just a stub from Norcot Junction into town.
You have a fair point about the 17, but not a huge amount of the 17's demand continues up the hill towards Norcot proper and Tilehurst Triangle.
Dee Park on the 15 is a more sizeable source of passengers because it's higher density than most of Tilehurst village and Norcot (indeed the 15 is often faster to Tilehurst Triangle because of Oxford Road congestion).
One of the issues with Reading's bus network right now is the lack of circular connectivity. All routes start/end/go through the centre and that means if you're going from (for example) Tilehurst to Caversham, Calcot to Green Park or Kennet Island to the University etc. you're having to go in on one spoke and out on another. This adds considerably to journey time with connections and generally slow buses, making those journeys impactical or unattractive.
Sadly there will never be a true circular route in Reading, because the NIMBYs up in Caversham Heights would destroy the idea of a road bridge from the Scours Lane area in an instant, and the only pre-existing sections of orbital road (apart from the M4) are Lower Earley Way/The Bader Way. So it's only really feasible to improve the radial connections to an extent that orbital flows have a reasonable journey time too.
It is, but you need the P&R so that drivers can park somewhere and get on it (and if the P&R is remotely successfully, the 16/17 will need diverting too to accommodate enough passengers!)
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
