Cross River Tram
- Thread starter Xanadu
- Start date
trashpony said:That is because the congestion charge levied goes into public transport in London (I found that out on the radio this am).
That's kind of what I meant, although I'm not sure how much of it TfL's own revenues (from congestion charging and other sources) will cover and how much will need to come from elsewhere.
I do think that there's not enough attention paid to major public transport schemes elsewhere in the country though. Whether that's because there's a lack of vision, a lack of anyone to co-ordinate projects or a lack of cash I wouldn't like to say.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
In Bristol, they've been trying to build a Tram for ages. Unfortunately, the North of Bristol actually falls in Gloucestershire. This is also where the massive out of town shopping mall is (the proposed Northen terminus). Bristol city center is in constant war with the mall for shoppers. A tram connecting the two would make it far too easy for residents of either county (Bristol or Glos.) to go and spend their money in the other. So the plan fails.
It's fucking stupid - half the tracks are there already, there's massive congestion across town and the buses are shite. With a tfl-like organisation in control, there'd be no problems pushing it through.
It's fucking stupid - half the tracks are there already, there's massive congestion across town and the buses are shite. With a tfl-like organisation in control, there'd be no problems pushing it through.
ELO said:
The way TfL would do it - out of congestion charge, fare revenue and, I imagine, private sector involvement (a necessary evil).
The only slight quibble I've got is that we hear an awful lot about multimillion pound projects for London, but not much about the same anywhere else, despite their being just as necessary.
Crispy said:
Indeed. We have to be careful about exporting london govt wholesale (because London is a single entity in the way regions are not, and London travel is very different to the rest of the UK), but some kind of regional transport board for each region would be good.
Of course you then have a problem "what if a proposed development crosses two regions", but at least you now have fewer borders to worry about.
Will it happen? Proberbly not, because regional govt has been rejected already.
In terms of bodies that can deliver this sort of project outside London, the regional Passenger Transport Executives for established by the Transport Act of 1967(?) are probably the place to start. They've been stripped of some of their powers over the years, but that could be reversed, and they're already functioning bodies.
ELO said:
A 'necessary evil' was perhaps a wrong choice of phrase on my part. I don't want to see the private sector involved at all, but I think they probably will be along broadly similar lines to PFI schemes elsehwere in other services that don't make a profit, or along lines analogous to the part-privatisation of the tube. The problem with PFI schemes in all public services is that the firms involved need to make a 'profit,' which the taxpayer ends up subsidising. I don't want it to happen, but I think it will.
Roadkill said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Act_1968
Ooh he was so close! Look at what you coulda won!
Sorry, boys, all you get is your BFH.
PacificOcean
Unhinged User
chio said:The Manchester one isn't, unless your idea of fun is being crushed against strangers
But it has the best ever station name on it - Bess O t'Barn.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Roadkill said:
There have been a few. Nottingham, Manchester, Sheffield, and the West Midlands (Birmingham-Wolverhampton) all have trams. Blackpool alone retained its old tram system.
There have been serious attempts to build trams in Portsmouth, Bristol, Liverpool, Leeds and Edinburgh requiring significant proportions of funding from central government. They have almost all foundered on the rocks of spiralling costs between initial approval by the Transport Secretary in 2001 and their cancellation in 2004/5.
In the case of the Leeds Supertram project at least, it was judged that the money would be more effectively spent on improved rapid bus services.
Evidence from the 2002 Croydon Tramlink Impact Study in 2001 has also pointed to the vast majority of tram passengers switching from using bus services (69%). The same study found that 19% were switching from driving or being a passenger in a car.
Depending on how you look at it, that's either a success in persuading a significant number of car users to use public transport or a lot of money spent in order to build a tram system for people who would mostly otherwise have used a bus.
Edinburgh, however, has got a go ahead and should be operational by 2011.
I wasn't making a point limited to trams - and I was aware of the schemes you mention* - but about transport in general. I just think that London gets far too much attention, and probably too much central government funding, and other places don't get a look-in.
I was aware of some of those, though not Portsmouth's. One wonders how many of them might have stood a better chance of getting through if there were regional bodies that could oversee projects and sort out funding, much like TfL. The community light rail partnerships that are being talked of at the moment may help.
I was aware of some of those, though not Portsmouth's. One wonders how many of them might have stood a better chance of getting through if there were regional bodies that could oversee projects and sort out funding, much like TfL. The community light rail partnerships that are being talked of at the moment may help.
davesgcr
Reading books
Half the probems of the failure of tram schemes has been cost - i.e. people get carried away and design bespoke luxury trams for each planned system etc ....
jUST GO FOR THE SIMPLEST AND CHEAPEST - YOU CAN UPGRADE LATER.! Tatra trams second hand from Eastern Europe would do to get things going - look at Leeds where the Ilkley & Skipton lines started off with 30 year old trains - they now have superb new ones - well 5 / 6 years old now.
ps - London and the SE has 67% of the overall rail and tube usage in the UK -Which is why it tends to look as if it gets most of the investment - !
jUST GO FOR THE SIMPLEST AND CHEAPEST - YOU CAN UPGRADE LATER.! Tatra trams second hand from Eastern Europe would do to get things going - look at Leeds where the Ilkley & Skipton lines started off with 30 year old trains - they now have superb new ones - well 5 / 6 years old now.
ps - London and the SE has 67% of the overall rail and tube usage in the UK -Which is why it tends to look as if it gets most of the investment - !
davesgcr said:
I do wonder if demand for PT in London is a near bottomless pit- i.e. the more you put in the more people travel.
Something similar has long been found true for road usage outside the capital-i.e. new roads attract cars.
(a general remark, not an argument against this scheme BTW)
From the cited website -"They will avoid all other traffic by running on separate lanes".
Does that mean that they'll be on monorails above the ground or will houses be demolished to make room for these lanes - why not bury them underground - that'd work.
OOPS I forgot, London already has light rail system (e.g. the underground)linking Euston and Waterloo doesn't it? - just what it needs- another one.
So long as it -
(a) Doesn't cause any disruption to traffic flow above ground during construction/in use and
(b) isn't paid for out of Central Government funding but out of Ken's pocket
- then I really don't give a toss.
Does that mean that they'll be on monorails above the ground or will houses be demolished to make room for these lanes - why not bury them underground - that'd work.
OOPS I forgot, London already has light rail system (e.g. the underground)linking Euston and Waterloo doesn't it? - just what it needs- another one.
So long as it -
(a) Doesn't cause any disruption to traffic flow above ground during construction/in use and
(b) isn't paid for out of Central Government funding but out of Ken's pocket
- then I really don't give a toss.
newbie said:
I can't understand how phasing the necessary road closures (unless it's another underground) over 8 years would be anything other than a disaster for traffic flow through central London - that alone should be enough to kill off the project.
The traffic chaos and all the extra fuel burnt will probably counterbalance any potential carbon benefits for a couple of decades, never mind the huge environmental impact that'll be generated by the building of the network.
Crispy said:
I don't see why I should bother with doing sums on environmental impact - tram promoters don't have to (I asked TIE for their impact study under FOI Legislation - turns out they never did one) it's merely assumed that the tram network appears pristine, without a single contractor's vehicle having driven anywhere or a single ton of steel having been smelted - it's just environmental savings all the way.
(NB I wonder what happened to the buses that 69% of the Croydon passenders no longer use - I presume that they simply weren't dug into a hole somewhere.)
Roadkill said:
i think that in large part this is probably due to the fact that london's transport is already running at capacity (probably beyond its capacity in the tube's case), and that most people in london rely on public transport while a lower percentage rely on it in other cities - there was an article a couple of weeks ago when it was 20 years since buses were deregulated saying that outside of london, local bus use has halved in that time while fares have doubled, and in london useage has doubled (mainly since ken was elected, and mainly because TfL has powers which Merseytravel, NExus etc don't have). what i mean is that in london improvements to public transport are necessary to stop the city coming to a standstill - improvements in other cities are very desirable, and i would argue necessary for environmental and social reasons, but those cities are getting on ok with the transport systems they have.
there are interesting briefings on the benefits of different types of new transport here: http://www.pteg.net/Publications/02-Briefings/
There are ways that TfL and others can get money from developers through the planning process - basically to get planning approval major developers often have to give transport/local authorities can require them to spend money on other local improvements. also developers will probably want better transport to whatever they're developing to increase the value of it. at a guess, i'd also say that businesses on the route of a new transport development may be persuaded to give/be taxed for a project which will bring more people to them and enable their staff more reliable transport to work(?)
Mr T said:
Money demanded under menaces isn't exactly "investment" as the developer has no option but to shell out whatever the Authority demands. Investment is usually made on the basis of sound analysis in the expectation of generating a return. Extra taxes extorted under the premise that "this tramline'll bring a load of extra trade that you'll have lost during the building process 'cause everyone started going to out of town retail parks thanks to teh traffic jams due to tramline building" don't count.
Similar threads
- Poll
