£200m will disappear into the coffers of consultants, designers, polling companies and planners for a scheme we can’t afford, that isn’t comprehensive and won't fix our transport problems
I like trams. And trains and buses. They're nice to look at. But trams are wholly unsuitable to mass transit.
If the tram follows the road, that can be handy and help it get closer to where it needs to go. But it's horrendously expensive - the public highway is free for anyone to use, including utility companies to route cables, and public infrastructure such as sewers, water mains, gas pipes. These all need to be relocated, in a process that takes years and costs millions. It's no good having a pothole under a tramtrack, so the road needs digging out and strengthening. The overhead line infrastructure needs installing, sometimes with steel-reinforced concrete piled foundations (as opposed to streetlamps which are literally dug into a hole and filled with post-fix cement of the sort you may use in your garden). Substations need to supply the line power. Tram stops are grossly over-engineered compared with the bus shelter you see in Amsterdam, resembling a mini train station.
And then, if there's a road accident, or bad weather, or a tram breaks down. That section is out of action.
So option b) is to use an existing rail line. As Manchester did in phase one. But all you've achieved is transferring passengers from one rail system to another. Pretty pointless. In the early years you get some new customers because a brand new shiny tram is nicer than a clapped out 40 year ex-Southern Region BR cast off. But after a couple of years when the trams are colonised by the Spice Addicts and crystal-meth pickpockets, the ridership tails off again as a percentage (of course if you are a growing city like much of the UK, you can mask this because even if a fewer percentage use the tram, the absolute numbers will be marginally higher).
And, unlike a train, because of the design and the bespoke nature of the trams, you can't easily just order more carriages and double them up to cope with larger numbers. And, unlike the London Underground / Elizabeth Line, you are looking at a maximum of three of four carriages as opposed to 8 to 10. And unlike both a train and the London Underground, the trams are considerably slower, running at barely above bus speed, with fewer stops than a bus, so less convenient, and more stops than a train, so less quick.
Manchester's original Metrolink largely abstracted passengers from parallel bus routes (and of course the electrified rail lines that it took over). No doubt if the money had been used to boost the rail service, or for some connection between the railway stations and city centre, the same result would have been acheived.
In pure isolation, you make some really good points. However I have to question when you step back and look at the bigger picture, is it a waste of money? The NHS is at crisis point and spends £1.8 trillion every decade. The answer with that according to many is just keep throwing money at the problem. But unhealthy people (the actual problem) never look like they're going away. So something needs to change and getting people moving more is a great way of doing that, rather than just getting in and out of their cars all day.
Another paper over the cracks solution are roads. We're spending billions every year expanding and resurfacing roads. Because there is no other option but getting in a car for most people. The East Leeds orbital road cost a staggering £147 million. Motorways cost £7 million (both sides) for every mile of resurfaced road. The new M621 works - £50 million. A roundabout in Wakefield (yes Wakefield) £7 million! When you start to look beyond the £1 billion pound fee (said in Dr Evils voice), and see what else is being spent elsewhere, money should in no way be considered an issue with this scheme in my opinion.
Roads are for icky cars though, whereas trams are GrEeeN. Our roads are nightmarish, both main and rural roads, although we've been told the county council has given up on filling the potholes unless they are on "main routes". Bye-bye tyres.
Very interesting. Thank you. I was surprised by the graph about Metro usage. I often use the Metro when in Manchester. It seems fantastic, and is always busy. I take your point about density in Leeds. But is there not an argument that the £39m annual loss of the Metro is actually a worthwhile cost, a price paid by the residents of Manchester for an efficient (I started using the Metro because Manchester traffic is so bad) way to get from A to B?
In larger urban conurbations like leeds need a form of mass public transport light rail system on top of a bus system. They make such a significant difference to journeys that they fundamentally change the economic make up of a city in a way buses frankly don't even come close to.
Especially when combined with relevant development.
Also subsidising bus fares doesn't work to make modal share shifts. There's now good evidence over this. Not being a total rip off as most private providers charge helps users but it doesn't help modal shift.
What actually works are fast, reliable (more important than fast), frequent services from where people live to where they want to go. To do this, buses require significant road space taken away from cars and in areas where that's not possible like Oxford bus gates to prevent cars from creating through traffic on roads buses use. BRT or BRT lite systems have to form the backbone of any major bus service.
If you don't do that you can't make buses worth having in most places.
Subsidising costs helps but it doesn't help where the routes don't exist.
Also bus competition rather than a network level single operating solution has made buses whole significantly worse and narrowed useful bus services to profitable corridors which ultimately reduces all bus use. You seem to be a deeply naive right winger who has also had their eyes close for the last 40 years.
I like trams. And trains and buses. They're nice to look at. But trams are wholly unsuitable to mass transit.
If the tram follows the road, that can be handy and help it get closer to where it needs to go. But it's horrendously expensive - the public highway is free for anyone to use, including utility companies to route cables, and public infrastructure such as sewers, water mains, gas pipes. These all need to be relocated, in a process that takes years and costs millions. It's no good having a pothole under a tramtrack, so the road needs digging out and strengthening. The overhead line infrastructure needs installing, sometimes with steel-reinforced concrete piled foundations (as opposed to streetlamps which are literally dug into a hole and filled with post-fix cement of the sort you may use in your garden). Substations need to supply the line power. Tram stops are grossly over-engineered compared with the bus shelter you see in Amsterdam, resembling a mini train station.
And then, if there's a road accident, or bad weather, or a tram breaks down. That section is out of action.
So option b) is to use an existing rail line. As Manchester did in phase one. But all you've achieved is transferring passengers from one rail system to another. Pretty pointless. In the early years you get some new customers because a brand new shiny tram is nicer than a clapped out 40 year ex-Southern Region BR cast off. But after a couple of years when the trams are colonised by the Spice Addicts and crystal-meth pickpockets, the ridership tails off again as a percentage (of course if you are a growing city like much of the UK, you can mask this because even if a fewer percentage use the tram, the absolute numbers will be marginally higher).
And, unlike a train, because of the design and the bespoke nature of the trams, you can't easily just order more carriages and double them up to cope with larger numbers. And, unlike the London Underground / Elizabeth Line, you are looking at a maximum of three of four carriages as opposed to 8 to 10. And unlike both a train and the London Underground, the trams are considerably slower, running at barely above bus speed, with fewer stops than a bus, so less convenient, and more stops than a train, so less quick.
Manchester's original Metrolink largely abstracted passengers from parallel bus routes (and of course the electrified rail lines that it took over). No doubt if the money had been used to boost the rail service, or for some connection between the railway stations and city centre, the same result would have been acheived.
In pure isolation, you make some really good points. However I have to question when you step back and look at the bigger picture, is it a waste of money? The NHS is at crisis point and spends £1.8 trillion every decade. The answer with that according to many is just keep throwing money at the problem. But unhealthy people (the actual problem) never look like they're going away. So something needs to change and getting people moving more is a great way of doing that, rather than just getting in and out of their cars all day.
Another paper over the cracks solution are roads. We're spending billions every year expanding and resurfacing roads. Because there is no other option but getting in a car for most people. The East Leeds orbital road cost a staggering £147 million. Motorways cost £7 million (both sides) for every mile of resurfaced road. The new M621 works - £50 million. A roundabout in Wakefield (yes Wakefield) £7 million! When you start to look beyond the £1 billion pound fee (said in Dr Evils voice), and see what else is being spent elsewhere, money should in no way be considered an issue with this scheme in my opinion.
Roads are for icky cars though, whereas trams are GrEeeN. Our roads are nightmarish, both main and rural roads, although we've been told the county council has given up on filling the potholes unless they are on "main routes". Bye-bye tyres.
Anyway, great piece.
Very interesting. Thank you. I was surprised by the graph about Metro usage. I often use the Metro when in Manchester. It seems fantastic, and is always busy. I take your point about density in Leeds. But is there not an argument that the £39m annual loss of the Metro is actually a worthwhile cost, a price paid by the residents of Manchester for an efficient (I started using the Metro because Manchester traffic is so bad) way to get from A to B?
You are so ridiculously short sighted.
In larger urban conurbations like leeds need a form of mass public transport light rail system on top of a bus system. They make such a significant difference to journeys that they fundamentally change the economic make up of a city in a way buses frankly don't even come close to.
Especially when combined with relevant development.
Also subsidising bus fares doesn't work to make modal share shifts. There's now good evidence over this. Not being a total rip off as most private providers charge helps users but it doesn't help modal shift.
What actually works are fast, reliable (more important than fast), frequent services from where people live to where they want to go. To do this, buses require significant road space taken away from cars and in areas where that's not possible like Oxford bus gates to prevent cars from creating through traffic on roads buses use. BRT or BRT lite systems have to form the backbone of any major bus service.
If you don't do that you can't make buses worth having in most places.
Subsidising costs helps but it doesn't help where the routes don't exist.
Also bus competition rather than a network level single operating solution has made buses whole significantly worse and narrowed useful bus services to profitable corridors which ultimately reduces all bus use. You seem to be a deeply naive right winger who has also had their eyes close for the last 40 years.