Guest blog: Liberal Democrat Stuart Monkcom on the Merseytram 'myths'
Now that hundreds of Notices to Treat (the prelude to Compulsory Purchase Orders) have just been issued by Merseytravel in respect of Merseytram Line 1 (referred to hereafter as Merseytram) and the construction of a Park & Ride facility at Gillmoss has commenced in order to avoid losing the Planning Permission granted in 2005, the real impact of this ludicrous project is starting to make its presence felt. I am therefore outlining once again my opposition to this scheme which, from its outset, has proved to be one of the most controversial and unnecessary preoccupations this city has ever experienced.
The notion that Liverpool will never qualify as a premier European city unless we have trams running round it, convinces me that the entire concept is driven by considerations of prestige rather than necessity but worse still, very few people understand or appreciate the level of disruption and frustration that a ã500M-plus construction scheme will have on their daily lives as they have to come to terms with a 'big dig' the like of which they will have never known previously and which will continue for years if it ever happens.
Nearly everyone I talk to about Merseytram is horrified to learn that its route involves the demolition of the Churchill Way flyovers in the city centre, the permanent closure of one carriageway of West Derby Road and the wanton destruction of over 100 of the most beautiful mature trees on the central reservation of Muirhead Avenue, despite the fact that this information has been available for many years already and can be seen by searching Google for 'Merseytram Line 1'. This clearly indicates to me that people are generally unaware of the route, the implications for the city's infrastructure and the cost implications of a revenue deficit situation even if the capital costs were ever forthcoming.
Artists' impressions of lovely-looking trams gliding through the city with grace and serenity do nothing but lull the population into a false sense of acceptability as if the tram will simply appear on the streets one day to rapturous applause and without the slightest inconvenience to anyone. It is also incomprehensible to understand how a tram 'regenerates' the districts through which it passes when there are bus or train services which more than adequately provide for current transportation needs in such areas of the city. The Kirkby route, serving a number of locations along its meandering path, is duplicated by a convenient train service from Kirkby to Liverpool taking 20 minutes compared to the 45 minutes by tram even though tram stops are only every quarter of a mile or so.
However, one of the greatest causes for concern is Revenue Deficit. Virtually all the attention is currently focussed on the capital cost of the scheme (currently ã450M and rising) with no apparent consideration of cost over-run which is inherent in all light rail projects or the possibility of revenue deficit if the project ever reaches fulfilment. In 2006, for example, Manchester's Altram accounts showed a loss of ã8M due to overoptimistic passenger projections, while in the West Midlands the Midland Metro, also operated by Altram, showed losses of about ã16M. Worst of all, down in London, Tramtrack Croydon Ltd recorded debts of ã100M and was seeking financial restructuring in order to continue trading.
The myth that people will leave their cherished car (or cars) on the driveway and walk a quarter mile in the pouring rain to catch a tram beggars belief. Since deregulation we have a plethora of buses most of which, apart from at peak times, can be observed running around with only one or two passengers aboard and this is obviously why the British Department for Transport has commissioned studies into dealing with 'Optimism Bias in Transport Planning'. So what are the alternatives if we are to remain risk-averse? The obvious answer would seem to be to consider improving and expanding Merseyrail which, outside of London, is the best underground and surface local rail scheme in the UK. For how this could be done and the benefits it could bring, visit http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Merseyrail-Extensions.html where you will find a comprehensive analysis of the subject.
You might be forgiven for thinking I am totally anti-tram but a line from the airport to the city centre would have my support especially if it followed the banks of the Mersey without affecting the infrastructure of the south end of Liverpool. Better still, an elevated rapid-transit scheme such as has been provided in London's Docklands could also link into Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters, restoring in a 21st century context the much loved former Liverpool overhead railway.
Stuart Monkcom is a Liberal Democrat on Liverpool Council, he represents the West Derby ward.
23 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
I am no fan of Councillor Monkcom, who seems to be a bit of a snob, given some of his past comments about other communities in the city when discussing planning matters, but on this he is absolutely spot on. A well-researched and properly argued piece. Why isn't this in the main paper?
I think Mr Monkcom must live in an alternative reality, because the Manchester Metrolink trams system has been a massive success since the day it opened, the trams are jam packed full of passengers all day. Several new lines are being built and a new fleet of trams is being delivered to run on them. You cannot say 'the buses are running empty so therefore no-one will use trams' because trams provide a travel experience that is vastly superior to buses. In Europe they understand that good transport connectivity is a major consideration for companies when deciding to locate. In fact in the last 30 years 136 new tram systems have been built world-wide. It is true there will be massive disruption during construction. But if that was a valid argument for not doing something how would anything ever get done? For examples of what the UK is missing I would recommend looking at http://www.trams-in-france.net/. Incidently the first batch of trams for Strasbourg were built in Derby!
Pete, I think you must be in alternative reality. Did you read:
"Manchester's Altram accounts showed a loss of ã8M due to overoptimistic passenger projections".
On the Continent they going underground and forgetting trams. Look at the many Spanish underground metro schemes - they dismissed trams. Brussels has taken trams lines underground, so back to the underground metro. I have been to Strasbourg and when a whole train enters a street the place shakes. A train in street? Yes!
What do you know!! Liverpool has a metro that is easy to expand using existing tunnels and trackbeds. The most used outside of London as well!!! Gosh!! Merseytravel probably never knew that.
Merseyside has two major construction projects proposed: Liverpool & Wirral Waters. The only effective way to connect the two, the city centre, business quarter, airport and the two new stadia is via rapid-transit metro. ,b.Hey we have one!!!! Merseyrail, which can do all that and even more for a fraction of the price of trams and it does not vibrate your house as it runs along. And it could shift 40,000 an hour at the stadia.
800 Compulsory Purchase Orders have been issued for Line 1 alone. So, maybe 2,500 for the whole network. This misguided scheme is little more than a poorly planned joke.
50 years ago we got rid of trams for good reasons and they stand today. A tram is a tram whether is has a futuristic glass bubble front or not.
City Expansion Renders Tram Proposal Redundant
The Merseyside region has been in the process of regeneration for a number of years. Since the tram network was conceived, Liverpool has progressed enormously. Events have overtaken the tram network before it has even been built, rendering the project a most certain expensive white elephant.
Two large construction projects, similar to London's Docklands, Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters, have been proposed and are in the planning process. The tram network does not take these projects into account. For London's Docklands to be successfully a new metro network was built, the Docklands Light Railway. It services virtually a new town within a city, and gives rapid-transit connections to the rest of London and airports. It has over 30 stations, about half the number of Merseyrail. This rapid-transit metro was viewed as essential for the success of the project attracting investors to Docklands. The metro ensured the success of the London Docklands transforming the redundant docks into a world financial centre.
The two major football clubs in the city, Everton FC and Liverpool FC are simultaneously planning new stadia. Liverpool FC have a planned stadium at Stanley Park, adjacent to the freight only Canada Dock Branch Line, which can accommodate Merseyrail passenger trains serving the districts it runs through and the new stadium. Everton FC have not finalised a site for their stadium, however the City Council sensibly are suggesting sites next to Merseyrail metro lines. Rapid-transit metro is an essential precursor for such large stadia, reducing impact on the surrounding residents and road traffic congestion. 30,000 to 40,000 per hour can be shifted using the Merseyrail metro rapid-transit network with connections to all Merseyside and mainline stations. A tram system could never shift the volume of people that a rapid-transit metro network can, being wholly unsuitable for such a task. A tram network could never move passengers at essential rapid speeds.
The announced electrification on the Liverpool to Manchester line and the Canada Dock Branch Line in 2009 entails that St. Helens and maybe Wigan will be on the Merseyrail electric network. This renders much of the tram routes that were to serve the east of the city and beyond, redundant.
The transport priority in Liverpool and Merseyside is rapid-transit connections between:
-Liverpool Waters
- Wirral Waters
- Liverpool City Centre Business District
- Liverpool City Centre Shopping District
- Liverpool John Lennon Airport
- Liverpool Lime Street Mainline Station
- Everton FC
- Liverpool FC
Extending the Merseyrail metro to these key points and districts will ensure success of the two prime projects and economic growth within Merseyside. The image of the city will be greatly enhanced and viewed as go-ahead. The two stadia alone will attract many thousands of visitors, British and foreign, to the city each year projecting a highly positive image if a metro takes them directly to the stadium.
Now I've little faith in local government, but even I'm shocked to see that a councillor could fall for all that Merseyrail expansion guff spread by 'enthusiasts' on the internet.
The idea that it would be relatively cheap to bring the disused infrastructure mentioned into service for commuters is, frankly, ludicrous. The MtoGo shop in Liverpool Central probably cost a small fortune, let lone new rolling stock, stations, rail etc.
Merseyrail is NOT a metro. Liverpool does not NEED a metro. It's a relatively small city with a more than adequate suburban commuter rail system.
I can see why people might view it otherwise - It is a quirky system and a real jewel in the cities crown that it should be proud of.
I've been led to believe that within a few years the rolling stock is up for renewal. This is the opportunity to invest in light rail - not trams but high capacity light rail - to run on the existing Merseyrail system. Maybe even one or two new stations could be added at St James and between Moorfields and Sandhills. The real advantage to light rail would be that, in the city centre alone, the same rolling stock could run at street level before potentially running along disused rail lines in the south of the city.
That's the real missing piece of Liverpool transport jigsaw. If the City Line on the Merseyrail map were a grade seperated line like the Northern and Wirral Lines we would have one of the most comprehensive commuter rail systems in the country.
I agree with the councillor that trams are the wrong idea - they're too low a capacity and of no use when travelling between towns. The city centre loop part of the proposal, however, would be fantastic and is sorely needed.
danny_baily wrote, "The idea that it would be relatively cheap to bring the disused infrastructure mentioned into service for commuters is, frankly, ludicrous."
.
Well as most of the rail infrastructure is there and the Outer Loop mothballed it would be cheap to extend Merseyrail metro. Line 1 tram line is costing ã450 and does no more than 150 capacity bendy-buses on bus lanes, which the lanes can be used by other traffic out of hours. Bendy-buses cost buttons in comparison to the trams - B Johnson esg. is giving them away cheap because of political reasons in London.
.
Merseyrail is a metro, it is hybrid/commuter rail, a smaller London Underground. Merseyside is approximately 1.5 million people and Merseyrail even covers just outside this catchment area, increasing that figure. Liverpool and the surrounds is not small, it is expanding and has ambitions of expansion. The massive docklands sites on both sides of the river have not been touched yet. The metro must be in place to cope, as was the case in London's Docklands - the foundation of its success.
.
Trams are for the likes of Nottingham. Manchester wanted a metro but opted for cheaper trams. Parts of Merseyrail clearly act as a high frequency metro. Merseyrail is the biggest used urban rail network outside of London with massive expansion cheaply awaiting.
.
Merseyrail needs extending to be a full metro which is easy to do. It will enfranchise the forgotten inner-city districts, which disused tunnels run under, with one district having a disused complete underground station.
.
Merseyrail is not a quirky system and it is a real jewel in the cities crown that we should be proud of - and expand to serve most of the city. The oldest part of any urban railways and the oldest used tunnel is on Merseyrail.
.
danny_baily, you are right about the light-rail rolling stock. The real advantage to light rail would be that it can be run into Liverpool and Wirral Waters on elevated track. The Dockland Light Railways is mainly elevated and easily spans water spaces. New extension do not require large arc curves as the current train do.
.
We do agree that Merseyrail extended using light-rail trains serves many purposes. Long range commuter rail, short metro stops in the centres of Liverpool, Birkenhead and the inner-city districts, easily extending into the docklands on both sides of the river.
.
We all agree with the councillor that trams are the wrong idea. They just do not make sense - economically they make even less.
.
When trams were ditched 53 years ago, for good reasons. There was no Merseyrail metro to easily extend in 1957. Merseyrail, metro, was formed in 1977 - parts were not complete like re-suing the Wapping Tunnel, the Outer Loop and electrifying to St. Helens. As now there is an easily extended urban rail network available the case for trams is so flimsy it is not worth considering. Why it was even considered in the first place is mystifying.
.
Other cities look at Liverpool and think the city is mad for ignoring its metro, which they would all give their right arms for, especially Manchester. They look in astonishment as the city plans low-tech lumbering trams to extending its metro. Only in Liverpool!!!!
Good debate. Some good points put forward. The councillor's argument is very good indeed. Trams lose money big time. The linked web site by Cllr Monkcom is suberb, it kept me involed for a few hours. The best I have seen on Merseyrail. I never knew there was so much scope for cheap expansion on network. It is clever to get around the back of the airport for a station there picking up Hale along the way. Light-rail trains are the way forward to be sure and the overhead pictures in the web site sold me on that point.
It is no rail enthustiast site as it focusses on economic growth for sure. No rail jargon is used at all.
I always had my doubts about trams and realise it was, and is not, the way to go to assist the city in the future. Rapid-transit is very important in growing cities, they can make or brake a city and give a positive image to the world. Do trans? I doubt it. Munich never looked back after the 1970s metro was built. And as been said, the Spanish have gone to metro in the biggest urban rail building projects in the past 20 years.
I hope Cllr Monkcom's views are taken in by the Dept of Transport and the trams left to die.
Good debate. Some good points put forward. The councillor's argument is very good indeed. Trams lose money big time. The linked web site by Cllr Monkcom is suberb, it kept me involed for a few hours. The best I have seen on Merseyrail. I never knew there was so much scope for cheap expansion on network. It is clever to get around the back of the airport for a station there picking up Hale along the way. Light-rail trains are the way forward to be sure and the overhead pictures in the web site sold me on that point.
It is no rail enthustiast site as it focusses on economic growth for sure. No rail jargon is used at all.
I always had my doubts about trams and realise it was, and is not, the way to go to assist the city in the future. Rapid-transit is very important in growing cities, they can make or brake a city and give a positive image to the world. Do trans? I doubt it. Munich never looked back after the 1970s metro was built. And as been said, the Spanish have gone to metro in the biggest urban rail building projects in the past 20 years.
I hope Cllr Monkcom's views are taken in by the Dept of Transport and the trams left to die.
There are some interesting comments by all here including Stuart Monkcom. I did a Google on Merseytram and some reading is alarming.
Danny why do you conclude Liverpool does not need a full metro? I would rather Liverpool be like Munich than Nottingham. I was in London a month back and visited a company in Highbury and Islington, an inner-city district. The company set up there because of the fast Tube line and nearby station. If this district did not have a Tube line it would be a much deprived inner-city district. The fast Tube connections do make an impact on inner-city districts. The abandoned Dingle underground station would boost that district, and it needs a big leg-up around there. Lodge Lane is in great need of a something to pull the place up, rather than be a permanent drain of public money on decades of failed social schemes. Fast transport infrastructure works to regenerate.
The great thing about metros is that you hop on and off the trains that run very fast from district to district. Liverpool can have this by using the disused tunnels and trackbeds. In parts of Birkenhead and Liverpool, people do use Merseyrail hopping around. To them it is a metro.
I agree that events in the city have overtaken trams and make them redundant before they are built. No one foresaw that the airport would be so successful and that Liverpool and Wirral Waters would be planned. A metro has to serves those districts to ensure success.
The electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester Line and the Bootle Line through Anfield, can add a great chunk onto the Merseyrail electric network. The tunnels under the city can give a station at the cutting at Byrom Street and a station cut into the Waterloo Tunnel at the Royal Hospital, which is a priority necessity.
I agree with all here that the tram scheme needs a serious re-think and best we look to expand the successful urban railways we already have using the Dockland Light Rail style of trains, which I find amazing as they don't have a driver on many of them.
cheers Gerry
These bendy-buses offer a cheap way to replace trams. Many are now eco and electric hybrid. Shanghai, which Liverpool is twinned, uses electric buses that recharge at every bus stop by making contact with an overhead charge contact which is a part of the bus shelter. There are no ugly wires in the streets. This is a very good idea and applied to bendy-buses is a cheap way of replacing trams and no need for all those Compulsory Purchase Orders to string up wires.
Another point which hit me was that Liverpool's underground services, gas, water, sewers, electricity, etc, is still largely Victorian. Look at the poor state of the roads which are excessively patched because of constant digging. If all these tram lines are laid over this crumbing underground infrastructure, at some point at any one time in the tram network it will be dug up beneath the lines making the line inoperable. The network will be constantly interrupted.
Nice to see some rational responses and a good debate.
Just a few points though -
Dingle station is a former terminus at one end and emerges at the face of a cliff at the other. Unless you plan to reinstate the LOR re-use of this station is unlikely. It is also a privately owned garage these days.
The Victoria tunnel emerges at the docks in north Liverpool where there is no need for rapid transit (I'm skeptical about Peel's proposals) and even if Liverpool Waters was built to some extent any new line would parallel the existing northern line. Th latter can be said for re-use of the Waterloo tunnel too. Oh, and they both emerge at Edge Hill, which is already at capacity.
Again, I believe the serious potential lies in a seperated (I cant stress that enough), electrified line which covered the area that the city pseudo-line currently does. Then we would have a truly S-bahn (still not metro!) equivalent system to be proud of.
The only things that riles me are the likes of the website linked by the councillor. They are incredibly biased and I hope that casusal readers are not sucked in by the rhetoric. Public money is scarce and this will only get worse. Added to that, Liverpool doesnt exactly have a transport problem, so I wouldnt get your hopes up for an expansion of Merseyrail.
Danny Baily,
The Dingle station is desperately needed in that inner-city district. The tunnel originally was designed to extend inland to around Smithdown Rd. Look at:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Merseyrail-Extensions.html
This has a section on how an underground Circle Line is achieved, circling the city centre, by extending the Dingle Tunnel to Edge Hill, in cheap cut & cover tunnelling mainly across park. Most is in place and some section are ready used rail. Getting to the cliff face is not a difficult engineering task using a ramp and light-rail trains.
.
The Victoria/Waterloo Tunnel emerges right where rapid-transit is needed - at the Liverpool Waters site.
.
Edge Hill far from being at capacity being shadow of its former self. There is acres of space there.
.
The announced electrification of the Liverpool-Manchester line, the Bootle Branch line and reinstatment to 4 track (all electrified) between Huyton and Broadgreen, will mean Merseyrail can have the City Line electrified and be a part of the full network. And most is for free. The West Coast Main Line Spur through Allerton can also be electric Merseyrail trains using dual pick-up light-rail trains. All these trains can easily merge into Merseyrail with maybe new logical lines created. Bootle to South Parkway via Anfield and Allerton is possible. This is very easy and cheap to do and will happen as the electric lines are and will be there - just needs the proper trains.
.
The tunnels will take an electrified City Line into the city centre and release platform space at Lime St for long haul routes. New services are being planned for Bradford, Halifax, Sheffield and many points east of the Pennines. These will need platforms at Lime St.
.
Merseyrail is a hybrid commuter rail/metro and the biggest and most successful outside of London. Parts are clearly metro like, parts commuter rail. It can be more of a metro by using the ready disused rail infrastructure.
.
Liverpool does need a metro as the city is expanding and has plans for population growth. Also, repopulating the centre where parts have disused tunnels under.
.
Inner-City districts do need rapid-transit to get the private sector moving in and stop the public money drain on hopeless schemes that do not work.
.
Transport infrastructure promotes economic growth, especially rapid-transit. Ask London, Paris, Munich, etc.
.
Your view that Liverpool & Wirral Waters will not happen is just your view. There is planning and the councils are involved on both sides of the river. This has to be taken seriously.
.
How to fund all this? Use Land Value Taxation (LVT), as Sydney did to fund the Olympics and many cities in the USA to fund transport infrastructure. When stations are built land prices rise around, they tap into this value - those who benefit most. It works.
.
The web site does not pull punches that is clear, but gives all the options and highlights how cheap much of this can be to make a comprehensive metro. For e.g., the Outer Loop Line is mothballed and cheap to bring on line. A stadium can be built on it adding more value. The airport extension across fields is also cheap to bring on line. These will bring growth. The tunnel are intact laying there.
.
By the way. The world's oldest part of any urban railway is on Merseyrail, around Sandhills. As is the oldest station, Broad Green, 1830, and the oldest used tunnel at Edge Hill. If the Wapping Tunnel is brought back into use it will be the oldest underground metro tunnel in the world - it was the first bored under a metropolis. The first electric multiple unit trains were used in Liverpool as well. Urban rail is not new to Liverpool you know. :) We seem to have forgotten it and the benefits it can bring.
.
The Liverpool-Manchester electrification will provide us with an electrified main line route to Manchester. This will not have the same rolling stock as the northern and wirral lines (i.e. third rail electrification) and will not have any separation from other main line routes. The latter reason means that it can hardly be considered metro-like.
Why is it that you are so sure that it would be 'easy' to cut and cover a tunnel from the Dingle to Smithdown? It would cost a fortune! Merseytravel paid ã70m in legal fee's (securing planning permission) and for a few bits of steel for Merseytram. Imagine how much new tunnels, rails and rolling stock would cost. It would be astronomical.
I get it. You've read the websites on Merseyrail expansion (they're numerous) and been taken in. I don't blame you, it's easy to be fooled and to get excited about the prospect of a metro system right here in Liverpool. I hate people recycling the phrases 'mothballed outer loop line' and 'other cities would drool at Liverpool's infrastructure'.
Lets be sensible, it's not happening. Also, I'd like to see you impos LVT around Sandhills.
So many people seem to think that buses are the answer when clearly they have been failing for years. Lots of people point to London and say "if only for regulation, that'd be us" but forget Northern Ireland retained regulation and it was terrible with falling numbers. Not a reason in itself to discount the approach but also not a reason to be transfixed by buses.
People have rejected buses and will go on rejecting them. Trams have been shown to be able to attract those people who would not want to ever go near a bus.
As for expanding Merseyrail and using the Loop Line etc - what planet are people on?
Danny Baily,
The Liverpool-Manchester electrification will provide us with an electrified fast main line route to Manchester. There is to be 4 tracks from Board Green to Huyton with all 4 electrified with wires. Two for fast trains to Mcr and two for local, slower, stopping Merseyrail. The Merseyrail trains will most certainly have dual-pickup trains (3rd rail and wires). The electrification and the dates for train rolling stock renewal merge - about 3 to 4 years time.
From the Dingle to Edge Hill can be mainly across Princes Park and up Lodge Lane. Simple and leaving stations along the way. Cut and cover is cheap. In fact deep rock boring with machines can be cheaper as there are no CPOs or protests and inquiries.
.
Merseytravel squandered ã70m in legal, consultancy and other fees.
.
The 2 mile long Waterloo and 1.26 mile long Wapping Tunnels are already bored save a ãbillion or so.
.
The Outer Loop Line is
A power struggle has broken out on this blog between the train-spotters and the political anoraks. I feel I'm holding the line for the latter. Where is Richard Marbrow when you need him?
Saving a ãbn from what?? I think you've missed the point of my previous points. All I've tried to say is that implementing the kind of plans dreamed up by enthusiasts with too much time on their hands (I'm aware of the irony that I've checked this blog for the last three days) would be a LOGISTICAL and FINANCIAL nightmare.
I'm not saying that it can't or wont be done. You can't, however, blame Merseytravel for sitting on their hands. What you're proposing is a very ambitious conversion of Merseyrail into a metro style system worthy of a much bigger conurbation. Why not complain that they haven't built a Eurostar terminus while we're at it eh?
Just to put things into perspective: Signaling improvements alone upon the arrival of new rolling stock in a few years time is going to cost a fortune and cause significant disruption.
Please tell me you've got the idea now? Or that you can at least see things from this perspective?
*Sigh*
danny_baily,
These plans dreamed up by enthusiasts, as you think they are, (which is a clear derogatory comment) are progressive to the growth of the city - and highly cost effective. They are using in-place existing infrastructure. In Extending Merseyrail into a more comprehensive metro gives the city a clear advantage and a catalyst for the future.
.
I am not anti-tram. Paris implementing some to fill gaps in their transport system. I don't see them abandoning their Metro to get them in. As in effect that is what Liverpool is doing by implementing Merseytram. They are abandoning the comprehensiveness of their own metro.
.
The Atlanta, USA, BeltLine project is what the city should be looking at. They are taking developments to the in-place transport arteries. Liverpool does it the other way around. The city ignores it transport arteries, builds elsewhere then thinks of how to get transport in.
.
Danny, the LOGISTICAL and FINANCIAL nightmare, is in implementing trams, as the comments here have clearly highlighted. Trams do no more than bendy-buses on bus lanes. I have used those in London, they are superb. Trams do not add value or will be a catalyst for economic growth as a metro will - ask London, Paris, Munich, etc. Extending the existing successful metro to a more comprehensive metro on awaiting lines and tunnels is the way. Cheap to implement, and ticks more boxes than any other scheme.
.
Danny, Merseytravel are totally to blame. OK they did not foresee the massive growth of the airport or the Wirral Waters & Liverpool Waters dockland projects. But, when the city was clearly moving in big way and the trams were pulled by HM gvmt, they should have seriously re-assess the transport needs to the future direction of the city. They never!!!! If they did they would have concluded that cheaply extending Merseyrail to a more comprehensive metro would have been the way forward.
.
Now electrification of the eastern lines to St.Helens is under way - 4 electric lines from Edge Hill to the branch at Huyton which runs off to St.Helens Central. And electrification of the Bootle Line as well. A re-think is clearly needed to implement the other disused parts of Merseyrail.
.
Danny, you still have it in your head that Liverpool is small - Merseyside is 1.5 million and the city has ambitions to increase its population and is actively increasing densities in the downtown districts - where about 4 miles of disused underground tunnels are - 5 miles if the Kirkdale-Rice Lane tunnel is taken into account. It all comes together when viewing the city holistically. Look at where the city is going and what we have. What a rail legacy we have that can more than fit the bill, cheaply and quickly.
.
Danny we could complain at not having a Eurostar terminal. The initial idea was that all major cities would have one. Conceptual High Speed rail plans appear to eliminate Liverpool in favour on Manchester, although we await the final plans. Although these points are a diversion to promoting the city by urban rapid-transit.
.
Danny, I can't see matters from your negative perspective? Your mind has overlooked the obvious.
.
Ronnie de Ramper,
"A power struggle has broken out on this blog between the train-spotters and the political anoraks."
.
I am neither. I want the best for the city. That goes over the heads of many.
.
Stuart
We send your our congratulations with the achieved election results. The people of West Derby are priviledged to have someone like you to look after their interests.
We love our trams.
Jack & Ine Van Den Heerik, the city has not got trams.
.
Stuart speaks a lot of sense backed up by hard facts.
.
In West Derby you are better wanting the mothballed Outer Loop re-instated providing a rapid-transit rail station and speedy connections to the city centre. all Merseyside and to the airport.
.
Understand the issues and what you can gain.
.
As a rule, many pupils don’t know how to write Justice Essay>, but they may get professional assistance from top-level custom essay writing service.
Incredible! This blog looks just like my old one!
It's on a totally different topic but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Outstanding choice of colors!