Lack of metro in Leeds, Birmingham or Manchester

Stephen15

People say that dublin needs a metro which is a point I can understand. I cannot understand why Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham don't have them all three of these are about twice or three times the size of dublin but don't have any underground of multiple lines most European cities of similar have. In fact Leeds a city of about 2 million dosent even have a tramway just buses and a suburban rail system comprised mainly of pacers for a city in western Europe it seems it has the worst public transport system. Looking at uk websites there even seem to be much demand for one I don't understand when dublin is much smaller and people on here seem to be crying out for one. Odd

Louche Lad

Leeds has a population of 750,000, not 2 million. Even so, I do agree, Leeds is not good transport-wise - I sometimes pass through Leeds station, and some of the trains I see there look like rust-buckets.

I also visit Manchester, which has a good tram system. I was there last month, and they seem to be expanding it.

Kristopherus

Louche Lad wrote: »

Leeds has a population of 750,000, not 2 million. Even so, I do agree, Leeds is not good transport-wise - I sometimes pass through Leeds station, and some of the trains I see there look like rust-buckets.

I also visit Manchester, which has a good tram system. I was there last month, and they seem to be expanding it.

That expansion will no doubt slow down somewhat, now that there will be no EU dosh to support it.

cgcsb

Manchester developed trams and took the plunge in re-allocating road space to the tram system, none of the sharing you see with Luas.
Public transport in the UK is generally very poor. Even in south London where the population is exploding, you only get infrequent suburban trains with relatively poor connectivity and the Bus. Public transport in the UK is operated by a mish mash of private comapnies and fares are the most expensive in Europe(perhaps the world?).

This is not a country to emulate.

That being said developing such systems is not simply a function of population. Dublin may have a smaller population than the west midlands conurbation but Dublin has a massive office market and office based employment in the CBD is comparatively huge. The capital cost of offices in Dublin are about the 3rd most expensive in Europe behind London and Paris. You just don't have the same set up in Birmingham or even Manchester for that matter. Leeds is much smaller.

Stephen15

Louche Lad wrote: »

Leeds has a population of 750,000, not 2 million. Even so, I do agree, Leeds is not good transport-wise - I sometimes pass through Leeds station, and some of the trains I see there look like rust-buckets.

It's only the cc area has 750,000 the metro area has 2,300,000

Jamie2k9

Dublin does not have the density to make a metro viable dispute what most people say.

NiallBoo

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Dublin does not have the density to make a metro viable dispute what most people say.

Nor the lack of it to allow for a road network.

If you do nothing then you get the continual hectic sprawl we've been working on.

You need to look at how building it will actually change things; how the city will change over the next 50+ years in response to the investment in public transport infrastructure.

Vic_08

Stephen15 wrote: »

It's only the cc area has 750,000 the metro area has 2,300,000

2.3m is for the whole of West Yorkshire which has an extensive rail network with over 60 stations.

http://www.wymetro.com/uploadedFiles/WYMetro/Content/TrainTravel/traintimetables/Rail-network-map-2013.pdf

tabbey

Stephen15 wrote: »

It's only the cc area has 750,000 the metro area has 2,300,000

That figure relates to the entire West Yorkshire.

It includes Bradford, Huddersfield and many other towns.

Some may be dormitory towns for Leeds, but Bradford would be highly offended at the idea of being considered a suburb of Leeds.

Stephen15

Vic_08 wrote: »

2.3m is for the whole of West Yorkshire which has an extensive rail network with over 60 stations.

http://www.wymetro.com/uploadedFiles/WYMetro/Content/TrainTravel/traintimetables/Rail-network-map-2013.pdf

That sounds like mutton dressed as lamb it may look well perhap like an sbahn its with a fancy map but does it have high frequency high quality service probably not I have heard about public transport in west Yorkshire and it sounds like sardine can diesel heaps trundling along the rails the like this one hear are more like buses on rails than trains with train fares its sounds like a complete farce and something only acceptable for northern England. Do you call trains like this quality transport?

LXFlyer

Stephen15 wrote: »

That sounds like mutton dressed as lamb it may look well perhap like an sbahn its with a fancy map but does it have high frequency high quality service probably not I have heard about public transport in west Yorkshire and it sounds like sardine can diesel heaps trundling along the rails the like this one hear are more like buses on rails than trains with train fares its sounds like a complete farce and something only acceptable for northern England. Do you call trains like this quality transport?

Trains like that which are all going to be replaced with brand new rolling stock over the current Northern and TPE franchises.

Before making comments about frequency etc., why don't you actually look at the timetables on that website and also the investment programmes that Northern and TPE have in place?

L1011

Manchester has its trams, Birmingham has a dense rail network including some semi light rail. You don't seem to actually understand Leeds.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

Manchester has its trams, Birmingham has a dense rail network including some semi light rail. You don't seem to actually understand Leeds.

And in Birmingham the trams have now been extended through the city centre to New St Station.

Stephen15

But if loads of people are on here praising the trams in Birmingham and Manchester why do people here in dublin still want a metro here in dublin

ClovenHoof

Louche Lad wrote: »

Leeds has a population of 750,000, not 2 million.

and Manchester does not have a population of 5 million either and Dublin is not a low density city.

*Dr Sean Barret drives into his TCD private car parking space*

LXFlyer

Stephen15 wrote: »

But if loads of people are on here praising the trams in Birmingham and Manchester why do people here in dublin still want a metro here in dublin

Birmingham and Manchester have a much more extensive rail network than Dublin, supplemented by trams. The trams there run mainly on former railway lines.

In Dublin we have a road network that has no capacity in certain areas, particularly south central Dublin and north central Dublin, for additional capacity. We have a very limited suburban rail network and tram network.

There is insufficient roadspace for tram lines in large parts of Dublin - the only answer is a metro underground.

ClovenHoof

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Dublin does not have the density to make a metro viable dispute what most people say.

Even though Olso, Amsterdam, Hensinki and other have about the same population and density as Dublin and all have vast metros, tram systems and commuter rail networks...


*Dr Sean Barrett suggests another motorway for Sandymount strand*

cgcsb

Stephen15 wrote: »

But if loads of people are on here praising the trams in Birmingham and Manchester why do people here in dublin still want a metro here in dublin

They have vast suburban rail with good coverage and, thanks to the luftwaffe and IRA plenty of space for surface running trams. Dublin has nwither of the above, and hosts a lot more international businesses and tourism.

Stephen15

Ok bilbao in spain has a metro and it has a 950,000 population so would logic not tell me a bigger city like birmingham or Manchester would need one

cgcsb

Stephen15 wrote: »

Ok bilbao in spain has a metro and it has a 950,000 population so would logic not tell me a bigger city like birmingham or Manchester would need one

I'm not sure about Birmingham but I would say Manchester needs one. Ultimately though the British state is not good at delivering public transport.

end of the road

Stephen15 wrote: »

That sounds like mutton dressed as lamb it may look well perhap like an sbahn its with a fancy map but does it have high frequency high quality service probably not I have heard about public transport in west Yorkshire and it sounds like sardine can diesel heaps trundling along the rails the like this one hear are more like buses on rails than trains with train fares its sounds like a complete farce and something only acceptable for northern England. Do you call trains like this quality transport?

that would be because they are busses on rails. they are a modified bus body, on a modified version of the underframe of the br high speed freight wagon. classes 141 (retired, some exported to iran) class 142 (still in service, due to be withdrawn) are based on the layland national, while classes 143/144 (still in service) are a body by (at the time) walter Alexander (now Alexander dennis)
clapped out junk the minute they were put together but cheep as chips to build and maintain for a railway that was cronically underfunded and constantly had to slice dice mend and make do. quality transport they certainly aren't, far from it, but they lasted a lot longer then expected and were better then nothing or more line closures i suppose (after all, br had to insure the politicians believed costs were being cut whether they were or not) hence you had those and all the singling nonsense and the rest.

NiallBoo

Stephen15 wrote: »

But if loads of people are on here praising the trams in Birmingham and Manchester why do people here in dublin still want a metro here in dublin

I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this thread.
It seems to have gone from "why don't cities X,Y &Z want a metro?" to "if X, Y & Z don't need a metro, then why does Dublin? "

...along the way conveniently ignoring that X,Y&Z have inadequate public transport...and are still better served than Dublin.

It just seems to be about trying to create a straw-man argument against Dublin having a metro, no?

GerardKeating

cgcsb wrote: »

They have vast suburban rail with good coverage and, thanks to the luftwaffe and IRA plenty of space for surface running trams. Dublin has nwither of the above, and hosts a lot more international businesses and tourism.

Most of the British rail network would have preceded WWII, the blitz would have perhaps created space for the urban motorways how ever.

Did the "troubles" actually destroy more than a tiny handful of pubs.

KCAccidental

GerardKeating wrote: »

Did the "troubles" actually destroy more than a tiny handful of pubs.

It transformed Manchester City Centre from this



to this, plus much more...

savagethegoat

lxflyer wrote: »

Birmingham and Manchester have a much more extensive rail network than Dublin, supplemented by trams. The trams there run mainly on former railway lines.

In Dublin we have a road network that has no capacity in certain areas, particularly south central Dublin and north central Dublin, for additional capacity. We have a very limited suburban rail network and tram network.

There is insufficient roadspace for tram lines in large parts of Dublin - the only answer is a metro underground.

No, the answer is to reduce the number of cars in the city to make room for tram lines.

An Underground for Dublin is a vanity project we cannot afford.

LXFlyer

savagethegoat wrote: »

No, the answer is to reduce the number of cars in the city to make room for tram lines.

An Underground for Dublin is a vanity project we cannot afford.

That just isn't practical. We're not talking about the city centre here, we're talking about the south and north central suburbs outside the canals.

Are you seriously suggesting that you could restrict traffic outside the canals?

The plans for LUAS to Rathfarnham were ditched as it was physically impossible to fit the trams in without completely compromising priority and causing mayhem with the flow of traffic. The roadspace simply isn't there.

Like it or not traffic has to get around.

Can I ask do you live in Dublin? Do you commute through the south or north central areas? If you did (which I suspect you don't) you'd realise the scale of the problem, in terms of gridlock and lack of roadspace, and why a metro is the only long term solution in those particular areas. Trams may work elsewhere in the city, but not there.

cgcsb

savagethegoat wrote: »

No, the answer is to reduce the number of cars in the city to make room for tram lines.

An Underground for Dublin is a vanity project we cannot afford.

Not practical I'm afraid. There's no point comparing Dublin to similar sized cities in the north of England. The UK has very bad public transport, the urban areas of northern England are suffering extreme poverty and high unemployment by European standards. None of them are capitals and they serve little/no administrative or diplomatic function.

Greater Dublin is much wealthier. Office based employment in Northern England is low, with the exception of Manchester. The office markets are very small. The town centres are modern with wide streets because of war and 1970s road engineers, Dublin has medieval, georgian, Victorian, post war modernism and 1990s contributions to the street pattern.

You need to be comparing like with like. Copenhagen, Vienna, Lisbon, Munich, Stockholm are comparable to Dublin, Leeds is not.

Stephen15

lxflyer wrote: »

That just isn't practical. We're not talking about the city centre here, we're talking about the south and north central suburbs outside the canals.

Are you seriously suggesting that you could restrict traffic outside the canals?

The plans for LUAS to Rathfarnham were ditched as it was physically impossible to fit the trams in without completely compromising priority and causing mayhem with the flow of traffic. The roadspace simply isn't there.

Like it or not traffic has to get around.

I thought the luas to rathfarnham was shelved due to having to make to many cpos.

LXFlyer

Stephen15 wrote: »

I thought the luas to rathfarnham was shelved due to having to make to many cpos.

And why would they have to make all those CPOs?

Because of the lack of roadspace!!!

It would also have had to share space with normal road traffic for significant sections at Harold's X and Terenure that would have had zero priority.