Tram expansion in Sheffield

... SYPTE who put in the bid for government funding. They are responsible for the tram, not the Councils.

In the interests of simplicity, I missed out on the middleman which in this case was totally controlled and was accountable to the SY Councils but is now additionally responsible to North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales, Bolsover, Bassetlaw and Chesterfield through the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Transport Committee.

The following route would be immensely feasible and relatively affordable. The underground section would only cover a few miles.

 

The railway from Dore to the city comes across the A61 by Broadfield Road. There is scope to branch off there and go underground (cheaply, not a lot of value in the property there) following London Road to St Mary's Gate. From St Mary's Gate the line continues north to Pinstone Street and Leopold Street where it curves off towards West Bar where it re-emerges to connect with the Stocksbridge goods-railway. This construction will be expensive but it can be done.

 

It will all be on new tracks (not using the existing rail) and stops will be at Dore, Beauchief, Millhouses, Meersbrook, Broadfield Road, London Road, St. Mary's Gate, The Moor, Peace Gardens, Leopold Square, Castle, Kelham Island, Neepsend, Shirecliffe, Kilner Way, Middlewood, Oughtibridge South, Oughtibridge North, Wharncliffe Side, Deepcar, Fox Valley Shopping Park.

 

An on-road branch from Kelham Island via Burngreave to NGH and on to Ecclesfield and Chapeltown is stage 2.

 

Stage 3 follows Porter Brook towards the city to go underground at greystones, following Ecclesall Road into the existing line where it joins up the tunnel at St Mary's Gate.

 

Wishful thinking, I know, but based on what they managed in Oslo this isn't far fetched at all. It just requires political leadership.

how would you define relatively affordable? whilst the above may be both feasible and desirable I can not see a business case here

What's the business case for £40 billion to be spent on crossrail 2 in London? It's never going to be paid back. Public transport projects aren't about making a profit.

In the interests of simplicity, I missed out on the middleman which in this case was totally controlled and was accountable to the SY Councils but is now additionally responsible to North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales, Bolsover, Bassetlaw and Chesterfield through the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Transport Committee.

SYPTE is a completely separate and independent body. Many people on here appear to think it's just part of the Council which is far from the truth.

---------- Post added 19-09-2018 at 11:03 ----------

What's the business case for £40 billion to be spent on crossrail 2 in London? It's never going to be paid back. Public transport projects aren't about making a profit.

Crowding and journey time benefits for a great many people: http://crossrail2.co.uk/discover/regional-national-benefits/

It appears London is coming up with half the money themselves, which helps of course.

What's the business case for £40 billion to be spent on crossrail 2 in London? It's never going to be paid back. Public transport projects aren't about making a profit.

There is a vast difference between a business case and making a profit and I never suggested the criteria would be making a profit

how would you define relatively affordable? whilst the above may be both feasible and desirable I can not see a business case here

The infrastructure investment needs to be seen to return on investment over time. If spending 2 billion over five years means that you reduce traffic congestion by 20% over 100 years then you are gaining a return on investment that isn't necessarily measured in direct monetary terms, but is contributing to the local economy.

Take the Dronfield Bypass, at the time it was a major undertaking and didn't appear to have any immediate benefits other than reducing the journey time from Chesterfield to Sheffield. Now Chesterfield is reaping the benefits with a number of inward investment projects that are emerging along the bypass.

It takes leadership and political courage to invest now and reap in the future. Both things that Sheffield is particularly bad at.

2 billion sounds a bargain for all that given that it was estimated that just renewing existing services, not introducing additional routes or trams was costed at around £230m recently and the cost of Rotherham was around £75 using existing track.

I understand all about the business case and how the benefits of a scheme are calculated but somehow with all the changes taking place to motoring I do not think that they would take a 100 year view

how its done just down the road

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/transport-parking-and-streets/parking-and-permits/workplace-parking-levy/

The infrastructure investment needs to be seen to return on investment over time. If spending 2 billion over five years means that you reduce traffic congestion by 20% over 100 years then you are gaining a return on investment that isn't necessarily measured in direct monetary terms, but is contributing to the local economy.

 

Take the Dronfield Bypass, at the time it was a major undertaking and didn't appear to have any immediate benefits other than reducing the journey time from Chesterfield to Sheffield. Now Chesterfield is reaping the benefits with a number of inward investment projects that are emerging along the bypass.

 

It takes leadership and political courage to invest now and reap in the future. Both things that Sheffield is particularly bad at.

SCC are investing in Heart of City 2, amongst other things, and notably in the past invested in World Student Games. I would suggest both are, or were, investments in the present with a hope of future rewards.

On a broader scale, Supertram was a SYPTE project.

2 billion sounds a bargain for all that given that it was estimated that just renewing existing services, not introducing additional routes or trams was costed at around £230m recently and the cost of Rotherham was around £75 using existing track.

 

I understand all about the business case and how the benefits of a scheme are calculated but somehow with all the changes taking place to motoring I do not think that they would take a 100 year view

The new Noord/Zuidlijn (North/South line) of the Amsterdam metro is roughly ten kilometres (six miles if you like) and was dug through some of the most difficult areas to build undergrounds (ie. in a swamp below historic monuments that stand on wooden poles). It cost 3,1 billion Euros. The total length of what I proposed for underground would be around 4 km underground. It can safely be assumed that 2 billion pound would cover the development.

Motoring is changing, it has to change, but the only way it can change is by investing in alternatives. That 2 billion investment now, if it carried 50,000 passengers a day for £3 on average would pay itself back in 36 years (Excluding operational running costs). The current Supertram network has falling numbers and is now at 36K passengers a day, but at it's peak around 2010 it was carrying 41K a day. Now add in extra lines/links and it isn't unfeasible to aim for 100K a day on the total network.

If that investment takes an additional 10,000 cars of the road each day it will have an enormous benefit to the environment. It will also directly benefit the people of Sheffield and the businesses in the city centre.

SCC are investing in Heart of City 2, amongst other things, and notably in the past invested in World Student Games. I would suggest both are, or were, investments in the present with a hope of future rewards.

 

On a broader scale, Supertram was a SYPTE project.

Heart of City, aka the project that has been going for the last 15 years and is finally seeing things happen. The World Student Games which practically nailed the city finances to the wall and delivered a few (nice) sporting facilities, one of which has already been demolished.

Wouldn't it have been a great boon for investors for Heart of the City if the council also announced better public transport infrastructure to align with the investment?

The number of opportunities missed by our council is enormous.

Here is another one related to public transport: HS2 at Meadowhall. It would have aided the regeneration of the Attercliffe corridor, which in theory is primed for major investment, high-rise office blocks, close to the AMRC, plenty of cheap land for major development, an existing tramline and so on. Instead we are getting a branch into a station where traffic is already built-up to the point of making life difficult.

Oh, and additional bonus - had Julie Dore not fought the other South Yorkshire councils on this, we'd probably now have a functioning Sheffield City Region with buy in from the other councils.

crying out for decent public transport to the AMP sites, with links to the Universities and the railway station

Building bigger car parks is not the answer. Ours has just been doubled in size and its expected to be overflowing tomorrow when the Rolls Royce students come up from Derby.

See below for latest updates. If only infrastructure could be built on the back of this

Advanced Engineering has announced its ranking of the UK’s top high value manufacturing hotspots, with Sheffield securing the top spot. Sheffield narrowly beat last year’s winner, Bristol, by just two points. The full table is shown below.

https://www.aero-mag.com/top-20-high-value-manufacturing-hotspots-in-the-uk-published/

Boeing has announced the companies that have won deals to supply all the raw materials to its new £20m Sheffield factory - including three South Yorkshire firms.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/boeing-sheffield-hands-prized-supply-contracts-to-three-south-yorkshire-firms-1-9356563

Hmmm...

... all interesting stuff... but it's clearly not what our beloved 'leaders' want.

Put yourself in their position. They've worked hard to get where they are by manipulating the system. They realise deep down that they've got where they are more by luck than judgement, and know they're clearly out of their depth trying to run the things they're responsible for at the moment.

While ever there's an excuse to blame something/someone else for their own lack of action (normally the government and lack of funding) they're happy to just sit back and continue revelling in their perceived self-importance.

How many of these people would even get to the interview stage for the position they hold if they were applying to a private business?

Having worked for many years in local business and having had the pleasure of reading many CV's from such applicants I can tell you - very few.

If you're faced with a problem you get out there and solve it. You don't sit back and look for the nearest scapegoat or you'd soon be out on your ear - one reason why private companies are able to run rings around these people when agreeing contracts.

But who can really blame them?

They don't get paid any more by taking on bigger challenges so why bother? What's their motivation?

It's much easier to spend a few hours a day on the internet 'discussing' with Joe Public why their decisions are always correct and shoring up their own fragile egos by arguing with those who know even less.