Sheffield Forum

Tram expansion in Sheffield

Home > Sheffield > Sheffield News & Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
18-09-2018, 11:59   #21
TeatOwl95
Registered User
TeatOwl95's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2018
Location: Killamarsh
Total Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planner1 View Post
Anything that involves tunnelling is probably a non-starter because of prohibitive cost.

The Council have ambitions to have a "mass transit" route up to NGH. It could be a tram route, but a couple of hundred million is an awful lot of money, especially when you have to find half of it locally.


The fact that the local political leaders in South Yorkshire can't even bring themselves to sign up to the devolution deal that would bring in an extra 30m per annum in funding makes getting the local contributions for major transport infrastructure even more difficult.
A revised route could see the only underground sections being going under St Mary's Gate and then the new stop at Castle Square. The tunnels would be the same sort of length as the one which currently goes under Brookhill roundabout.

Would still be costly though so we're unlikely to see it any time soon, for the reasons you've mentioned.
_______
It's a pun on tea towel.
  Reply With Quote
18-09-2018, 12:00   #22
Mr Bloke
Registered User
Mr Bloke's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Total Posts: 4,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planner1 View Post
There's always been a plan / strategy.

The road network in the city has developed over centuries and many of the roads are quite narrow. You also can't change the topography. So, it is difficult to bring about major capacity improvements on the highways without demolishing large swathes of the city.
Hmmm...

... OK let's do it!

People are reminded however to check their letter boxes for brown paper envelopes addressed to "The Occupier", as failure to return the enclosed council survey will be interpreted as you not being bothered as to whether the final remnants of the city's heritage should be demolished forever...
_______
"We Didn't Kill The Forum" - witness my latest cinematographic masterpiece on YouTube...
  Reply With Quote
18-09-2018, 12:10   #23
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 71,734
Too costly to dig a few short tunnels in Sheffield.

Digging an entire new underground line for London though, not a problem, here's 4billion quid, get cracking.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
18-09-2018, 12:27   #24
Planner1
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: S10
Total Posts: 8,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
Too costly to dig a few short tunnels in Sheffield.

Digging an entire new underground line for London though, not a problem, here's 4billion quid, get cracking.
The economics of installing mass transit systems are somewhat different in central London as property values are so high, so going underground is more practical (but still extremely expensive).

Also more easy to build a business case for transport investment there with such a high population.

The government does need to rebalance the investments if productivity in the North is ever going to start to catch up with the South East.
_______
Planner1's views are his own and do not reflect those of his employers, past or present.
  Reply With Quote
18-09-2018, 12:46   #25
tzijlstra
Registered User
tzijlstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Hillsborough
Total Posts: 12,792
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.
  Reply With Quote
18-09-2018, 13:52   #26
Planner1
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: S10
Total Posts: 8,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzijlstra View Post
The underground section would only cover a few miles.
And there you have the problem. Maybe around a billion pounds per mile for subway tunnel in a city?

---------- Post added 18-09-2018 at 13:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by tzijlstra View Post
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.
To attract the necessary levels of ridership to ensure viability, tram systems need to be through densely populated areas and have frequent stops.

I doubt that the run out to Stocksbridge from Middlewood would be viable as there isn't enough population along the line.
_______
Planner1's views are his own and do not reflect those of his employers, past or present.
  Reply With Quote
18-09-2018, 14:54   #27
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 71,734
That's a rather pessimistic estimate for cost, only NYC is having to spend that much, many other projects cost considerably less.
But that said, I'd wildly underestimated the cost of crossrail 2 hadn't I. The proposal is actually for nearly 50 billion to be spent on a new underground line for London...
Can't find a couple of billion for a single long tunnel anywhere else in the country though.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
18-09-2018, 15:16   #28
geared
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Total Posts: 13,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1978 View Post
The long delays and cost of the tram-train experiment probably makes any further expansion of that sort unlikely.
The tram-train that no-one wanted, but was effectively forced on us as an experiment has now sullied our reputation and will stand in the way of the kind of network expansion people actually want??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Planner1 View Post
Also more easy to build a business case for transport investment there with such a high population.

The government does need to rebalance the investments if productivity in the North is ever going to start to catch up with the South East.
It's also alot easier to build a case when 4 times as much money is being spent per person than up North.
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 03:07   #29
Lex Luthor
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2016
Total Posts: 1,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
Too costly to dig a few short tunnels in Sheffield.

Digging an entire new underground line for London though, not a problem, here's 4billion quid, get cracking.
Incidentally, are we subsidising this gross inequality through taxation?

---------- Post added 19-09-2018 at 03:15 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Planner1 View Post
Some years ago there was an attempt to extend up to the Hallamshire Hospital / Broomhill and also to Rotherham, but the proposed Rotherham link was dropped due to public opposition and the Government refused to fund the Broomhill spur, saying it didn't offer good value for money and the PTE should look to buses, which is why they later went for bus rapid transit to Rotherham.

Sheffield's emerging new transport strategy looks for "mass transit" links to various locations in the city, but this could mean tram, rail or bus. However, it's just a plan, so there is no money behind it to fund any actual measures.

The most recent tram extensions in other cities have been costing circa 170m per line, so it is very difficult to justify the funding (which normally comes from Government) and come up with the very substantial local contribution which will be required. Nottingham have funded their local contributions for tram extensions via a Workplace Parking Levy, which SCC and others have started looking into.
Thank you.

I thought when Supertram was first presented to the public, there were further phases promised, to placate the majority of inhabitants the initial lines wouldn't serve.

Last edited by Lex Luthor; 19-09-2018 at 03:11.
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 07:23   #30
Annie Bynnol
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Total Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Luthor View Post

I thought when Supertram was first presented to the public, there were further phases promised, to placate the majority of inhabitants the initial lines wouldn't serve.
There was never any "promised" expansion.
There were always ideas on paper and various plans with maps regularly obtained publicity in the local media. Most of these 'thoughts' were associated with commercial development and regeneration and later HS2.
Very few made any practical operational, let alone financial sense.
Later, well after the completion original routes, the Council did spend real money on s route along a corridor between Hellaby and Fulwood. The Government decided that the business case did not meet their criteria, and was not value for money, preferring instead the northern and southern bus corridors.
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 08:02   #31
alchemist
A typical Tyke
alchemist's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Gods Own County
Total Posts: 4,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
Too costly to dig a few short tunnels in Sheffield.

Digging an entire new underground line for London though, not a problem, here's 4billion quid, get cracking.
Where London is concerned cost is no problem, the rest of the country simply pays it
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 08:23   #32
busdriver1
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Total Posts: 1,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Bynnol View Post
There was never any "promised" expansion.
There were always ideas on paper and various plans with maps regularly obtained publicity in the local media. Most of these 'thoughts' were associated with commercial development and regeneration and later HS2.
Very few made any practical operational, let alone financial sense.
Later, well after the completion original routes, the Council did spend real money on s route along a corridor between Hellaby and Fulwood. The Government decided that the business case did not meet their criteria, and was not value for money, preferring instead the northern and southern bus corridors.
There was also heavy opposition from local residents in the Rotherham area who having seen the traffic congestion the tram system causes* decided they would be better off without it.

(* the congestion created to enable the trams to have a clear run to the disadvantage of all other road users).
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 08:42   #33
Ms Macbeth
Baby boomer
Ms Macbeth's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Hillsborough mostly
Total Posts: 17,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by busdriver1 View Post
There was also heavy opposition from local residents in the Rotherham area who having seen the traffic congestion the tram system causes* decided they would be better off without it.

(* the congestion created to enable the trams to have a clear run to the disadvantage of all other road users).
I lived in Bramley when those proposals were mooted. I was working in central Sheffield and was hopeful. The meetings got very heated, you're right, most of the residents were strongly opposed to the council suggestions. In the 90s when I started work in Sheffield, the bus service was ok, but it became increasingly difficult to get to work by public transport. Apart from the reduction in services, Parkway was increasingly congested at peak times, as was the slower route via Meadowhall. That meant a second car, which I parked at Meadowhall retail park or CEntertainment, and picked up the tram to Cathedral.

Moving to Hillsborough made my commute easy, we didn't need two cars, and in retirement, I get far more use from my travel pass here than would have been possible in S66.
_______
Health is the greatest gift,
contentment the greatest wealth,
faithfulness the best relationship.


Buddha
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 09:14   #34
Planner1
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: S10
Total Posts: 8,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Luthor View Post
Incidentally, are we subsidising this gross inequality through taxation?
Of course you are. Most of the money for transport schemes comes from the governments general tax account

---------- Post added 19-09-2018 at 09:20 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Luthor View Post
I
I thought when Supertram was first presented to the public, there were further phases promised, to placate the majority of inhabitants the initial lines wouldn't serve.
As has been mentioned above, various thoughts and potential plans have emerged over time, but nothing has been promised. It can't be, because any expansion of the tram system would be heavily dependant on government funding and that can't be guaranteed. Bids for funding have to be made and the business case has to go through the Department for Transport's very stringent process, which is very time consuming and costly.

---------- Post added 19-09-2018 at 09:22 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Bynnol View Post
Later, well after the completion original routes, the Council did spend real money on s route along a corridor between Hellaby and Fulwood.
It was SYPTE who put in the bid for government funding. They are responsible for the tram, not the Councils.
_______
Planner1's views are his own and do not reflect those of his employers, past or present.
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 09:22   #35
80peter
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2018
Total Posts: 78
When the tram idea was first put forward it seemed too answer the problems with public transport in the city now on reflection I'm not so sure. The tram service is limited leaving most areas out and little chance of expansion been done seems a waste of money better too develop clean running buses than digging roads up and putting up overhead wires.
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 09:53   #36
tzijlstra
Registered User
tzijlstra's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Hillsborough
Total Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80peter View Post
When the tram idea was first put forward it seemed too answer the problems with public transport in the city now on reflection I'm not so sure. The tram service is limited leaving most areas out and little chance of expansion been done seems a waste of money better too develop clean running buses than digging roads up and putting up overhead wires.
You know what the difference is between Dutch infrastructure and British infrastructure? A willingness to dig roads up.

You know what another difference is? The use of cars - investment in better public transport, safer cycling facilities, better pedestrian areas and so on means people got out of their cars for short journeys. Penistone Road was overhauled not that long ago, we got a new length of extra bus lane. We didn't get dedicated cycle lanes, smarter junctions, better pedestrian routes to for example Hillsborough Leisure Centre and so on.

When you're doing the job, do it properly. That is why the tram service is limited, it should be the foundation for a network of connections, instead it is integrated poorly into the public transport network and not reaching the parts of town it should reach.
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 10:29   #37
Annie Bynnol
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Total Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planner1 View Post
... 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.
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 10:34   #38
amnicoll
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2017
Total Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzijlstra View Post
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
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 10:45   #39
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 71,734
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.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
19-09-2018, 10:51   #40
Planner1
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: S10
Total Posts: 8,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Bynnol View Post
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
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/reg...onal-benefits/

It appears London is coming up with half the money themselves, which helps of course.
_______
Planner1's views are his own and do not reflect those of his employers, past or present.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:43.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2018