Supertram future- consultation

[Ghozer 112]

It would be cheaper to give everyone in Sheffield access to free bicycles than to install/run/maintain a new tramline?

It would reduce the obesity problems at the same time.

 

no good for most disabled,

people with no road sense,

elderly,

people with kids,

people trying to get to the hospital with minor injuries or other ailments...

[amazon123 17]

it could continue from herdings ,past jordanthorpe,batemoor,lowedges to totley ect

and would probably mean less traffic woodseats .

 

...and continue to serve the areas where residents contribute the least to the council's coffers. No offence, but it would be nice if the tram system served areas with higher rates of employment to make people's journeys to work easier (rather than free daytime trips to Meadowhall); the areas where residents contribute the most to the funding of this kind of venture. Many people living in Jordanthorpe, Batemoor and Lowedges don't need the tram...those living in the Abbeydale Road/Ecclesall Road corridors do...

Edited September 21, 2016 by amazon123

[Cyclone 10]

no good for most disabled,

people with no road sense,

elderly,

people with kids,

people trying to get to the hospital with minor injuries or other ailments...

 

Also

People going shopping.

People going for a drink.

People going to make a connection to onwards travel.

People going very far.

When it's raining hard.

When it's very hot.

When you're dressed for dinner/event.

[crookedspire 10]

Shouldn't have closed the tram system down in 1960 would have saved them a packet everything all set up now going to cost million's to set back up again!

[dutch 68]

Investment panickers?

 

Someone who refuses to make improvements out of fear to face the financial challenge.

[1978 14]

it could continue from herdings ,past jordanthorpe,batemoor,lowedges to totley ect

and would probably mean less traffic woodseats .

 

From a construction point of view it certainly could be extended as far as the fire station at the western end of Low Edges. It would cost a lot, disrupt traffic flows during (and probably after) construction, and wouldn't pick up as much traffic as some might expect by the time it had meandered all that way. Even buses through Woodseats would be quicker into town from Low Edges. Jordanthorpe and Batemoor residents might find the same. Extending that route beyond Low Edges to Totley wouldn't be a realistic construction proposition.

 

Reinstating a tram down the Sheaf valley towards Totley might be possible, but it would interfere in a major way with road traffic if run down Abbeydale Road. (It was already starting to do that by the time the original trams were withdrawn in 1960.) That would pick up the most pedestrian traffic from nearby houses. Building a tram train route on or alongside the railway would be difficult to get through the bottleneck by Tesco's, and any park and ride facility might be thwarted by limited space for parking - and also access to sites for stops/stations.

 

Lots to be considered.

[muckymurphy 10]

It would also help the thousands of NHS staff members who are being exploited with parking costs and the lack of parking too.

 

---------- Post added 21-09-2016 at 13:28 ----------

 

Where has all the lowlife of Turkey gone ?

 

probably come here or calais!

[1978 14]

I can't find the statistics to prove it online, but the Tyneside Metro was very much more heavily used before buses were deregulated. At the start buses were very well coordinated with the Metro trains at major interchanges, like Four Lane Ends, West Gosforth, Gateshead and Heworth. As an example, most buses stopped running across the Tyne to Newcastle from Gateshead. Passengers didn't like changing modes of travel, but they had little choice.

 

As soon as buses were deregulated buses ran into the city once again and passenger numbers on the Metro dropped substantially. They may not have recovered even after opening more stations on lots more track.

 

A tram (or train) system is rigid, unable to adapt or change route to meet small pockets of custom. It works best when there are large volumes all going in the same direction. Reserved track is best. It could be on, above, or below ground. It may only need to go under or over for short stretches to avoid bottlenecks.

 

The Tyneside Metro goes underground through Newcastle city centre and then uses the old suburban railway lines. The Greater Manchester Metrolink also uses a good network of old suburban railway lines running through high density housing. By building a second crossing through the city centre they're giving themselves more options.

 

Sheffield certainly needs to do something. Going back to Manchester, they have a good network of free and frequent shuttle buses around the city centre linking rail stations and business areas. Manchester is fairly flat. Hilly Sheffield offers a tram from the back of the station to the city centre, and a bus interchange below the level of the main shopping area, although many bus routes go nowhere near rail or bus interchange points.

 

Whatever we may propose is going to cost money. Money doesn't grow on trees. Windows of opportunity open and close. Manchester has been doing very well for city centre transport infrastructure recently. So have Nottingham, and Birmingham. We seem to be being left behind........

[martyn1949 12]

It's been a huge success so a massive expansion of the network is what is needed. When Manchester had its big bang expansion it really made it much more of an asset for the whole region. Before that it only served a thin corridor of the city so wasn't all that useful for most people. Sheffield is still at that stage. Hopefully tram-train is part of the answer.

 

When they quoted £100 MILLION to extend it just to Stocksbridge? You have to be joking.. The whole thing was a colossal waste of money... it cost £250 million to build, and they sold it for £1 to Stagecoach cos they could not make it pay.

 

It was losing half a million a MONTH under council control... you saw it going round empty all the time...

 

And, it made mine, and lots of other people's lives and businesses impossible for two years when they dug up every damn road in Sheffield, just about at the same time. I could only get half my work done, it too so long to get anywhere.

 

Mind you, the council leaders and money people, living in Dore and so on, weren't disturbed by it, were they? It doesn't go there.

 

What is the use of a stupid system that doesn't go to the 4 main places any public transport system really SHOULD go to...

 

It doesn't come in to a platform at the railway station... (to enable easy interchange)

 

It doesn't come in to a platform at the bus station (ditto)

 

It doesn't go anywhere NEAR the Northern General Hospital

 

Or the Hallamshire/Childrens/Weston Park/Jessops Hospitals either....

 

All places where there is a huge demand for fast public transport at minimum physical effort, as people are not well, and with disabilities.

 

What load of idiots designed the system that avoids the 4 main places where demand is obvious?

 

Oh, I know, the People's Republic of South Yorkshire - the same lot that lost a ton of money on the World Student Games.

 

Idiots.

 

Don't waste another penny on this disaster.

Edited September 21, 2016 by martyn1949

[Guest busdriver1]

I can't find the statistics to prove it online, but the Tyneside Metro was very much more heavily used before buses were deregulated. At the start buses were very well coordinated with the Metro trains at major interchanges, like Four Lane Ends, West Gosforth, Gateshead and Heworth. As an example, most buses stopped running across the Tyne to Newcastle from Gateshead. Passengers didn't like changing modes of travel, but they had little choice.

 

As soon as buses were deregulated buses ran into the city once again and passenger numbers on the Metro dropped substantially. They may not have recovered even after opening more stations on lots more track.

 

I lived there at the time and can confirm that useage of the system was high, we had little choice. It also contributed to the biggest rise in Car ownership the area has ever seen, myself included.

My 20 minute, one bus to work became 2 buses and a metro combined journey 50 minutes.

The expansion of the system is in no small way due to the errors made during construction of the underground section, meaning one station has 50% of the platform on too steep a gradient for use. This means shorter train formations are used than first envisaged leading to the overcrowding that was rife during the pre-deregulation period. ( if you dont believe me go to the end of an underground platform and look round the divider, there is as much platform again beyond). The expansion has been partly to find a use for the stock that cant be used due to the building **** up, and to be fair was done on the cheap and not well thought out.

[Planner1 428]

The city centre is dying on its feet and I object to the high price of parking so avoid going unless I have to. The council should think about this as they revamp the Moor.

 

How can you say the price of parking is high?

 

The most you pay in a council car park is fiver a day and on street, the central area charges (£2/h) are a third less than the nearest comparable cities like Leeds and Manchester (£3/h) and are basically the same a Nottingham's.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2016 at 04:41 ----------

 

There have been numerous attempts at expansion and every one has failed mainly due to the massive incompetence shown in the initial system.

For this reason, back door expansion is the only way it will happen, hence the tram train fiasco.

There's been only one bid to the government to fund an extension, which was the spur up to the Hallamshire hospital. The government turned it down because the benefits didn't justify the costs. Nothing to do with the initial system.

 

The tram train trial is a Network Rail initiative, it wasn't promoted by Supertram.

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2016 at 04:52 ----------

 

When they quoted £100 MILLION to extend it just to Stocksbridge? You have to be joking.. The whole thing was a colossal waste of money... it cost £250 million to build, and they sold it for £1 to Stagecoach cos they could not make it pay.

 

It was losing half a million a MONTH under council control... you saw it going round empty all the time...

 

Supertram hasn't been sold at all. SYPTE own the infrastructure and vehicles. Stagecoach just have a contract to operate it.

 

Supertram has never been under Council control. It is run by SYPTE, a completely separate organisation.

 

Supertram isn't the only tram network where initial estimates of ridership were too optimistic. All the recent extension lines in Manchester are falling way short of estimates on ridership.

[1978 14]

Supertram isn't the only tram network where initial estimates of ridership were too optimistic. All the recent extension lines in Manchester are falling way short of estimates on ridership.

 

No mass public transport system can overcome preference for door to door travel without any waiting or need to consult timetables and route maps. I'd be interested to know how many taxi journeys are made today compared with 60 years ago.

 

As a nation we'd far rather travel door to door by car, taxi, cycle or walk, than wait for a bus or tram. Adding interchanges makes for greater chance of delays. Only severe restrictions on car and taxi access in city centres would make mass public transport more viable. But we've got so used to cars and taxis any other systems have to be extensive, very frequent, fairly cheap, and reliable to have any chance to compete. London largely achieves this, but restrictions on private cars still don't deter a lot.