Jump to content

Tram expansion in Sheffield

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ----------

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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??

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ----------

 

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.

Edited by Lex Luthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ----------

 

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 ----------

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.