Manchester Metrolink Tram System
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Feature New Promise of LRT Systems Manchester Metrolink Tram System William Tyson Introduction to Greater city that could be used by local rail into the city centre either in tunnel or on Manchester services—taking them into the central the street. area—to complete closure and I carried out an appraisal of these options The City of Manchester (pop. 500,000) is replacement of the services by buses. Two and showed that closure of the lines had at the heart of the Greater Manchester options were to convert some heavy rail a negative benefit-to-cost ratio, and that— conurbation comprised of 10 lines to light rail (tram) and extend them at the very least—they should be kept municipalities that is home to 2.5 million people. The municipalities appoint a Passenger Transport Authority (PTA) for the Figure 1 Metrolink Future Network whole area to set policies and the Greater 1 Victoria Manchester Passenger Transport Executive 2 Shudehill 3 Market Street Rochdale Town Centre 4 Mosley Street (GMPTE) to implement them. Buses Newbold Manchester 5 Piccadilly Gardens Drake Street Piccadilly Kingsway Business Park 6 Rochdale provide most public transport. They are 7 St Peter's Square Railway Milnrow Station deregulated and can compete with each 8 G-Max (for Castlefield) Newhey London 9 Cornbrook other and with other modes. There is a 0 Pomona Bury - Exchange Quay local rail network serving Manchester, and = Salford Quays Buckley Wells ~ Anchorage ! Harbour City linking it with the surrounding areas and @ Broadway Shaw and Crompton # Langworthy also other regions of the country. Street $ Tradfford Bar trams vanished from Greater Manchester % Old Trafford Radcliffe ^ Wharfside* & Manchester United* in 1951, but returned in a very different * Imperial War Museum for the North* ( Lowry Centre form in 1992. This article outlines the Whitefield Derker Oldham Besses o' th'Barn Central development of the new system and Westwood Oldham Mumps OldhamOldham Manchester King Street Street explores the reasons for choosing trams. Freehold Prestwich It then goes on to analyze the factors that Heaton Park Bowker Vale South Chadderton have made the system successful. Finally, Hollinwood expansion of the system is discussed. Crumpsall Abraham Moss Failsworth Woodlands Road Monsall Dean Lane Queens Road North Why Manchester ManchesterManchesterBusiness Business ParkPark Ashton WWestest Chose Trams? 1 New East 2 Holt Town (for Velodrome)Edge Ashton Moss Ashton-underAshton-under-- Weaste 3 LLyneyne 4 Sportcity Lane Droylsden Eccles Ladywell Pollard Clayton # 8 5 In the mid-1980s, the local rail network ! ~ 7 Street Cemetery Audenshaw @ 6 Road Giants = Field* ( was in need of major investment in new Parkway - 0 9 Trafford Centre Village rolling stock, power supply and * & ^ Mosley Road $ signalling. It also suffered because the % Firswood stations in central Manchester were at Stretford Chorlton-cum-Hardy least 1 km from most passengers’ St Werburgh's Road Chester Road Hough End destinations in the Central Business Hardy Farm Barlow Withington Dane Road Moor Burton Road Road District and the main shopping and Sale Water Sale Park* entertainment areas. As a result, the West Didsbury Brooklands Didsbury Village Northern Moor East Didsbury subsidy bill was increasing as the quality Kings Stockport Town Centre Wythenshawe Park Reach* Timperley Craig Road of service was getting worse because of Moor Road Gorsey Bank* the old infrastructure and rolling stock. Baguley Roundthorn Martinscroft The PTA was paying more and more and Navigation Road Haveley Phase 1 & 2 operations Altrincham Wythenshawe Hospital Benchill Phase 3 contract getting less and less so it initiated a Newall Green Crossacres Powers obtained Wythenshawe TTownown Centre Robinswood Road Subject to Transport & comprehensive study of options for the Davenport Green Peel Hall Works Act approval Woodhouse Subject to private sector funding future of the local rail network in 1982. Park Shadowmoss Manchester Airport Wharfside* Subject to further consultation A wide range of options for the future of Possible future Metrolink stop the network was examined, ranging from Source: GMPTE, 2003 building a tunnel under the centre of the 22 Japan Railway & Transport Review 38 • March 2004 Copyright © 2004 EJRCF. All rights reserved. open in some form. If they were to be construction cost was £160 million (£1 = high-floor trams. In the city centre, most extended into the city centre, light rail US$ 1.80) and £5 million was offered for stops have high platforms although two conversion with a surface tram line in the the operating concession. have low platforms with a high section at city would have the highest benefit-to-cost The main terms of the operating concession one end. This makes the system fully ratio because it was the lowest-cost way are that GMPTE sets the minimum accessible to the mobility impaired, to provide access to the city centre. frequency of the services and periods of including passengers in wheelchairs and These two options were taken forward into operation and specifies the levels of those with heavy luggage, shopping or further appraisals that showed that the reliability that have to be achieved. The children in pushchairs. tram option was the better of the two in operator can set fares but is in competition This first phase of the system is 31-km long cost-benefit terms. The PTA adopted the with commercial bus services and pays all with 25 stops, five of which are in the city tram option as policy and in 1988, the the system operating costs. centre; a sixth stop in the city centre was GMPTE obtained the statutory powers to Construction took place between 1990 and opened in 2003. Of the 20 former railway build and operate it, followed in 1988 by 1992. Two local heavy rail lines were stations, 16 are now entirely tram stops, agreement from central government of a selected for conversion to the tram two are shared between tram and local grant towards the construction costs. network—one to the north of the city and trains on separate platforms, and two are one to the south. They were connected by parts of larger city-centre rail stations. The 2.5 km of on-street track in the city centre, average distance between stops is 1.3 km. Delivering the System most of which is segregated from other Twenty-six trams that can each carry up traffic. Both local rail lines terminated at to 206 passengers provide the services. Besides being the first modern light-rail purpose-built bus–rail interchanges (Fig. 1) Up to 23 trams are in service during the street system in the UK, Manchester also in the centres of the towns they served Monday–Friday peaks and 25 are developed a new form of business concept (Altrincham in the south and Bury in the sometimes in service. by involving the private sector in north). Passengers from the north were operation of the system. The government given direct access to the main national and of the day insisted that the private sector inter-regional rail station at Piccadilly for Impacts should play a role in operating the new the first time and passengers on both lines system. This was consistent with get direct access to the city centre. The tram system opened in sections government deregulation and between April and November 1992 and privatization of most bus services outside was an instant success. The local railway London and later privatization of the rail Services lines had been carrying about 7.6 million network between 1993 and 1997. passenger journeys each year when they A new form of contract was devised for Services on the local rail lines before were closed for conversion to trams. In the tram—Design, Build, Operate, and they were converted to trams ran every the year to 31 March 1994, the trams Maintain (DBOM). As the name suggests 10 minutes during the Monday–Friday carried 11 million passenger journeys— it combines a conventional design and peak hours, every 15 minutes between the 20% of whom would otherwise have used build contract with a concession to peaks and all day on Saturdays, and every the car. I estimated that patronage would operate and maintain the system for a 30 minutes in evenings on the Altrincham settle at 12 million passenger journeys per period of 15 years. Financial estimates line on Sundays. (The Bury line had no year after 2 years of operation of the full by GMPTE showed that passenger trains on Sundays.) By contrast, the trams service. This level was achieved by the revenue on the tram system would exceed provide a 6-minute service from 07:00 to end of 1994, just over 2 years from the operating costs but would not cover the 18:00 on Mondays to Saturdays and a start of the full service in November 1992. initial construction costs. 12-minute service at most other times These initial patronage levels have Bids from consortia for the DBOM (a 15-minute service runs on Sunday continued to grow. By 1997–98, contract comprised two elements: the evenings). The trams also run for longer patronage had risen to 13.8 million cost of building the system, and the each day than the rail services did. passenger journeys, reaching 15 million amount that they were prepared to pay When the system was built, Europe had passenger journeys in 2002–03, or more for the right to operate the system no low-floor trams in mass production and than double the patronage on the old local accepting both the cost and revenue risks all the stations on the former railway lines railway services. for the 15-year period. In the event, the had high platforms, so the system uses The tram increased its market share for Copyright © 2004 EJRCF.