:: the £ 2.8 billion stop-gap
If Manchester get the go-ahead for the proposed congestion charge, the UK government will invest £ 2.8 billion in the city's public transport system (GMPTE press release). It's one of the main arguments for it, and certainly the reason why councils in Greater Manchester back it. But while the congestion charge itself is much debated, the investment in public transport is not. This is a shame really - there's a lot to be said on this 'TIF package'. Not much in its favour though.
There doesn't seem to be a philosophy behind the plans, though it can be called an ambitious extension of the existing network. A GMPTE map (available here) shows off the pièce de résistance: Metrolink extensions to southern Manchester. Though taking away the 'rapid bus transit' routes and other inexpensive solutions, it also becomes apparent that the investment is confined to a South-East to North-West area. Wythenshawe and Oldham stand to benefit most. Towards Bolton however the bus is upgraded and the rail network stays the same. Little can be expected also towards Cheadle, Gorton and Levenshulme - where existing rail links are apparently sufficient. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily true.
Greater Manchester has been a very car-oriented city over the past decades, and public transport relies mainly on buses to struggle through the asphalt jungle. Buses are notoriously slow - the fifteen miles between Manchester Airport and the centre can take an hour and a half easily. While there are quicker options to the airport, people caught in between railway stations have little option but to spend their time at bus stops. Trains, while quick and efficient to other boroughs and nationally, are not an option for inner city travel either though. Stations are often found in the middle of nowhere, and trains don't often stop in places such as Kearsley and Patricroft. Trams, such as the lines to Altrincham and Bury, suit such purpose much better, but the tram network limited. While it's arguably the most comfortable, reliable and efficient inner city transport available, it's not of a standard that would be accepted in Amsterdam, or on the London underground.
The TIF proposals therefore, are a stop-gap solution. Unfortunately, stop-gaps are all too common around Manchester. Realising perhaps that certain trends cannot be stopped, the city has built a large network of cycling paths, it has embraced congestion charges and it will pride itself on enormous investment in public transport. However, the cycling paths mainly follow the kerbs of dangerous roads onto deathly roundabouts, the congestion charges will quite unfairly affect professional drivers and the whole of suburbia, and public transport will be better than what it is now. Considering the state it is in currently though, that isn't saying much. The investment in Greater Manchester public transport, in effect paid for through the congestion charge, doesn't look good value for the money.
There doesn't seem to be a philosophy behind the plans, though it can be called an ambitious extension of the existing network. A GMPTE map (available here) shows off the pièce de résistance: Metrolink extensions to southern Manchester. Though taking away the 'rapid bus transit' routes and other inexpensive solutions, it also becomes apparent that the investment is confined to a South-East to North-West area. Wythenshawe and Oldham stand to benefit most. Towards Bolton however the bus is upgraded and the rail network stays the same. Little can be expected also towards Cheadle, Gorton and Levenshulme - where existing rail links are apparently sufficient. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily true.
Greater Manchester has been a very car-oriented city over the past decades, and public transport relies mainly on buses to struggle through the asphalt jungle. Buses are notoriously slow - the fifteen miles between Manchester Airport and the centre can take an hour and a half easily. While there are quicker options to the airport, people caught in between railway stations have little option but to spend their time at bus stops. Trains, while quick and efficient to other boroughs and nationally, are not an option for inner city travel either though. Stations are often found in the middle of nowhere, and trains don't often stop in places such as Kearsley and Patricroft. Trams, such as the lines to Altrincham and Bury, suit such purpose much better, but the tram network limited. While it's arguably the most comfortable, reliable and efficient inner city transport available, it's not of a standard that would be accepted in Amsterdam, or on the London underground.
The TIF proposals therefore, are a stop-gap solution. Unfortunately, stop-gaps are all too common around Manchester. Realising perhaps that certain trends cannot be stopped, the city has built a large network of cycling paths, it has embraced congestion charges and it will pride itself on enormous investment in public transport. However, the cycling paths mainly follow the kerbs of dangerous roads onto deathly roundabouts, the congestion charges will quite unfairly affect professional drivers and the whole of suburbia, and public transport will be better than what it is now. Considering the state it is in currently though, that isn't saying much. The investment in Greater Manchester public transport, in effect paid for through the congestion charge, doesn't look good value for the money.