Things that piss you off that shouldn't

[bickster]

2 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

I suppose the problem is scale,  an underground only makes sense for a certain city population size for example.

It needs a certain throughput of people a day for it to be worthwhile for all public transport types I guess.
 

France is always a good comparison to the UK due to their similar populations

France has 6 enclosed Urban Metro Systems (Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Rennes. Toulouse)

The UK has 2 and the one in Glasgow is a 10km long circular line and is under half the size of any of the French ones

Italy has 7 (also similar population size)

Even your country has 2! (Amsterdam, Rotterdam)

[KentVillan]

6 hours ago, tinker said:

This article from is from 2015, it's a big eye opener to Birminghams past.

"Birmingham finally bouncing back after 70 years says Centre for Cities

City is now finally overturning a deliberate policy to stifle economic growth lasting seven decades as influential thinktank reveals Birmingham is finally becoming a boom town again"

https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/birmingham-finally-bouncing-back-after-8772639

The background isn’t quite as often assumed, though. It wasn’t an attempt to stop Birmingham overtaking London (that wouldn’t have happened anyway) but a misguided attempt to rebalance to other regions.

Quote

A series of measures, starting with the Distribution of Industry Act 1945, aimed to prevent industrial growth in the "Congested Areas" – essentially the booming cities of London and Birmingham – instead encouraging the dispersal of industry to the economically stagnant "Development Areas" in the north and west. The West Midlands Plan, commissioned by the Minister for Town and Country Planning from Patrick Abercrombie and Herbert Jackson in 1946, set Birmingham a target population for 1960 of 990,000, far less than its actual 1951 population of 1,113,000. This meant that 220,000 people would have to leave the city over the following 14 years, that some of the city's industries would have to be removed, and that new industries would need to be prevented from establishing themselves in the city. By 1957 the council had explicitly accepted that it was obliged "to restrain the growth of population and employment potential within the city."

From: http://spatial-economics.blogspot.com/2013/05/booming-birmingham-and-need-for.html?m=1

It’s actually a good example of why “zero sum” rebalancing away from booming regions is a bad idea. It’s better to support booming cities with more housing, more infrastructure, etc. rather than trying to bring growth to an unnatural halt.

So it’s definitely true that Birmingham got screwed over, and it’s definitely true that the ideas originated in London, but it wasn’t motivated by fear or spite. Just bad policy. And the North West was the beneficiary.

London actually suffers in a different way from the same mode of thinking - but in terms of housing rather than transport. London transport is superb, but the housing situation is a mess. It’s the same mentality motivating it though (tight planning restrictions to prevent population expansion).

A simple thing the UK govt could do to rebalance the economy is just invest a lot more in mobile and broadband networks to give 100% nationwide coverage. That would make remote work and rural offices more feasible in more locations.

The other thing you have in France (for example) is a lot more commuting the length of the country for hybrid work, which means someone can live in the south but work in Paris a couple of days a week, and commute via TGV. That means they’re then spending their Paris salary in the south. I just don’t think that happens in the UK to any significant extent?

I think that’s where the HS2 debate got a bit lost tbh. People argue that it just makes London even more of a hub city at the expense of surrounding cities, but surely it would mean more money travelling from London to Midlands and North, especially post-Covid when 2-3 days pw in office makes long distance commuting much more manageable?

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

France is always a good comparison to the UK due to their similar populations

France has 6 enclosed Urban Metro Systems (Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Rennes. Toulouse)

The UK has 2 and the one in Glasgow is a 10km long circular line and is under half the size of any of the French ones

Italy has 7 (also similar population size)

Even your country has 2! (Amsterdam, Rotterdam)

Does Newcastle's Metro not count?

[KentVillan]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

France is always a good comparison to the UK due to their similar populations

France has 6 enclosed Urban Metro Systems (Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Rennes. Toulouse)

The UK has 2 and the one in Glasgow is a 10km long circular line and is under half the size of any of the French ones

Italy has 7 (also similar population size)

Even your country has 2! (Amsterdam, Rotterdam)

Birmingham / West Mids is definitely big enough to have an underground network. Milan is a comparable size city and has a much better transport network, including underground.

[bickster]

5 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Does Newcastle's Metro not count?

It's not an enclosed system, its part of the National Rail Network (as is Liverpool's Merseyrail). As a result of that the trains are too infrequent to count as Metro systems

[Follyfoot]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

France is always a good comparison to the UK due to their similar populations

France has 6 enclosed Urban Metro Systems (Paris, Lille, Lyon, Marseilles, Rennes. Toulouse)

The UK has 2 and the one in Glasgow is a 10km long circular line and is under half the size of any of the French ones

Italy has 7 (also similar population size)

Even your country has 2! (Amsterdam, Rotterdam)

Is there not one in Newcastle as well?

 

I was told years ago that they would have one in Brum, but the soil is wrong, not idea if true or not 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

but the soil is wrong, not idea if true or not 

No-one builds underground systems in soil

[Follyfoot]

Just now, bickster said:

No-one builds underground systems in soil

thought it was bollocks but one of those non facts that stays with you, like Bob Holness doing the sax on Baker Street and Van Damme being the 'Predator' 

[Follyfoot]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's not an enclosed system, its part of the National Rail Network (as is Liverpool's Merseyrail). As a result of that the trains are too infrequent to count as Metro systems

[tinker]

12 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

The background isn’t quite as often assumed, though. It wasn’t an attempt to stop Birmingham overtaking London (that wouldn’t have happened anyway) but a misguided attempt to rebalance to other regions.

From: http://spatial-economics.blogspot.com/2013/05/booming-birmingham-and-need-for.html?m=1

It’s actually a good example of why “zero sum” rebalancing away from booming regions is a bad idea. It’s better to support booming cities with more housing, more infrastructure, etc. rather than trying to bring growth to an unnatural halt.

So it’s definitely true that Birmingham got screwed over, and it’s definitely true that the ideas originated in London, but it wasn’t motivated by fear or spite. Just bad policy. And the North West was the beneficiary.

London actually suffers in a different way from the same mode of thinking - but in terms of housing rather than transport. London transport is superb, but the housing situation is a mess. It’s the same mentality motivating it though (tight planning restrictions to prevent population expansion).

A simple thing the UK govt could do to rebalance the economy is just invest a lot more in mobile and broadband networks to give 100% nationwide coverage. That would make remote work and rural offices more feasible in more locations.

The other thing you have in France (for example) is a lot more commuting the length of the country for hybrid work, which means someone can live in the south but work in Paris a couple of days a week, and commute via TGV. That means they’re then spending their Paris salary in the south. I just don’t think that happens in the UK to any significant extent?

I think that’s where the HS2 debate got a bit lost tbh. People argue that it just makes London even more of a hub city at the expense of surrounding cities, but surely it would mean more money travelling from London to Midlands and North, especially post-Covid when 2-3 days pw in office makes long distance commuting much more manageable?

Why didn't they curb the growth of London then, if they are so far ahead. It takes me more time to get to West Bromwich than it does to London, ( from Marston Green) a city has to have a local economy to thrive and grow, this is aided by local transport systems.

Living in London it's so easy to pop across the city to a specialist deli , restaurant or any other independent retailer, it enables them to thrive . In cities, like Birmingham , business struggle because they either have to be in the centre with its sky high rates and rent or they won't get the business as travel is so expensive and disjointed for them to be out of the centre.

[bickster]

Birmingham probably has the second best public transport system in England

 

[KentVillan]

Just now, tinker said:

Why didn't they curb the growth of London then, if they are so far ahead. It takes me more time to get to West Bromwich than it does to London, ( from Marston Green) a city has to have a local economy to thrive and grow, this is aided by local transport systems.

Living in London it's so easy to pop across the city to a specialist deli , restaurant or any other independent retailer, it enables them to thrive . In cities, like Birmingham , business struggle because they either have to be in the centre with its sky high rates and rent or they won't get the business as travel is so expensive and disjointed for them to be out of the centre.

They *did* try to curb the growth of London (and the Green Belt is a massive restriction on London’s growth) but the policies had a much harsher impact on Birmingham because of the nature of its economy.

Your second point just isn’t true. London has a great transport network, but people don’t routinely pop from one side of the city to the other. 

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

Ferroequinologist IF YOU DON'T MIND!

[Davkaus]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Birmingham probably has the second best public transport system in England

 

Nottingham would be in the conversation. Nowhere near as much rail coverage, but a really good bus network and decent trams

[Mic09]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

Birmingham probably has the second best public transport system in England

 

No stats to back it up but in my experience;

1. London

A loooooooooong gap

2.  Greater Manchester

3. Birmingham

2 or 3 don't even get close to an average European city. 

[tinker]

4 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

They *did* try to curb the growth of London (and the Green Belt is a massive restriction on London’s growth) but the policies had a much harsher impact on Birmingham because of the nature of its economy.

Your second point just isn’t true. London has a great transport network, but people don’t routinely pop from one side of the city to the other. 

Well I do when I visit, it's so easy to do it would be rude not to.

Restricting London's growth it might be physically restricted by green belt  but its certainly not lacked public funding into its infrastructure, like the rest of the country. 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

2.  Greater Manchester

Rail Network is utterly broken

The frequency of the trams isn't good

I have no experience of the buses tbh

[bobzy]

42 minutes ago, bickster said:

It's not an enclosed system, its part of the National Rail Network (as is Liverpool's Merseyrail). As a result of that the trains are too infrequent to count as Metro systems

This is rare on here.

 

And I don't know whether to say it, but....

 

 

 

...I don't think you're right here 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

This is rare on here.

 

And I don't know whether to say it, but....

 

 

 

...I don't think you're right here 

I'll agree that it's debatable but it's still an every 15 minute service and it does share links with the NRN (They share platforms at Sunderland). It's also run on mostly old NRN lines

The trains do run on some NRN lines and therefore the rolling stock has to have a TOPS classification (Class 599 - the new trains will be Class 555)

[Xann]

The Newcastle Metro is good. 

Network Rail look after the green line after the split towards Sunderland.