In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 10:16:08 on Wed, 26 Jul
2017, d remarked:

In europe cities the size of brum and manchester
generally have a tram system AND a proper metro but until the 90s they
didn't even have the trams and nottingham only gots its tram 10 or so
years ago! This is a shameful indictment of UK public transport policy by
all governments.

And despite the cries of anguish from the Manchester area, London
farepayers contribute half the cost of running Northern Rail. A
massive subsidy for which they don't appear to be the slightest bit
grateful.

I don't think that subsidy contributes much to services in Northern cities
either.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:43:04 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



wrote in message news On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article
-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:

I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock, as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve new
track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a
londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in
transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to London's
CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.

Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads; in
other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:43:04 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



wrote in message
news On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article
-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:

I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock,
as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve
new
track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a
londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in
transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's
CapEx advantages

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.

Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads;
in
other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

That's true too

in the quadrant of London where I grew up, in the 50 year since I was old
enough to remember the road layout, where trunk routes are concerned there's
been one major junction improvement and about a mile of "bypass" road

And, I think, that's it

tim

On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 22:43:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax

You've obviously never driven on the M60 in the rush hour. Manchester (and
brum) both need proper metros, not cut price trams.

--
Spud

In London, money is only spent on roads to make them less fit for
purpose.

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;162540']tim... wrote:-


"Recliner" wrote in message
...-
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 10:43:04 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:
-


d wrote in message
news On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 02:00:37 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
In article
nal-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:

I think a lot of the Tyne & Wear Metro improvements are
locally funded too.

What improvements?

The ones currently under way.

So do they include new network extensions, new stations or new stock,
as
Manchester Metrolink has repeatedly enjoyed?

Not sure there's anywhere left to extend it to that doesn't involve
new
track
or tunneling and that won't happen because its not london. Even as a
londoner
I think the disparity between the investment the capital gets in
transport
infrastructure and what other cities get is a disgrace.

the problem is that London's spend is skewed by the huge number of
people
that it has to provide transport for, who don't actually live there-

True, but London taxpayers also contribute heavily to the transport
costs in Wales, Scotland and the North of England.-

I find it hard to believe that operating subsidy reaches close to
London's
CapEx advantages-

You may be right: I've not seen a proper analysis. I suppose the issue
is
that London is much more dependent on public transport, particularly
rail,
than the much smaller northern cities. And London generates a huge tax
surplus, which funds projects everywhere else.

Also, while London gets a lot of rail investment, it sees few new roads;
in
other cities, I seem to see a lot of new roads.

In London, money is only spent on roads to make them less fit for
purpose.

Yes, that's all too true.

On 2017\07\27 09:24, tim... wrote:

in the quadrant of London where I grew up, in the 50 year since I was
old enough to remember the road layout, where trunk routes are concerned
there's been one major junction improvement and about a mile of "bypass"
road

And, I think, that's it

South West London: York Circus and the adjoining Trinity Road, Swandon
Way and Armoury Way?

In message , at 16:07:18
on Wed, 26 Jul 2017, remarked:
In europe cities the size of brum and manchester
generally have a tram system AND a proper metro but until the 90s they
didn't even have the trams and nottingham only gots its tram 10 or so
years ago! This is a shameful indictment of UK public transport policy by
all governments.

And despite the cries of anguish from the Manchester area, London
farepayers contribute half the cost of running Northern Rail. A
massive subsidy for which they don't appear to be the slightest bit
grateful.

I don't think that subsidy contributes much to services in Northern cities
either.

Only half the fares basket.
--
Roland Perry