Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[Waterways]

On the contrary, I would have pedestrianised more of the city centre creating a periphery road route around its edge only, served from the main arterial routes with strategically placed multi storey car parks with park and ride buses or trams only using the remaining centre roads to get you to and from your car to the shops/places of interest. This would do away with hundreds of traffic lights, signs and traffic wardens as we know them and allow for pavement cafes and a European feel and you'd actually look up and notice the buildings we take for granted. It would also be disabled friendly with an emphasis on using public transport to enter the city wherever possible. I for one never park right in the centre these days anyway, too much trouble getting in and out - the 1960s photos and 70s memories of Church Street are bad enough without all the extra traffic these days.

Ged, a man of my own heart. The selfishness of car owners has ruined British cities.

A periphery road would not do much as all you could do is ride around it. Edge Hill is superb for park and ride if the Wapping and Waterloo tunnels are brought back into use.

The Dock Rd should go as it acts as big unnecessary barrier preventing the dock areas from merging into the city beyond. A urban motorway running through the centre the city does not need at all, and that is all the Dock Rd is. The Strand should be like the Ramblas in Barcelona with pavement cafes, etc.

Roll on the city centre and dock waters high rises and getting the city populated again.

[Bingo Bob]

Trams, and for the old, fat or lazy they can then have Segway PTs (vvvvvvvvvmmmmmmmmmm)
That's the way to go.

I like the way I don't have to avoid cars when I amble around town, especially any boyracer clowns (daft term that stupid people use for themselves)

[petromax]

The city is trying to boost the tourist side of the city. How? They really don't know. ..

Just because you don't know, don't assume that everyone else is in the same position

Developers want money making attractions, like Kings Dock, where you can char-banc people in and out and then create a char-banc park on an infilled docks..

Yes, people want to make money, that's how you get a dynamic city. As long as they leave the money at the door by way of rates and Section 106 contributions and an increased city economy that's good for the city

Firstly an overhead railway is impractical and a nostalgic expense - a dream. Looks good on a model, but it will block views. It will also have to merge with Merseyrail and by nature will be light rail. Best spend the money on something more useful. For tourists a Birkenhead type of tram system running around the docks is enough. .

Overhead railways are practical and financially feasible solutions all around the world. They create more views for visitors than they block. A reasonably successful tourist destination city can be expected to pull in 20m tourist visitors a year - not to mention business travel. Read back, you will see that I said the link was essential; However, I did not say that it necessairly be overhead. However, overhead systems are quicker, more efficient and are a greater statement of confidence. Something the city is only just realising is what makes a difference, as in 'It'll never happen in Liverpool, they don't believe in themselves. Why should I believe enough to put my money there?"

The northern outer loop is there. It just needs to be connected at Edge Hill, the expensive bit. The southern loop is there, but only the track bed..

The outer loop does not run into Edge Hill. You are thinking of the inner loop via the Olive Mount Chord. The outer loop is outside Queen's Drive and is currently a linear park.

An inner loop is easy to implement as 80% is there. It is needed for better passenger connections and to serve inner city areas for re-generation. Implementing the INNER loop will also complete the OUTER loop...

...It appears you don't understand the seamless system. It makes it easy to expand the Metro rail system and great flexibility to plan routes for an expanding city. .

You do not seem to understand the relative cost of tunnelling and more importantly how people move and the importance of desire lines. You appear determined to force people where they don't want to go now or where they will need to go in the future. Your other posts with respect to trams echo this. The tram routes complete the picture and follow the desire lines at the most effective cost.

An expanded underground is not justified - its just a bit of 'glory'

[petromax]

.....Don't allow fads to taint your mind. Some people are more interested in getting a pet fad in place.

Yes they are

[petromax]

My car gives me Terry Wogan on the radio. It gives me the exact temperature as I sit in my leather seat. There are no scallies behind me smoking or playing their music loud.

Until someone comes up with a tram/train like that, I'll quite happily use the car

Try:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story_atta...q=3&type=P&c=1

[Waterways]

Yes, people want to make money, that's how you get a dynamic city. As long as they leave the money at the door by way of rates and Section 106 contributions and an increased city economy that's good for the city

But making money at the expense of cutting off your nose to spite your face is a silly way of doing it. The Kings Dock has proven that. And Peel are wanting to fill in West Waterloo Dock again.

Overhead railways are practical and financially feasible solutions all around the world. They create more views for visitors than they block. A reasonably successful tourist destination city can be expected to pull in 20m tourist visitors a year - not to mention business travel. Read back, you will see that I said the link was essential; However, I did not say that it necessairly be overhead. However, overhead systems are quicker, more efficient and are a greater statement of confidence. Something the city is only just realising is what makes a difference, as in 'It'll never happen in Liverpool, they don't believe in themselves. Why should I believe enough to put my money there?"

An overhead from the Waterloo Tunnel, along and through the docks and running though the Dingle Tunnel would be a great asset. If the tunnel link from Dingle to Edge Hill was made it would be a superb Circle Line linking up at the Northern Line at Waterloo, the Wirral Line at James St via a separate staircase down the to station beneath, and other lines at Edge Hill.

The outer loop does not run into Edge Hill. You are thinking of the inner loop via the Olive Mount Chord. The outer loop is outside Queen's Drive and is currently a linear park.

No. The loop via Anfleld can run into Edge Hill. Then it can run down the Wapping Tunnel and into the Northern Line and into Central Stn. The branch between the two tunnels has to be made.

The southern loop, which was proposed in the 1970s, was to be done with work at Broad Green, but was not completed.

You do not seem to understand the relative cost of tunnelling

I don't need to. When 80% of something is already there and it is something which we need, then the cost is not great, whatever it costs - that I do know.

and more importantly how people move and the importance of desire lines.

The city is expanding, so the transport infrastructure must match the areas of expansion. Quite simple really. But what areas need to expand? Well best follow the existing underground rail infrastructure as it is there. There again - quite simple.

You appear determined to force people where they don't want to go now or where they will need to go in the future.

Please read what I write. People will go where the planners make them go - quite simple. Creating an outer city centre Circle Line, a North End Outer Loop and South End Outer Loop, together with the existing system, will cover vast part of Liverpool and the Wirral and make it easy to travel around this network too.

Your other posts with respect to trams echo this. The tram routes complete the picture and follow the desire lines at the most effective cost.

Trams only complete the picture, they are not the focal point of the picture. The current tram proposals are a little more than a joke. For e.g., the line Kirkby parallels the Merseyrail line - how dumb! Trams can fill in the gaps the Merseyrail does not cover, but only after existing underground infrastructure is brought back into use.

An underground line can regenerate an area (look at the Jubilee Line in London - fantastic), I doubt trams will make such an impact. Manchester trams are working well, however Sheffield and Croydon are clearly not. The Manchester trams are hardly comprehensive either:
http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/route_map.pdf

If Manchester had what we have under our streets, they would not have implemented trams. They wanted an underground, but building one from scratch was way too expensive for them, so they went for trams.

An expanded underground is not justified - its just a bit of 'glory'

As a lot of it is actually there and running through areas that matter it is 110% justified. The bit of 'glory' is an overhead railway and trams, which are really back burner items to the prime underground rapid transit system, which will make a difference to the city, the area as whole and regeneration of inner city areas.

"Nice" to have trams and overhead railways, and they complete a picture, however let's not put the cart before the horse. Get the priorities right - a system that will benefit he city and greatly assist in its future growth.

[Waterways]

Liverpool has:

• numerous disused rail tunnels under its streets (some amongst the oldest in the world)
• a collection of disused underground stations.
• more disused overground stations than any other British city, complete with lines.

These disused stations and lines just need seamlessly merging into the system. The city should concentrate and prioritise on its rapid transit rail system and extending it, not wasting money on unneeded trams - which is another rail system. The rail system system is already there.

Trams and light rail may compete the picture, however in Liverpool they are waste of expensive time and resources at the present, as the infrastructure for extending the existing rapid transit rail system is already largely there.

Objections to the trams:Objections

6.5 In the view of a number of objectors, there is no clear need for Merseytram Line 1 in transportation terms. Passengers between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre are already catered for by the fast, frequent and recently refurbished Merseyrail Electrics trains.

6.12 Merseytravel has demonstrated no transport need for the proposed tram. There is a train service between Kirkby Railway Station and central Liverpool which provides a train every 15 minutes, with a journey time also of only 15 minutes. There is a frequent bus service in the Line 1 corridor. The time saving for most journeys within the line 1 corridor resulting from use of the proposed tram rather than the bus is at most 5 minutes. Even this claimed marginal advantage is misleading because it takes no account of the additional waiting time for the tram or of the longer average walk to the tram stop predicated by the wider tram catchment area compared with that of the bus. There is ample bus capacity: a bus can carry up to 50 passengers, but average use is only 12 to 14 passengers per bus.

6.34 The scheme would meet no identified transport need, and, indeed, would damage competing transport undertakings such as local trains and buses by unfair competition. There is already a train service between Kirkby and Liverpool run by Merseyrail.

there is currently a bus service between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre on average about every two minutes. There is accordingly no need or natural demand for a tram.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (OBJ/269)

The [tram] scheme is poorly targeted and does not represent good value for money. The money could be better spent on other projects, including the provision of a new deepwater harbour and cruise liner terminal, or improvements to local roads and the provision of a rapid rail link to Liverpool Airport.

6.41 It is self-evident that by promoting a tram which is largely to be publicly funded, in direct competition with buses and trains which are in large part without public subsidy, Merseytravel is acting in contravention of EU competition law. Any grant of public money would be challengeable in court or before the European Competition Commissioner.

[robt]

I don't need to. When 80% of something is already there and it is something which we need, then the cost is not great, whatever it costs - that I do know.

How do you know a cost is 'not great' when you have no idea whether it is millions or billions?

Objections to the trams:Objections

<snipped to save space>

I don't think anyone (on this thread) has suggested that the tramline to Kirby was a good idea - I can't speak for others I think it was pure stupidity duplicating existing rail and bus links.

[Waterways]

How do you know a cost is 'not great' when you have no idea whether it is millions or billions?

If it need to be done it needs to be done and we would not be paying the full price, whatever that is.

[ChrisO]

Concentrate on services to get around the city and Merseyside area. Lines from elsewhere can terminate where they already do at Lime St and Edge Hill. Running lines in Wigan or Timbuktoo doesn't help inner city Toxteth.

I completely understand about extending services within the city, but surely it makes sense to link with national services if at all possible (wouldn't that benefit the entire city, not just Toxteth?) And I mentioned Wigan purely in case other readers didn't understand what I was getting at, and it's hardly Timbuktoo is it?




Trams are fine to have but must be the last in line of priorities. It appears some transport/rail consultancies are pushing trams as maybe they are the flavour of the year.

I apologise if you misunderstood my thread entry, but I am not advocating the use of light rail/trams

Common sense has to prevail. Extending the system to use existing tunnels, stations and track is by far the most effective approach - not trams. Look at post 20 on this thread for a map of a proposal to use the Dingle and Waterloo tunnels.


Best concentrate on what matters -a fully integrated metro system and how it aids and regenerates an expanding city. A system which is largely in place. Don't allow fads to taint your mind. Some people are more interested in getting a pet fad in place.

I don't think it's a fad at all, does anyone else?

[petromax]

But making money at the expense of cutting off your nose to spite your face is a silly way of doing it. The Kings Dock has proven that. And Peel are wanting to fill in West Waterloo Dock again..

Are you saying King's dock is not successful? Unfortunately, Peel have not shown themselves to be rocket scientists - I am not about to defend them, they have a long way to go

An overhead from the Waterloo Tunnel, along and through the docks and running though the Dingle Tunnel would be a great asset. If the tunnel link from Dingle to Edge Hill was made it would be a superb Circle Line linking up at the Northern Line at Waterloo, the Wirral Line at James St via a separate staircase down the to station beneath, and other lines at Edge Hill...

I don't deny a loop can be made if you REALLY want to but what are you trying to connect? Edge Hill to Dingle?

No. The loop via Anfleld can run into Edge Hill. Then it can run down the Wapping Tunnel and into the Northern Line and into Central Stn. The branch between the two tunnels has to be made. ...

When the Olive Mount Chord is up and running the Anfield loop will be chocka with freight. As previously noted Peel don't do anything for nothing

I don't need to. When 80% of something is already there and it is something which we need, then the cost is not great, whatever it costs - that I do know....

80% of what? I don't see any tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill.

The city is expanding, so the transport infrastructure must match the areas of expansion. Quite simple really. But what areas need to expand? Well best follow the existing underground rail infrastructure as it is there. There again - quite simple.....

The underground system that is there is TINY. This is a contraction, not an expansion.

Please read what I write. People will go where the planners make them go - quite simple. .....

I have read what you have written and you have just repeated that you expect to force people to go where they don't want to go.

Trams only complete the picture, they are not the focal point of the picture. The current tram proposals are a little more than a joke. For e.g., the line Kirkby parallels the Merseyrail line - how dumb! Trams can fill in the gaps the Merseyrail does not cover, but only after existing underground infrastructure is brought back into use. .....

Correct, trams only complete the picture but the 'joke' from Kirkby picks up all the northern wards and connects them to the city.

An underground line can regenerate an area (look at the Jubilee Line in London - fantastic), I doubt trams will make such an impact. Manchester trams are working well....

Tell me which part of the Jubilee Line or the manchester trams was not making it possible to travel into the city for work.

...Get the priorities right - a system that will benefit he city and greatly assist in its future growth.

The next priority is the inner suburbs which your proposals do not connect to the centre which is where people want to go.

[petromax]

If it need to be done it needs to be done and we would not be paying the full price, whatever that is.

WRONG!!! If it needs to be done it has to be VIABLE or it won't get funded

[ChrisO]

Apologies for my last entry, as I say, I 'm new to this forum and haven't got the hang of quoting previous entries yet

[Waterways]

I completely understand about extending services within the city, but surely it makes sense to link with national services if at all possible (wouldn't that benefit the entire city, not just Toxteth?) And I mentioned Wigan purely in case other readers didn't understand what I was getting at, and it's hardly Timbuktoo is it?

When London Underground acquired the Metropolitan Railway in the early 1930s to merge into the underground it had some stations in villages in Oxfordshire. They were on the tube for 5 years then sold off/closed down. Aylesbury in North Bucks was on the Tube until 1960, then closed down. London retreated into the London area and concentrated on London. The outer regions were someone else's responsibility.

Let others do Wigan and Merseyrail meets the Wigan train at a station for connections, like at Edge Hill or Lime St.

[Waterways]

WRONG!!! If it needs to be done it has to be VIABLE or it won't get funded

Quote what it would cost building from scratch and then what it would cost building with 80% in place. State the great benefits, which will assist in transforming the city. Let them know they are getting a bargain. If you don't tell them they will not know. That will win over the politicos. They like bargains.