Readers' letters from Friday 31 Oct 2008

On track for same rotten rail service

 I TRAVELLED home from Deansgate to Humphrey Park on Wednesday. I don’t have invective vile enough to describe this despicable service.I just missed the 17.15 train. Not a big loss: it’s so busy that it’s rare that I can actually get on it at Deansgate. The previous train leaves at 15.15 so the 17.15 is the first option for me and many other workers.The 17.45 arrived on time but was so full that nobody from Deansgate could get on. So we waited for the 18.15. And waited. And waited. It was reportedly running eight minutes late and showing due at 18.23 right up to the point when it disappeared from both screen and announcement at 18.38. No more was heard of this service. If it was cancelled, why not tell us, instead of simply telling us lies? The 18.45 train was said to be on time until 18.50 when when it became ‘approximately 10 minutes late’, which it stayed until it arrived at 19.15. Although it was standing room only, we were relieved to be getting on it at all.Even by the awful standards of this service, this was a pretty spectacular failure to deliver. The Northern train to Liverpool that went past us just after 18.30 had more empty First Class compartments than either of their commuter trains had carriages, which speaks volumes of Northern’s contempt for customers.Although I am reliant on public transport and want to support any improvement to services, I cannot support a congestion charge. Over the past decades, eye-watering amounts of money, sums that British Rail could only have dreamt about, have been poured into the private rail network and for what? Despite a decade of rhetoric about service improvements and investment, I’m travelling on the same rolling stock I used 20 years ago. There are half as many trains on the timetable and those that remain are regarded as optional by rail operators. I regret to say that nothing in the proposals on offer suggest that there will be anything other than more of the same. The advocates of the congestion charge need to spell out what they intend to do about unaccountable service providers who don’t seem to be much fussed as to whether or not they provide a service.

Steven Heywood, Manchester

Charge is small price to pay

WHEN I moved to Greater Manchester from ‘down south’ over 14 years ago, I held no love for Manchester – it was rundown and in many areas quite depressing. However, I’ve been witness to a transformation over the past 12 years that has taken my breath away. The city has seen massive investment and has become a place to be proud of. I’ve grown to love Manchester and its people and wherever I go at home or abroad I proudly tell everyone how much I love living here and what a great place it is. We are now being asked to consider congestion charging for Greater Manchester. In return we get enormous sums of money to develop our transport system to the next level. The money we are talking about here is unprecedented – it’s not just a few quid to build a new tram line, but investment on a scale that is rarely seen outside London. It will connect people from areas that are isolated by lousy rail lines and slow, inefficient bus services. It will provide us with tram lines that will make access possible for many who otherwise couldn’t dream of getting a job in the centre. It will also raise the value of housing and make the county a much smaller place. We’ll gain all of this during a time when the UK is sliding into a depressing time of recession and financial crisis. The money that we stand to gain will employ thousands of Greater Manchester residents, during construction and after completion. It will allow us to keep up the momentum that we’ve seen over the past 12 years to continue to become the second city in the UK. And what’s the downside? One in 10 people that choose to drive to work will have to pay a daily charge equivalent to their parking costs in the city. For those who must drive for their work, and whose employers won’t pay the charge, I can feel genuine sympathy. But for the benefits that the rest of us gain I for one feel that it’s more than worth it. Can I therefore plead to consider your vote carefully in December’s referendum? Think of how it will benefit the majority of people in Greater Manchester. Please also don’t think that a Plan B will suddenly arise if you say no – in the current climate the government will almost certainly withdraw their offer and leave us with little or no investment for years to come. Would you prefer the money to be re-directed to save a bank? If in doubt then please just think of those that will gain – all of us who live, work and play here.

Proud Resident of Greater Manchester

Council buses

I WENT to one of the first Transport Innovation Fund meetings in Piccadilly and found that the staff knew little more than was in the published documents. I reckon at least half of the £3m publicity budget could have been better spent on doing things such as repairing the toilets at Bury Interchange which are frequently closed ‘because of flooding’. What should be on the agenda are buses run by local authorities on a non-profit basis, with conductors and increased security.The only mention of fares is payment by Smartcard, with no suggestion that fares will be any more affordable or that off-peak incentives will be brought back. One certainty is that First Manchester will be in line for a huge windfall. This probably explains why they have run down services and made travelling so unpleasant, to force us to vote for the proposals.As I am not a car owner, I have nothing to lose by voting yes but will probably buy a few shares in First if it succeeds!

Wayfarer, Crumpsall

Back to the future

IN 1973, the forerunner of the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority published a ‘public transport plan for the future’. Does it sound familiar?It says: “The plan offers a modernised railway system linking the towns of the Greater Manchester area with the new underground stations.  “In the longer term, new fast transport systems are proposed for the areas not served by rail. “Modern buses will give a reliable service on a network replanned to work as an integral part of the whole system.”The main proposals were to link the northern and southern railway systems by a tunnel from Cheetham Hill to Ardwick, the eastern and western railway systems via either the Manchester South Junction viaduct, plus a flyover at Piccadilly or a second tunnel from Castlefield to Ardwick, a rapid transit network (trams?) through the city centre linking Langley, Didsbury, Wythenshawe, Swinton and Droylsden.The N-S network would connect Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Oldham including the Milnrow loop (sound familiar?) to Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Stockport, Macclesfield, Hazel Grove (later on to Buxton) and later Manchester Airport.The E-W network would connect Warrington and Knutsford to Ashton, Hadfield, Glossop, Marple, Rose Hill and possibly later to New Mills.Whatever happened to all these plans? A series of economic crises, plus political changes locally and nationally resulted in a lack of funds and a lack of will. We did get a toytown tramway, plus a rail link to Manchester Airport and electrification of the Buxton line as far as Hazel Grove. That’s about it.Will history repeat itself? We are in the midst of an economic crisis and the political outlook could change within the next two years. Will the Tories abandon work to save money? Will we still get the commuter tax with nothing to show for it?

David E. Unwin, Manchester