Excellent news.

Hope will have the option of having pay as you go credit as well as season tickets on these cards.

Wonder how it'll work practically?

In London buses and trams operate at a flat fare so you only badge on. The tube has barriers so you badge on and badge off.

Metrolink has the varying fares like the Tube, but lacks the barriers.

Presumably people, on a 'pay as you go' fare will have to badge on and badge off.

Pity those that fail to badge off as they will be charged the maxium fare on Metrolink - probably a lot more than the journey that they actually used.

Will it give travellers as good value for money as the London version (a standard £3.50 single journey cosing £1.30 to someone pre-paying on Oyster) or will it just be a pre-pay version of the existing (high) pricing scheme?

Peekster - it'll just be the pre-payment system.

The London system is hugely subsidised through the DfT and their congestion charges, neither are an option in Manchester where all our transport schemes have to make an operating profit.

Tube recives £4.5bn / year subsidy for example.
Metrolink makes an operating profit of about £3m / year (from memory).

If it works like the London oyster it will be great!

Problem is it won't, it'll be over-priced and Manchester public transport isn't good enough.

I'll stick to the car thanks.

Mum's little sun beam, on her knee - would you agree with susidising the public transport in Manchester like happens in London?

If so, where should we raise the money from, DfT clearly are not going to provide any more with the economy as it is, congestion charging is obviously not an option.

If you were making the decisions would you leave the transport as it is, unsubsidised, or would you raised taxes elsewhere to reduce the cost of the trams (which are about the only system that could realistically be changed as it stands).

Kurt Stephens

In London the Oyster system also works on the Docklands Light railway which operates on the same basis as the metrolink with no barriers.Here passengers have to badge on and badge off. The difference is that there are guards on the trains who periodically patrol the trains checking oyster payments. Also there are regular inspections of Oyster cards of those leaving the stations. These are always supported by the police.

Overall the system works very well for the customer. Excellent news for Manchester.

You can also use

I am happy to use my car at all times. I find public transport staffed and patronised by surly, ill-mannered, smelly poor people.

I certanly would not wish to subsidise anything else. I already pay enough in tax for it to be frittered away in benefits and hand outs to foreign countries who then moan about the UK.

Cheeky cow! I use public transport and I am not patronizing or am I ill mannered or smelly or poor. I also own a car. Please do not be so insulting in future.

Are they going to put barriers in?
Considering that even cheap barriers used at mall toilets are 60k plus and the ones in London underground system are $120k plus each thats going to be costly. Plus they need shelters to protect from the weather. The Capex will be enormous and will never get the goverment grants that the capital does. How will GMPTE keep the privatised network happy, they wont be able to give unlimited passes (which is what is needed)
I personally think the oyster card is not as good as the metro card system in NYC. Where its a flat rate no matter how far you are going, $2.25 for two stops or a two hour ride, and unlimited passes for people running across town for meetings, but again that system is heavily subsidised and in huge debt.
I hope it is a great success but just cant see it working well, they spend massive money on consultants and reports and nothing ever really improves, the met big bang project (was that over a decade ago and all we have is the eccles line that has been completed?) The tram to Alti just replaced the train while they let the stations go to ruin (Trafford bar and Stretford for example). We need strong leadership to get a reliable service and start to shame people into paying for it and not jibbing it.

Sussex - yes, or course you are right, had forgotten about the DLR.

As you say though, it relies on people badging off so not to get the maximum fare.

I wonder how the public of Manchester will react to that, I'm quite sure initally at least a fair number of people will fail to badge off.

Jimmy - no chance of getting barriers. Issues such as staffing the stations would make the costs be absolutely enourmous. You cannot block people in in the UK without staffing the location in case of a problem arising. Barriers on Metrolink simply never ever going to happen.

Mary - that's all well and good. Continue to use your car, no one is going to stop you if you so desire. This is potentially, if done properly to integrate each form of transport ticket wise, could see a step change in our public transport provision. As you say, you are not willing to subsidise public transport in Greater Manchester, as such do not be in any way surprised that it is expensive and not as good as in places like London where they get huge subsidy.

Careless Whisper said,

"Cheeky cow! I use public transport and I am not patronizing or am I ill mannered or smelly or poor. I also own a car. Please do not be so insulting in future"

Ah, but you are by your own admission, a scumbag ;-)

:-p

I hope it works. It may get more people to use public transport. I hate having to get on a bus, pay then maybe have to buy a metro ticket to continue a journey. I rarely use public transport but would avoid the car if such were a possibility. We deserve a better system and more subsidy all around.What is good enough for London should be good enough for our city region too!

Schwyz: "We deserve a better system and more subsidy all around.What is good enough for London should be good enough for our city region too!"

Like a congestion charge? As that went out of the window, any attempt to make the two areas operate on the same basis is not on the cards.

Personally, I'd much rather have much less subsidy all around.

Can we really trust GMPTE with this?, considering their failiure with RTPI(System under test?), and their previous efforts to introduce an integrated ticketing system?

Black Flag - just about the only subsidies we have in Manchester are for school buses and for buses to hospitals.

I'm guessing you would prefer all those school kids in cars as opposed to in buses? After all, having the kids in / out of school hardly makes a difference to the amount of traffic jams does it? Imagine having a whole heap more of them being forced into using cars to get to schools. NOw that would make the traffic in the morning a whole lot busier in school time.

With regards subsidising buses to hospitals, it is a dam site cheaper than paying for ambulances to pick up the patients to get them to hospital, plus also gives the patients vistitors access to the patient if they are not able to drive - given the number of elderly in hospital this tend to be rather high numbers.

Funnily, just about no other part of the world runs their public transport system on the basis that every route must operate at a profit, they appreciate cutting the subsidy to say the buses just increases the price elsewhere.

Just like we do not expect every part of the road network to be economically justifyable (I'm sure the side road I live on would never pass any 'cost benefit' analysis all on it's own), we should also not expect each part of the public transport network to make money - we need to look at the overall improvments to society and the economy that providing such services brings. Just as in London they have appreciated that providing huge subsidy to the tube and the buses brings huge benefits to both the economy and the societies down there, similar actions should be considered up here.

Imagine what London would be like if people had to pay about £8 / journey on the Tube or £4 / journey on the bus! I suspect that the economy and society would suffer enormously.

We are in that position, all be it to a much lesser degree.

Kurt Stephens: "I'm guessing you would prefer all those school kids in cars as opposed to in buses? After all, having the kids in / out of school hardly makes a difference to the amount of traffic jams does it? Imagine having a whole heap more of them being forced into using cars to get to schools. NOw that would make the traffic in the morning a whole lot busier in school time."

That's just a straw man argument of the type used be people who say, "you must want terrorists to kill people" when somebody suggests that the government shouldn't be able to do whatever it wants just by using the word "terrorism." The scenario you hypothesis isn't realistic.

"With regards subsidising buses to hospitals, it is a dam site cheaper than paying for ambulances to pick up the patients to get them to hospital, plus also gives the patients vistitors access to the patient"

Again, a straw man argument. If people want to go to hospitals by bus, buses will be there to do it.

"Funnily, just about no other part of the world runs their public transport system on the basis that every route must operate at a profit, they appreciate cutting the subsidy to say the buses just increases the price elsewhere."

Neither do we, given that we subsidise services. Of course, it would make much more sense if we did. Public transport creates negative externalities. It uses fuel and creates pollution. That kind of effect should not be subsidised.

"Just like we do not expect every part of the road network to be economically justifyable (I'm sure the side road I live on would never pass any 'cost benefit' analysis all on it's own), we should also not expect each part of the public transport network to make money"

That highlights the absurdity of your position. You're justifying one form of subsidised transport on the basis that another form of transport is subsidised. Given that all motorised transport creates pollution, etc. it makes much more sense to decrease subsidy across all modes, rather than increase it.

"we need to look at the overall improvments to society and the economy that providing such services brings. Just as in London they have appreciated that providing huge subsidy to the tube and the buses brings huge benefits to both the economy and the societies down there, similar actions should be considered up here."

It doesn't. It can't. Subsidy produces, by its very nature, an inefficient service.

"Imagine what London would be like if people had to pay about £8 / journey on the Tube or £4 / journey on the bus! I suspect that the economy and society would suffer enormously."

I doubt it. A huge amount of money would be saved on wasted subsidy, which could then be spent in other ways. You've got to look at both sides of the equation to reach a sensible conclusion.

I also expect that in that scenario, more people would cycle, reducing pollution and creating health benefits.

dv1v1s onby0 Wigan:
Sir: You are a clown and a bully: Continually calling someone a scumbag is bullying of which is lowest of the low. Maybe you will grow up one day.

Will the card be called "Armpit" ?

So much for social inclusion! What about people who are allergic to oysters? Are they to be excluded?

It's a pathetic idea - trying to kid everyone that Manchester is a big player like London. Manchester has neither the transport system or traffic problems to justify such a system.

The reality is that certain people in certain areas will be very well provided for (a la 192 down Oxford Road scenario) and have a London quality service whereas other people (a la New Moston/Chadderton) will still have an unreliable, over-priced system.

I will be sticking to my car thanks.

Kurt Stephens

Two fo the most serious ecconomic issues this country faces and has done for at least 20+ years are the over dominance of London to the detriment of the rest of th UK and the repeated hosuing investmet bubbles. By subsidisig London Transport and the cost of housing Government continually adds to these problems