Darling pledge on Metrolink

October 21, 2005

| Submit Comments | Comments (20) | Previous | Next

CERTAIN: Alistair Darling.

METROLINK extensions WILL play a major part in a transport deal aimed at avoiding US-style gridlock in Greater Manchester.

This pledge was given today by Transport Secretary Alistair Darling during a fact-finding mission to the city to meet transport and business chiefs.

"I say explicitly trams will be part of the solution Manchester needs. I'm sure trams will play a major part," Mr Darling told the Manchester Evening News.

Behind the pledge is the grim warning from transport experts of a 26 per cent increase in traffic in the area over 20 years.

As talks continue on the Metrolink extensions, Mr Darling says the offer of £520m from the government is still on the table - £102m has been approved to modernise trams and track and there is the prospect of millions more from the transport innovation fund.

Anti-tram

But the minister made it clear the extensions of Metrolink must be part of measures to improve transport not only by trams but buses and trains. Asked if it was true civil servants in the Department of Transport were anti-tram, Mr Darling said: "I am the Secretary of State and what matters is what the Secretary of State thinks.

"Our position is for any transport system to be effective, you have to address the other traffic pressures, and it has to be affordable. If Greater Manchester does do something more to stop people coming into the city in their cars, that will increase the number of people using the trams and that in turn will reduce the cost of them.

"The difference between now and a year ago is both us and the PTE are working very closely together and trying to develop something that will actually work.

"I'm confident that what we'll have at the end of this process is a plan that addresses all of Greater Manchester's needs."

Are you confident that tram extensions have a place in Manchester's future? Have your say.

| Submit Comments | Comments (20) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 20 and replies | View All

Traman, Manchester (21/10/2005 at 09:48)

Same old story but no action!

we all know what Metrolink needs but nothing seems to be being done! the costs are going to go up again and the people at the PTE will be crying poverty again! but it doesn't stop the PTE having plush new offices built at 2 Piccadilly Place! near Piccadilly Station, does it! they seem to be keeping that very quiet indead! while Metrolink Just litteraly goes from bad to worse!

Marvin, Deansgate (21/10/2005 at 10:27)

I wish the Metrolink had never been built and the money spent on road building, buses and trains

They're way too expensive, hinder other forms of transport producing jams and pollution, and they make my eyes sore.

The MEN bangs on about the Tram campaign, but how many Mancunians like/approve of them?

Ben, Stockport (21/10/2005 at 11:10)

Trams are good if you live near the line (but not too near!). But they are the most expensive way of getting people about that was ever invented. If they have got the cash, it would be better to put it into roads and buses, that more of us could use, as well as paying for.

Jon, Manchester (21/10/2005 at 11:20)

Marvin,
Road building leads to greater car use and further road building. Heavy traffic and wide road cause severance in communities, air and noise pollution, and make areas less safe for children, pedestrians and cyclists. Metrolink might not be the most efficient transport system, but it sure beats extra car traffic as a solution.

Occasional passenger, Swinton (21/10/2005 at 11:23)

If the trams were to say come through Swinton, I'd use them most of the time, and therefore my car journeys would decrease significantly. However, the nearest place is Eccles, and by the time I get there by bus, get on a tram, go through Salford quays then into the city, I could be in Manchester by car, do some shopping, and be back home in the same time. The network needs a huge expansion, rather than this piecemeal effort if it is to effect any change in Manchesters motoring habits. As for Marvin, if there were fewer cars on the road, there wouldn't be this hindrance would there? Trams are more environmentally friendly, the pollution is restricted to the power station that produces the electricity for the overhead lines, which is often miles away from a city centre, and not directly belching smoke out at passers by as buses and cars do.

Fred Oldham, Stalybridge (21/10/2005 at 11:44)

Just as Tramman says a lot of hot air and spin. The people hof the North had the opertunity to vote out this lot (who know the marginal votes are in the south east and london which gets Billions for its infrastructure) and failed.

Traveller, Manchester (21/10/2005 at 11:58)

How can Marvin say Trams cause pollution, they run of electric overhead lines. They run on tracks on some roads sealed off to ttraffic so how can they cause hinderance and pollution?

In fact they are reducing traffic as I use the trams to get into manchester centre for work etc so i dont use my car. So i am glad of it to be honest.

MATT, MANCHESTER (21/10/2005 at 12:35)

Sorry Traveller but i do have to disagree.Trams do pollute as they run on electricity which in turn pollutes the environment with it's by products.End of the day never trust a silver fox with black eyebrows

Leah, Manchester (21/10/2005 at 12:42)

They need to concentrate on getting their existing service right before they ploughing anymore money into the system. It's at breaking point, lack of trams and severe overcrowding, all those that harp on about how great the trams are should try travelling on them!

John, stockport (21/10/2005 at 12:50)

I have to agree with Leah, I work in Salford and get the tram every day and anyone who gets that tram will tell you not once have I got on the tram and there has been room to move or breath I usually have to push my way onto the tram. The money should be spent on improving the current service.

D Bradley, Mcr (21/10/2005 at 13:20)

Trolley Busses are electric so not belching diesel particles into the street like busses, no matter how old they get and don't need expensive rails. They need dedicated lanes in the road, overhead lines and signalling. They are used in many cities. Manchester used to have them now we have noisy diesel belchers instead, blowing everyone's ear drums out, that's 'progress'

billy bowden, portland street (21/10/2005 at 13:23)

trams are mint

Roly, Manchester (21/10/2005 at 14:01)

Some interesting views, personally I'm all for trams but the network needs expanding and soon. I no longer live near a tram station but I see them all the time arriving in St Peter's Sq packed to the rafters.
We need new trams that can accomodate more passengers and we need all the phases of the extention plans funded and built. Manchester is no longer the city it was, it's growing and growing all the time, any city of this calibre requires a suitable transport network like London has.

They can spend B#10 billion on the London East/West link ( 1 line ) why can't they give us what we need and...deserve.??

chris, blue moon (21/10/2005 at 14:08)

seems to me that they will only authorise the trams if road charging comes in. email alistair darling to make your point. get the trams built. invest in the north.

mhb, stretford (21/10/2005 at 14:59)

same tired old waffle from alastair darling - and still no definite promise of action. this buffoon should be bounced all the way back to london.
what did amaze me is the fact he actually found his way to manchester at all, he probably had nothing else better to do.
sorry if people think i am cynical, but seriously how long are we the citizens of manchester prepared to put up with an out-of-date transport system???.
gmpte are even worse than the transport minister - plush offices, fat salaries and they still have NO jurisdiction over ANY transport operator in manchester, so why not disband this quango and spend their money on the transport network?.

Dan, cheethham hill (21/10/2005 at 15:09)

Whilst i think that the metrolink expansion can only be a good thing; i think that the city needs to have a more comprehensive and efficeint transport system, especially with all the great amounnt of development that is going on at present. I thik that an underground system would be the only way to truely achieve the transport system the city deserves, but we all know the government would never pay for it!

Patrick Sudlow, Hulme (21/10/2005 at 15:32)

Money spent on the metro would of been better spent on the railway system. To run the tram system the ripped out the old rail tracks and replaced them with inferior light rail so freight and main line train can no longer run on them. Dessimating our already fragmented rail system. And this goverment is quietly shutting down rail lines all over the country. The trams with road traffic CAUSE congestion. We should be fighting for a better rail system. Altrincham and Bury were profitable railway lines before conversion to tram. That is why those lines were chosen and yet metro is making a loss at our cost.

The Grand, Manchester (21/10/2005 at 17:22)

God forbid this ever happened, but if a tram derailed and people were hurt, would Darling be still rattling on about other forms of transport? The trams are here to stay Darling, spend the money before a few of us get hurt.

Cant believe this London blinkeredness. At the next election, vote for the opposition as a protest vote, and make it known why. Our City/County is being held back by Civil Servants down in London, and I for one am not having it

Muggsy McMugg, Hale Barns (21/10/2005 at 22:33)

How can we get US-style gridlock??...WE DRIVE ON THE LEFT!!

Jonathan, Manchester (24/10/2005 at 13:08)

Patrick: what you say just isn't true. The Metrolink line from Victoria to Bury uses the same rails as the previous heavy rail line. They do need replacing because they are old, and Government money has been secured to replace them. But they would still have needed replacing without Metrolink.

If you ask me whether I'd prefer a suburban train service which runs no more than once or twice an hour, or a tram service every 6/12 minutes, so frequent that you can just turn up, I know what I'd choose.

As for trams on roads causing congestion: again if you offer me the choice of a train to Victoria then a 10-20 minute walk or bus to where I work, or a tram which gets right into the heart of the city, I'd choose the latter. These two points in fact make public transport to work a realistic alternative to the car, so I argue that they reduce congestion by taking more cars off the road.

()

Report

News