CROSSRAIL 2 - Two ways to blow £36 billion

Crossrail 1 is already long overdue and over-budget (currently costing around £19 billion). Next in the pipeline for London is the even-more-ambitious NE-SW axis Crossrail 2 Line. The budget for this one is currently estimated to be roughly twice that of Crossrail 1 - at around £36 bn! 

I have already criticised the project in detail. Unlike Crossrail 1, which adds no new station catchment to London, Crossrail 2 is daringly going to include one new station at King's Road Chelsea, (local opposition notwithstanding). And boy, what a station it will be, budgeted to cost £1.2 bn - more, incidentally, than the budget for the Millennium Dome! Other than that, it merely joins the dots and mainly just offers shorter commute times to and from the Surrey stockbroker belt.

As usual, London must get what it wants, even as the provinces languish, struggling here and there for scraps of funding for small-scale, unsophisticated, unambitious, and usually desperately inadequate, tram lines (if they're lucky). We have heard the tired political rhetoric a hundred times: "London must secure its place as a world city... London must remain competitive to attract investment... London is growing fast and badly needs infrastructure... " So, it goes on...

But I have another idea. What if the government were to spend taxpayers' money on alternative schemes in the provinces? What could be had for £36 billion?

We have heard the tired political rhetoric a hundred times: "London must secure its place as a world city..." etc. 

Well, let us use a little mathematics, and for reference let us look at Madrid, a city which has vastly expanded its Metro network in recent years for relatively little outlay.

Madrid manages to build one mile of Metro line (in tunnel, by the way and including stations) at an average cost of £62 million per mile. As a further jab in the guts, let me add, they complete their projects on time, within four years.

So, £36 billion divided by £62 million gives us a figure of a staggering 580 miles. Now, "Wait," I hear you say, "those are Spanish prices". They are indeed. So, let us be conservative, factor in some good old British rip-offs, incompetence, wastage and vanity, and double the building costs for the United Kingdom. That reduces the track length to a mere 290 miles.

290 miles would equate to more than seven Metro networks on the scale of Prague Metro, which has three lines and a track length of just over 40 miles, serving 61 stations.

The UK could have SEVEN Prague Metro networks for the price of Crossrail 2.

Seven 40-mile underground networks like Prague's would handsomely rescue the following UK cities, which are crying out for proper mass transit: Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Bristol, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast. You may disagree with these choices. If so, take your own pick.

I am aware that some of these cities already have some light rail schemes, and Glasgow even has a Subway line, but they are nowhere near adequate.

Put in visual terms, the choice is either this:

in a city which already has this:

 

Or this:

  

Put another way: One new station, or 427 new stations! You read that right.

Now I am willing to concede that certain cities may not require 40 miles of metro, nor perhaps as much as three lines. Perhaps some of them could be served with one or two, or 40 stations instead of 61. In which case, there are savings to be made. Rejoice.

But this is the question: Will the British government make an honourable attempt at boosting its big provincial cities? Will it ever consider that Manchester may have to be competitive against Munich? Or Leeds be competitive with Lyon? Or Bristol be competitive with Bremen? That its commitments to 21st-century sustainability and development extend all over the nation and not just to Greater London? Because Britain's continental neighbours certainly do not neglect their provincial infrastructure for the benefit of their capitals.

Will common sense ever win out over vanity?

What the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail 1) is really about (satire)

I've extensively criticised the Crossrail 1 scheme, for its lack of new services, its duplication of existing infrastructure and its vast cost and time overruns, but most of all I think it's the sheer vanity of it that gets me.

What it's really for is the city gents who live in leafy Berkshire to get to work and home again without having to change onto the awful tube. And of course, for their wives to get the basics in at Bond Street, and for the whole tribe to get to the airport twice or three times a year to wherever.

And it's these City gents who control the purse strings of the economy. So, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising... :(

Pre-metro for Manchester

Trams are pretty great. The resurgence of tram construction in the past three decades has been a great success. Trams can go almost anywhere, do not require reserved rights of way, are easy to access and relatively cheap to build.

They can also be slow and cumbersome. They can congest busy intersections in city centres, get snarled up in vehicular traffic, and to some, with their pantographs and power lines, are something of an eyesore. In some cases, the urban geography simply prohibits tram routes.

This is why many cities across Europe have reached the conclusion that to remove efficiency bottlenecks, eventually the trams have to go underground. Stadtbahn networks in many German cities have begun as trams (strassenbahn) and have been upgraded by plunging central sections into tunnel under city centres and busy neighbourhoods. This way the trams are no longer held up by street traffic, do not inconvenience vehicles on the road and no longer impinge on the visual real estate of historic townscapes.

"...to remove efficiency bottlenecks, eventually the trams have to go underground."

Often the intention is to develop into a fully-fledged mass transit metro, but often this is either not necessary or too costly. Elsewhere the network can continue as normal, operating on-street, or on segregated rights of way. It is a hybrid multi-modal solution for medium-sized cities with grand aspirations but limited funds.

And so to Manchester. Although the UK's record on urban transit outside London is  just woeful (as we all know), the Metrolink network has been a prominent success story. It has been growing rapidly over the last 28 years, on-street and on existing disused railway lines and viaducts. A truly versatile light rail system.

It is far from complete, however. Large areas of the city centre and inner city do not yet benefit from the network (although many towns and neighbourhoods far out from the centre do). 

"Large areas of the city centre and inner city do not yet benefit from the network."

Added to this, Manchester is a conurbation of quite some size, just shy of three million. This is no small provincial town. Manchester is a developing metropolis, which needs and deserves proper mass transit.

The tram network, as it stands will never fulfil this function. At some point Manchester must go underground. In the current climate, the idea of a full metro being built in a British provincial city seems hopelessly optimistic. The money always seems to go to London, as we all know. 

"Manchester is a developing metropolis which needs and deserves proper mass transit."

But pre-metro - light rail which goes underground where it needs to - could fit the bill for Manchester and need not cost the earth (ask Madrid Metro how to do it). Once tunnels are dug  (with the right forethought), they can be upgraded at any point in the future to full metro, if this is desired.

This scheme envisages two new tunnel sections, running roughly north-south under prime real estate in central Manchester and the inner city, and connecting to existing Metrolink tracks at either end. 

The western route would go from Prestwich (where it could potentially share existing track as far as Bury), down to Withington, for interchange with existing routes to Chorlton, Stockport and the airport.

The southern portion would follow the axis of Princess Road, where the width of the road allows a segregated right of way in between vehicular traffic. At some point in Hulme, the line would drop into tunnel and eventually cross the existing route at Deansgate, for a low-level interchange. Continuing via an underground station at Quay street, it would then provide mainline interchange at Salford Central. 

Further underground stations are envisaged at Victoria/AO Arena and Strangeways, before the line emerges onto Bury New Road at some convenient parkland site. On-street running takes it to Prestwich.

Not related to this new line, it is also recommended that a new station be built at Dawson Street, on the existing line between Deansgate and Cranbrook. 

The eastern route would run from Newton Heath (again with trams potentially running as far as Rochdale), south to an unused section of the Fallowfield Loop, between Withington and Hyde Road. As the route is broken at Fallowfield, a new underground station is envisaged there.

The route shares a section of track along Princess Road, before diverting east, to eventually turn north again at Whitworth Park, through a new station at the Whitworth museum and an important new underground station in the heart of Manchester University. 

The tunnel would continue to Princess Street (not to be confused with Princess Road) and then Piccadilly, for interchange with mainline and surface Metrolink services. It would then continue to the busy neighbourhood of Ancoats, thereafter emerging from tunnel to a new surface stop at Miles Platting. 

It would then rejoin the existing Rochdale line, as mentioned before.

In all, this scheme proposes 25+ new stations, of which 11 would be underground, with around nine Km of new tunnel. 

New pre-metro routes for Manchester Metrolink with underground stations marked solid red. (Click to expand map)

"...25+ new stations, of which 11 would be underground."

The key benefits of this scheme are:

• Faster services between north-central-south Manchester due to unhindered tunnel routing.
• Metrolink services delivered to important sites, such as Manchester University, Ancoats and Salford Central station.
• Brings services to 'forgotten' inner city areas, such as Hulme, Moss Side, Rusholme, Strangeways and Levenshulme, giving a boost to local economies.
• Convenient interchanges at Deansgate, Salford, Piccadilly and Victoria.
• Massive Relief for the congested existing city centre bottleneck routes.
• System can be upgraded to more pre-metro in-tunnel operations or full metro as required, and as budget allows.
• Makes use of existing trackbed on Fallowfield Loop.
• Services can run through to Rochdale, Bury and Stockport.
• Brings Metrolink a step closer to being 'complete', i.e. a system that can take you 'anywhere', which is highly attractive to passengers.