General Metro Thread

[Gareth]

Bull Street, Albert Street, Moor Street Queensway to Digbeth and Deritend.

[mikestone]

Only to High Street Deritend, after serving Curzon Street  HS2 station.

[Busboy105]

Only to High Street Deritend, after serving Curzon Street  HS2 station.

Oh ok. So if it's approved, works could start next year or the year after? I'm assuming they want it done by 2026 when the new Curzon Street Station opens?

[mikestone]

I think you mean if. It is beginning to sound as though the report said go ahead, and Boris and/or the DfT are looking for a reason to cancel, although that said I don't see whats in it politically as he can presumably  afford to upset the Nimby's in the home counties who will vote for a pig as long as it has a blue rosette, but not the newly won seats in the north.

[Solo1]

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/transport-secretary-grant-shapps-responds-18131478

[Stu]

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/transport-secretary-grant-shapps-responds-18131478

I saw this earlier too, they can 'piss off'. I've said what I needed to say here:

If passenger numbers are that low, they should reduce the service levels, just like private companies running commercially operated bus services have had to do. Bus users have had to adapt to reduced service levels, tram passengers should surely be able to as well.

The WMCA chose to operate their Metro tram service 'in-house' and this is one of the 'risks' they should have been aware of and been able to plan for.

[Kevin]

Hadn't realised they're still running every 12 mins, that's ludicrous! Even Metrolink in Manchester ain't running that frequent (and they're likewise panicking)

[the trainbasher]

As the 74/79 near enough mirrors that route, why can't passengers just use them instead!

[WyreForestShuttle]

I saw this earlier too, they can 'piss off'. I've said what I needed to say here:

If passenger numbers are that low, they should reduce the service levels, just like private companies running commercially operated bus services have had to do. Bus users have had to adapt to reduced service levels, tram passengers should surely be able to as well.

The WMCA chose to operate their Metro tram service 'in-house' and this is one of the 'risks' they should have been aware of and been able to plan for.

Bus Services operated commercially by operators such as First Worcester are services run for profit by private companies if the operator cannot provide a commercial service then the local authority is at liberty to step and fill the gap by a tender. For what I understand the Midland Metro is now run by TfWM; a public body; therefore the public sector in this case the DfT has a moral duty to finance any losses being incurred by a public body maintaing a vital service for key workers at a frequent intervals priority should be given in this difficult period to maintaing vital public sector operations such as the Midland Metro.

[Solo1]

Wonder how much they was taking when nxbus ran it compaired to just before the corna virus started

[Stu]

Bus Services operated commercially by operators such as First Worcester are services run for profit by private companies if the operator cannot provide a commercial service then the local authority is at liberty to step and fill the gap by a tender. For what I understand the Midland Metro is now run by TfWM; a public body; therefore the public sector in this case the DfT has a moral duty to finance any losses being incurred by a public body maintaing a vital service for key workers at a frequent intervals priority should be given in this difficult period to maintaing vital public sector operations such as the Midland Metro.

That is all very well and good, but I think you're missing the point. Other 'key workers' (including myself though no, I don't work for the NHS) are having to rely on bus services that have been significantly reduced in line with reduced patronage.

If the Metro was providing such a 'vital service' why isn't it being better used?

Personally from what I've heard elsewhere, because there are no longer any 'conductors' working on board the trams, some people now have this 'perception' that they can just travel for free on the Metro. So there is potentially a lot of revenue being lost as a result of this too.

So again it begs the question, why continue to maintain the present levels of service, and why not reduce to half-hourly in order to reduce operational costs?

As has been pointed out, much of the route is also covered by bus services, so really I don't see it being as too much of an inconvenience if the frequency was reduced to half-hourly, based on how passengers have adjusted to reduced bus service levels.

I don't want to see the Metro service cancelled, though as I stated I don't even use it myself. But I do question why the local authority is not taking action itself in order to minimise its losses, and is instead expecting the taxpayer (who ultimately pays for this, lets face it) to prop it up.

[2206]

Personally from what I've heard elsewhere, because there are no longer any 'conductors' working on board the trams, some people now have this 'perception' that they can just travel for free on the Metro. So there is potentially a lot of revenue being lost as a result of this too.

Would it not be an idea to install ticket machines like they have at railway stations? Then nobody has an excuse not to have a ticket then.
As don't think there are any, so not sure how else people are expected to pay for their tickets other than from the conductor on the Metro.

[WyreForestShuttle]

That is all very well and good, but I think you're missing the point. Other 'key workers' (including myself though no, I don't work for the NHS) are having to rely on bus services that have been significantly reduced in line with reduced patronage.

If the Metro was providing such a 'vital service' why isn't it being better used?

Personally from what I've heard elsewhere, because there are no longer any 'conductors' working on board the trams, some people now have this 'perception' that they can just travel for free on the Metro. So there is potentially a lot of revenue being lost as a result of this too.

So again it begs the question, why continue to maintain the present levels of service, and why not reduce to hellhole in order to reduce operational costs?

As has been pointed out, much of the route is also covered by bus services, so really I don't see it being as too much of an inconvenience if the frequency was reduced to hellhole, based on how passengers have adjusted to reduced bus service levels.

I don't want to see the Metro service cancelled, though as I stated I don't even use it myself. But I do question why the local authority is not taking action itself in order to minimize its losses, and is instead expecting the taxpayer (who ultimately pays for this, lets face it) to prop it up.

I doubt I am missing the point as I rarely miss the bus especially First. The Midland Metro is a public service  quite rightly noted by yourself & is publically funded as I pointed out in my post yesterday. It is not a commercial bus operation run by the private sector it is now a publicly run operation and as such should be supported accordingly by the DfT who are keen to support the train operating companies on the permanent way. The Midland Metro is a vital service linking the two cities it serves and is run by the public sector it is irrelevant that the line also has a regular bus service nearby this is of no concern for its regular users who still need to use the service and who are used to a high frequency publically funded service and a matter only for those users of public transport such as myself who regularly use bus services in lieu of other means of public transport. The Midland Metro is not a commercial bus service and as such your comments are not relevant to its operation, frequency and its source of public funding and ticketing arrangements are a matter for Transport for West Midlands who quite rightly raise concerns about the public funding & continued operation of the service in this difficult time. The falling patronage at this time is am sure is the result of users adopting the sensible advice of the government of essential travel only underling why the service should be continued to be fully publically funded.

[Stu]

I doubt I am missing the point as I rarely miss the bus especially First. The Midland Metro is a public service  quite rightly noted by yourself & is publically funded as I pointed out in my post yesterday. It is not a commercial bus operation run by the private sector it is now a publicly run operation and as such should be supported accordingly by the DfT who are keen to support the train operating companies on the permanent way. The Midland Metro is a vital service linking the two cities it serves and is run by the public sector it is irrelevant that the line also has a regular bus service nearby this is of no concern for its regular users who still need to use the service and who are used to a high frequency publically funded service and a matter only for those users of public transport such as myself who regularly use bus services in lieu of other means of public transport. The Midland Metro is not a commercial bus service and as such your comments are not relevant to its operation, frequency and its source of public funding and ticketing arrangements are a matter for Transport for West Midlands who quite rightly raise concerns about the public funding & continued operation of the service in this difficult time. The falling patronage at this time is am sure is the result of users adopting the sensible advice of the government of essential travel only underling why the service should be continued to be fully publically funded.

But as a publicly funded operation, should the West Midlands Metro not be striving to deliver 'best value' for the taxpayers that help to fund it, by doing what it needs to do to reduce operating costs by reducing service levels?

If the service was reduced to half-hourly, that would surely half the number of trams that would be needed in operation, and thus reduce staffing costs, and the service would still be operational for passengers to use, albeit at a reduced frequency?

And even at these reduced service levels, with the passenger usage being as low as claimed, those 'key workers' who need to use this service would still be able to practise recommended social distancing guidelines, just as other passengers have to do on reduced bus services.

[Solo1]

Would it not be an idea to install ticket machines like they have at railway stations? Then nobody has an excuse not to have a ticket then.
As don't think there are any, so not sure how else people are expected to pay for their tickets other than from the conductor on the Metro.

They used to have ticket machines on platforms  when they first started