Here’s a fantasy tram system for Truro (pop: 20,000)

Truro Cathedral. Image: Tim Green/Wikimedia Commons.

Continuing our occasional thread of speculative, and frankly pretty silly, transport proposals from readers…

Dear Jonn,

I’ve loved the series of over-ambitious public transport proposals in Citymetric, so I thought I’d do my own, slightly less grand one.

Truro – with a population of around 20,000 – is much smaller than the cities already covered, but I think it’s pretty interesting given the large amount of travel into the city in relation to the population size.

Around 14,000 people commute into the city every day, with this number swelling massively in the touristy summer months. There’s also been rapid development along the western corridor of the A390 to Threemilestone. This includes a new ‘Stadium for Cornwall’ scheduled for completion by next year.

My tram system would follow the A390 from the new Stadium into the city, relieving a massively overcrowded road which is deadlocked at rush hours. There is already a park and ride system along this route but it’s poorly used and buses are still contributing to the traffic problem.

Ooooh. Click to expand.

From the stadium, the tram would stop at the park and ride, Truro College and Treliske Hospital (big sources of traffic) and New County Hall before turning into the city centre, stopping at Truro train station, Royal Cornwall Museum and the bus station. The tram would then pop out of the other side, ending up at the out of town shopping centres and Park & Ride in the east.

A new rail halt at Threemilestone has been discussed, but seems pretty unlikely and wouldn’t relieve Truro College and the Hospital, which make up a large chunk of the traffic. Truro and Threemilestone are unusual being so spread along one road in the west and the traffic is awful. There’s already a fair amount of pedestrianisation in the centre but there’s no real reason for there to be cars in the centre of Truro at all.

Local councils being local councils, this idea doesn’t stand a chance. But it’s fun to think about.        

Owen Winter (@OwenWntr)

If you have an over-ambitious rail proposal for your city, why not get in touch?

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook



What's actually in the UK government’s bailout package for Transport for London?

Wood Green Underground station, north London. Image: Getty.

On 14 May, hours before London’s transport authority ran out of money, the British government agreed to a financial rescue package. Many details of that bailout – its size, the fact it was roughly two-thirds cash and one-third loan, many conditions attached – have been known about for weeks. 

But the information was filtered through spokespeople, because the exact terms of the deal had not been published. This was clearly a source of frustration for London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, who stood to take the political heat for some of the ensuing cuts (to free travel for the old or young, say), but had no way of backing up his contention that the British government made him do it.

That changed Tuesday when Transport for London published this month's board papers, which include a copy of the letter in which transport secretary Grant Shapps sets out the exact terms of the bailout deal. You can read the whole thing here, if you’re so minded, but here are the three big things revealed in the new disclosure.

Firstly, there’s some flexibility in the size of the deal. The bailout was reported to be worth £1.6 billion, significantly less than the £1.9 billion that TfL wanted. In his letter, Shapps spells it out: “To the extent that the actual funding shortfall is greater or lesser than £1.6bn then the amount of Extraordinary Grant and TfL borrowing will increase pro rata, up to a maximum of £1.9bn in aggregate or reduce pro rata accordingly”. 

To put that in English, London’s transport network will not be grinding to a halt because the government didn’t believe TfL about how much money it would need. Up to a point, the money will be available without further negotiations.

The second big takeaway from these board papers is that negotiations will be going on anyway. This bail out is meant to keep TfL rolling until 17 October; but because the agency gets around three-quarters of its revenues from fares, and because the pandemic means fares are likely to be depressed for the foreseeable future, it’s not clear what is meant to happen after that. Social distancing, the board papers note, means that the network will only be able to handle 13 to 20% of normal passenger numbers, even when every service is running.

Shapps’ letter doesn’t answer this question, but it does at least give a sense of when an answer may be forthcoming. It promises “an immediate and broad ranging government-led review of TfL’s future financial position and future financial structure”, which will publish detailed recommendations by the end of August. That will take in fares, operating efficiencies, capital expenditure, “the current fiscal devolution arrangements” – basically, everything. 

The third thing we leaned from that letter is that, to the first approximation, every change to London’s transport policy that is now being rushed through was an explicit condition of this deal. Segregated cycle lanes, pavement extensions and road closures? All in there. So are the suspension of free travel for people under 18, or free peak-hours travel for those over 60. So are increases in the level of the congestion charge.

Many of these changes may be unpopular, but we now know they are not being embraced by London’s mayor entirely on their own merit: They’re being pushed by the Department of Transport as a condition of receiving the bailout. No wonder Khan was miffed that the latter hadn’t been published.

Jonn Elledge was founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.