Further to my previous blog on the 30th September, I misintepreted the figures on the first of the two flaws.
This was with a comparison of two projections from the submission.
| Figure 71 – Reference case:Difference in people Crossing the inner ring (2005 to 2016) p.241 | |||||
| Highway | Bus | Rail | Metro-link | Total Pt | |
| Entering Regional centre | 2,300 | -1,300 | 1,300 | 4,000 | 4,000 |
| Crossing Inner Charging Ring | 8,400 | -1,700 | 1,400 | 4,000 | 3,700 |
| Figure 72 – TIF Package:Difference in people Crossing the inner ring (2005 to 2016) p.242 | |||||
| Highway | Bus | Rail | Metro-link | Total Pt | |
| Entering Regional centre | -3,300 | 5,800 | 2,100 | 2,400 | 10,300 |
| Crossing Inner Charging Ring | -6,400 | 7,200 | 2,300 | 2,800 | 12,300 |
I took the two tables to be separate forecasts. As such, there are fewer passengers using the Metrolink if it is extended, than if it is not.
However, on closer reading, figure 72 is the changes projected over and above the situation in Figure 71. Therefore the extension to the Metrolink, with lines to the regional centre will lead to an increase in those travelling on Metrolink by 2,800 at peak times.
The second flaw, looking at the impact of people switching from cars to buses is unaffected.
Further analysis is to be found in the next blog.
ManicBeancounter 