Shaw and Crompton Park and Ride site expands

The Park and Ride site at Shaw and Crompton on the Oldham and Rochdale Metrolink line has expanded with an extra 46 parking spaces now available to passengers. The original car park here had 44 parking spaces but an extra site was obtained by Oldham Council to allow for this expansion to take place.

This entry was posted in Manchester Metrolink. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Shaw and Crompton Park and Ride site expands

  1. Frank Gradwell says:

    Let’s hope the recently identified nonsense of overnight usage of the park and rides is soon consigned to history, and the fact of multi day journeys being a regular factor in travellers lives is recognised – rather than being the subject of dead of night raids by parking contractors to catch the unwary.

    • Ken Walker says:

      Metrolink have explained that the ban on overnight parking is, amongst other things, to ensure as far as possible that spaces are available for early morning travellers. Certainly at Milnrow for one it is virtually impossible to get a parking space after 0700hrs as it is. I suspect the only way to allow cars to be left overnight is to start charging for use of car parks, which would also deter non-users of the system from parking in the car parks where there are pubs adjacent for example. As for catching out the unwary, unpopular as the rule is, people only get ‘caught out’ if they don’t read the signs put there for their benefit, or more likely decide that rules don’t apply to them. I don’t agree with the present situation, but if people don’t like the rules they do have the choice not to use Metrolink.

  2. Frank Gradwell says:

    “if people don’t like the rules they do have the choice not to use Metrolink”

    Ken, if you believe that then you are a disgrace to the concept of customer service. Why must all business meetings be out and back in a day? Why must social evenings be curtailed just to get a car off a car park and restrict the participants to one glass of wine or beer? No – this is a nonsensical restriction based on giving the parking contractor some undeserved income and nothing to do with capacity or need.

    The suggestion that Milnrow sets the bench mark is just silly. Go to Derker, or Mumps, or Hollinwood or Ashton Moss. I have never failed to get a space at any of the above – and let’s be honest – We all know that Mumps is well used by people who never go near a tram.

    Metrolink needs someone to give its attitude to its users a complete revamp – then it may become fit for purpose – it isn’t now.

    • Ken Walker says:

      Frank, I believe that because it is an INDISPUTABLE FACT, clearly in your world people don’t have a right not to use Metrolink. I am not anything to customer service, I do not work for Metrolink. I am just a customer who finds it spectacularly easy to comply with the simple, well-publicised rules. You clearly didn’t read my comments properly as I clearly stated that I do not actually wholly agree with the restriction. Season ticket holders by definition have a ticket which is valid beyond one day and in my opinion should be issued with parking permits for their local stop. “If you park on this land contravening the above parking restrictions you are agreeing to pay a parking charge to the sum of £100″ is clearly stated on the signs. If people are not happy with the situation, then the solution is to campaign for a change in the regulations as has successfully been done with regard to mobility scooters and is currently being done with regard to dogs, not to just ignore the rules and expect to get away with it. When these people get back to their home station after their night out they clearly get a taxi or walk home, if it was me I would make my way to the tram stop by the same method in the first place. I am intrigued by the notion that if people don’t like rules they can change them just by ignoring them and expecting the penalties to not be enforced. And I never said that Milnrow was a ‘benchmark’, hence the carefully worded ‘at Milnrow for one’, but referred to it because I keep my comments to what I KNOW.

    • Steve Hyde says:

      This issue is obviously currently a contentious one and has probably been poorly handled.

      However if I may be so bold as to make some comments Frank.

      Firstly and sadly it is a fact that there are those around us that are only too happy to abuse facilities provided for the use of genuine fare paying passengers and it makes good sense to try to manage the misuse. As an example, for a long time the car park at Bury has suffered from misuse and has been crying out for some form of control. Unfortunately as is often the case applying measures to try to control abuse by a minority penalises a number of genuine users and this is a sad fact of life.

      Secondly we all have only ourselves to blame if we fail to read the notices placed around the car parks before leaving our vehicles. As with most rules and laws ignorance is no defence. I think that the application of these rules now is more than likely a measure being taken to nip a perceived problem in the bud before it becomes a major problem. There are are perhaps some locations where inter day parking is needed.

      Metrolink does have a problem with Customer Service I would agree but to then carry that over to roundly condemn the system as not fit for purpose is absurd. The attitude to Customer Service in this country is in general poor and Metrolink is probably average in this respect. In no way does that mean it shouldn’t improve itself. The biggest problem is that in my opinion the standards required of the operator by their contract are not policed effectively by the client. Complaints to TfGM seem to get passed on straight to the operator rather than being investigated by TfGM. I believe that initial complaints should be routed to the operator and then if no satisfactory response is given an approach should be made to TfGM for their independent investigation. It is this that would make the operator think about their actions in a more customer related way. At present the relationship seems to be too cosy.

      However having said that, Metrolink is fit for purpose as indicated by the ridership and overcrowding problems on some lines, like any public transport network it has its faults but within the funding constraints which exist in what successive governments call ‘the regions’ I for one think it does a good job.

      I do sometimes get the impression from your comments Frank that anything which is a traditional tram is in your opinion to be condemned out of hand..

      • Steve Hyde says:

        Apologies the final sentence of my comment above should have read ‘I do sometimes get the impression from your comments Frank that anything which is not a traditional tram is in your opinion to be condemned out of hand.’

  3. Steve says:

    I seem to be missing something here. The car park is a park and ride, therefore by definition it is quite sensible to expect to be able to park your car just before the 1st tram of the day, likewise it makes sense to still be open to collect it after last tram of the day. I therefore cannot see why there is a need to park there overnight in connection with the tramway.

    • Ken Walker says:

      There isn’t. It is interesting that in support of his ‘never had any problem finding a parking space’ Frank has picked out 4 specific car parks, of which the 3 with which I am familiar (on the Rochdale line) are amongst, if not the largest Metrolink car parks on the whole system, while he chooses to ignore the far greater number of car parks located at former railway stations, which like the instance I referred to only have about 20 or 30 spaces. Apart from anything else I would much prefer my car to overnight at home than in an unsupervised car park, Metrolink or not. Unfortunately it is commonplace these days for people to expect something for nothing in addition to their contract that they have entered into. Instead of which we ehould be grateful that at the moment parking at Metrolink stations is free, which is not very common. One station that I think would warrant an exception is Rochdale, where TfGM have stated that the car park is for the use of railway passengers holding valid rail tickets, but I would say is warranted because the arrival of Metrolink removed a considerable number of unrestricted on-road parking spaces, Rochdale station never having had a car park of its own. But I end my contibution to this particular debate exactly where I started: whether you think it is right or not, if you ignore the clearly-displayed restrictions then you can expect to be subjected to the equally clearly-displayed penalties. Alternatively if you are catching the tram to Manchester to travel onward by train on business or whatever and don’t like the restrictions in the free Metrolink car parks, you can show your disapproval by bypassing Metrolink, and drive to Manchester Piccadilly and park there for as long as you want at a cost of about £20 per day!

    • Steve Hyde says:

      I think what Frank and others who have made complaints to Metrolink are saying Steve, is that there may be occasions where a driver might park their car during service hours and then perhaps imbibe, shall we say over the limit making it impossible to drive the car on their return. In this event said driver would want to leave the car overnight and collect it next day.

  4. Frank Gradwell says:

    I am so sorry – I had clean forgotten that we now live in the compliance society and that every rule or notice, no matter how arcane must be taken as gospel.

    Well sorry guys – you follow that mantra if you want! I predate it, have a mind of my own, understand plain common sense and am prepared to stand up for it, and when I see a mean minded little bit of car parking contractor’s pocket lining like this see it for what it is and not some spurious protective precaution preventing the overnight overcrowding of Park and Ride facilities – as if!

    Park and Ride should encourage use of a system – not leave users feeling abused and ripped off!