Leeds trolleybus scheme delayed further

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sat 30 Nov, 2013 6:20 pm

raveydavey wrote: An astoundingly biased piece on the BBC Leeds website about the follybus:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-25142801 • Supporters say trolleybuses are quiet, clean and do not pollute the environmentPlural, as in supporters? That's the biggest joke yet. There is only one, and that's only the silly old rotten fossil from Bradford

guitar man · Post by **guitar man** » Sat 30 Nov, 2013 9:27 pm

Lets be honest about this, if The Super tram scheme had gone ahead people affected by it would be protesting just the same if it meant demolishing property and cutting down trees .I will not get any benefit from the Trolley Bus route so can we give an unbiased opinion on it

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sat 30 Nov, 2013 9:59 pm

guitar man wrote: Lets be honest about this, if The Super tram scheme had gone ahead people affected by it would be protesting just the same if it meant demolishing property and cutting down trees . Don't get me wrong, I'm a great supporter of the railways. In particular the Victorian railway builders who literally moved mountain and earth to get the rail network across Britain. They had some real hard work to be granted acts of parliament, and appease councils and landowners back in the day. The impact of all this work on the environment was huge, but where would we be without it today???? The future lack of transport progress for Leeds is no better illustrated than in Bradford's history and fortunes. No mainline connecting station - Instead they have the 2 dead end poor excuses for stations called Interchange and Forster Square. Without a direct train service to London for many years until recently. As stated in the Yorkshire Observer on the 19 November 1906:Leeds is such an important City that no major railway company would dare to bypass it. Yet Bradford is built in the bottom of a hill on the end of a railway siding, and there it will remain until the crack of doom. And never a truer word was spoken! Bradford has been held back for years and years. I'd hate to see Leeds go the same way caused by half measures and cheap useless schemes. If a modern day transport scheme would impact on the environment of Leeds, then so be it, it's an unavoidable outcome of progress. The green impact on the City is far from most peoples objections. They simply don't want to be forced to have second rate rubbish imposed on them by an incompetent council. If the green impact on the city derails this ludicrous scheme, then that's totally fine by me. It just isn't my reasons and argument for scrapping this White Elephant scheme though.

Brunel · Post by **Brunel** » Sat 30 Nov, 2013 10:25 pm

In one sentence. The proposed trolleybus scheme is not good value for money.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sat 30 Nov, 2013 10:28 pm

Brunel wrote: In one sentence. The proposed trolleybus scheme is not good value for money. Probably the best short summing up of Follybus ever! It's almost hilarious in it's straight to the point simplicity. I really like that one Brunel

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Sun 01 Dec, 2013 9:18 pm

guitar man wrote: Lets be honest about this, if The Super tram scheme had gone ahead people affected by it would be protesting just the same if it meant demolishing property and cutting down trees .I will not get any benefit from the Trolley Bus route so can we give an unbiased opinion on it The original Supertram idea was to link park and ride schemes at Grimes Dyke and Colton to the city centre using mainly the old tram route to Cross Gates in separate running down York Road.This was a good idea, based on the idea of rapid mass transit in and out of the city centre, causing minimal additional disruption once built. However for reasons that seem lost in the mists of time, we actually ended up with the "ELITE" misguided busway, which is a couple of miles of concrete trunking built at great expense for the exclusive use of monopoly operator First's modified buses with the remainder of the route being old fashioned normal buslanes with traffic lights designed to actually increase congestion.Once the misguided busway was built, there was no room on York Road for Supertram, so Metro / LCC came up with a convoluted route that twisted and turned through much of the A58 corridor like a mad snake and along streets where it clearly wasn't going to fit without massive upheaval (sound familiar?). It also had a major disadvantage that no-one could see how this great winding route was going to be quicker than a boring old bus betwixt Seacroft and the city centre (already well serviced with two every 10 minute routes, plus other less frequent services). Is anyone seeing parallels there? Fortunately Keith Wakefield's New Labor chums in Whitehall saw this and canned the scheme as poor value for money, despite the council and Metro having already wasted millions.Which brings us back to your point. This really isn't about NIMBYism, its about a poorly conceived idea, delivering appalling value for money on a route where there simply isn't any demand for it. The situation is then inflamed by the Metro / LCC cartel refusing to acknowledge the objections, massaging the figures to suit their cause, and constantly repeating the same old lies.Does anyone really expect the people of the Wharfe Valley, who already have access to the most modern railway line in the region should they want to use public transport, to drive to Boddington Hall, abandon their cars at a park and ride to then STAND on an electrified bendy bus all the way to the city centre? Which might save a couple of minutes on the time an old fashioned bus takes, depending on which set of figures from Metro you choose to believe...Trust me, there are much better ways to spend the money that would be wasted on this scheme that would improve public transport across the whole city at a stroke.That's why I object to the follybus.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Sun 01 Dec, 2013 9:44 pm

And also from here!http://www.wymetro.com/news/releases/12 ... ybus/**NGT will provide a £160m per annum boost to the local economy and the creation of 4,000 permanent jobs**If that is a true figure, then what are they actually saying????? I take it to say that since Manchester has had it's Metrolink running since 1992.The failure of Leeds City Council to achieve a similar scheme has resulted in a staggering loss of £3360.000.000 million pounds to the local economy Thanks for nothing L.C.C

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Mon 02 Dec, 2013 10:20 am

Spot on raveydavey and Phill - the "head in the Utopia clouds" proposers of "NEW Generation Transport" - trolleybuses started in Leeds in 1911 !! - should take a trip over the Pennines and ride the superb Manchester tram system and then they might wake up to reality !! Stiil in total despair here in Headingley.

somme1916 · Post by **somme1916** » Mon 02 Dec, 2013 2:18 pm

Have received an e-mail from a Richard Capenerhurst at wypte today acknowledging my objection passed to them by the DfT.........nice of them to pass my e-mail details over in this manner.Still,I suppose they have the right and duty to respond although a postal address was available to DfT.The letter is the usual blah di blah submitted by the above on behalf of David Haskins........project director at NGT who are operating out of the same address on Wellington St.They are also asking if I wish to sign up(via e-mail) to their attractive,ongoing PR newsletters regarding the scheme........think I may pass on this offer.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Mon 02 Dec, 2013 5:02 pm

somme1916 wrote: Have received an e-mail from a Richard Capenerhurst at wypte today acknowledging my objection passed to them by the DfT.........nice of them to pass my e-mail details over in this manner.Still,I suppose they have the right and duty to respond although a postal address was available to DfT.The letter is the usual blah di blah submitted by the above on behalf of David Haskins........project director at NGT who are operating out of the same address on Wellington St.They are also asking if I wish to sign up(via e-mail) to their attractive,ongoing PR newsletters regarding the scheme........think I may pass on this offer. I also received what sounds suspiciously like the same generic email today. No doubt a legal requirement as part of the process.I particularly liked the paragraph "The Promoters of the scheme intend to issue their Statement of Case on the 30th January 2013 and to accompany this, the Promoters will also publish a number of other documents, including an updated Business Case, copies of which will be made available on the NGT project website and at a number of public locations along the route. Any update to Environmental Statement documents, which may include but not be limited to the Transport Assessment, Traffic & Access Technical Appendix, Carbon Technical Appendix, Noise Technical Appendix and Air Quality Appendix, will also be advertised in the local press and further representations invited on them", which essentially says they are likely to change lots of stuff they've been pulled up on and then bury the details on their website and in the back of a low circulation newspaper...BTW, I seem to be objector 364 looking at the reference on the email - I wonder how many objectors have registered an opinion?