Leeds trolley buses set to get the go ahead!

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Thu 03 Mar, 2011 2:10 pm

cnosni wrote: Phill_dvsn wrote: I read a report on the Central viaduct Chris. It stated the full grown trees on top were in danger of seriously weakening the structure. Plans were mooted to open it as a walkway from the Armley gyratory, it cuts out that dingy subway that run under Holbeck station. I'll see if I can find the link again. The walkway idea seemed to drift away into the ether. Even more so now. I came across the report a few weeks ago while looking for some photos on Google. There is no sign of it now. Gone.. whoosh with the wind. It's the cut backs don't ya now

Post by **cnosni** » Thu 03 Mar, 2011 2:13 pm

Reginal Perrin wrote: cnosni wrote: Reginal Perrin wrote: BLAKEY wrote: Reginal Perrin wrote: If a tram does not provide a commute from Rothwell then I'm buggered if I'm paying for it. It will be of no use to us whatsoever. Long ago you'd have been on a winner Reginald - there was an LCT tram service from Rothwell Church via Wood Lane, Bell Hill and Hunslet to the City - but the last one's gone a while since. Now mate, there was a shed at the top of Bell Hill, it's still there. Lot's of picture as of trams in Rothwell on Leodis.I don't use the bus because it is a stupid amount of money for a bu journey £5 a day to communte and to be carges through the back door for something that only goes from Stourton is criminal. People will not be happy to incur the cost of car ownership just to drive to meet a tram within spitting distance of town.I've said this before but if you wanted to do that, you could do it now. You could park up in Hunslet and get one of the dozens of busses into town. People don't because it's not practical. The shiny new-ness of the bus/tram/trolley is incedental.I don't think the level of investment neesd to be that high. Many of the main suburbs already have train stations, they need to grant licences to small operators to get people there and back and then built new stations in places like Rothwell which don't currentyl have a train.A tram or trolley bus just seems like showboating and not solving a problem. The tram is very successful in Manchester and Sheffield,im not so sure its a matter of keeping up with the Jonesy's as much as trying to stop Leeds coming to a grinding halt.The trouble with running more rail services is capacity,paths for trains are to the max.New operators would either have to get old cast off rolling stock or buy new,the latter option would not be viable to a rail operator.As i said,if we wish to benefit from some sort of mass public transport system we can either all carry on moaning about it and get nowhere,or bite the bullet and put our own hands in our own pockets,as if they weren't getting picked by the government one way or another as it is!!We are not going to get any help from anyone else,thats clear The one in manchester is successful because it serves the suburbs on old branch lines before becoming a tram in the city centre. The problem with the proposals in Leeds is that it does not solve any problems as it doesn't serve the suburbs where people travel from. The park and rides are situated almost within walking distance of town and on current busy bus routes (ie lots of services). You're absoluteley right with regards to the reasons fro the success for the Manchester tram.I think the routes for our tram were not well thought out with respects to the suburbs,but Leeds is slightly different to Manchester in that Manchester,and the surrounding cities,have become one huge conurbation,a complete mass of built environment.Leeds is different,there is still,to some extent less of a continuous mass of building toward the west (Bradford) ,nothing between the north of Leeds and Harrogate/Wetherby,and to the east no continuous dense area of building.Our commuter problem is people from outside of Leeds,coming to the city.That problem would need a park and ride tram system to address it.BUT as you say,we also need something for the suburbs.A combination of the two would be teh best answer.

Riponian · Post by **Riponian** » Thu 19 May, 2011 1:12 pm

Seems the "best and final bid" is to go through to the Gov't from the Council, according to the BBC. Personally I'd like to see this scheme dropped, preferably into the Aire with some bricks attached to it.

raveydavey · Post by **raveydavey** » Thu 19 May, 2011 8:53 pm

Riponian wrote: Seems the "best and final bid" is to go through to the Gov't from the Council, according to the BBC. Personally I'd like to see this scheme dropped, preferably into the Aire with some bricks attached to it. Seconded!

Post by **cnosni** » Thu 19 May, 2011 8:59 pm

raveydavey wrote: Riponian wrote: Seems the "best and final bid" is to go through to the Gov't from the Council, according to the BBC. Personally I'd like to see this scheme dropped, preferably into the Aire with some bricks attached to it. Seconded! Here here.Its a bus with a hat on,an expensive hat at that.

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Thu 19 May, 2011 11:54 pm

I too would be very relieved to see this lunatic and expensive scheme dropped. As a lifelong public transport employee and enthusiast I think carefully before making such condemnations, but the only place for trolleybuses (and trams) is in a large network in order to get economic value from the electric infrastructure, maintenance facilities and so forth. I know that every system has to start somewhere and grow, but present day traffic conditions in this City simply won't allow this now, and the proposed very limited trolleybus (and latterly tram) proposed routes are just a farce.