Leeds trolleybus scheme delayed further

[Squatch_11]

Well it's certainly a subject that creates opinion. While I agree with lots of the thoughts written about utilisation of old lines, the facts are that the funding for those projects weren't on the table.Looking at the press release, it seems that as part of the Leeds City Area funding creates a West Yorkshire transport fund of upto £1bn, without needing to get Whitehall approval, so maybe the things you desire will come out of that pot.Obviously I'm in the minority here on welcoming funding for this project - that's fine, it's a world of opinions, and it's only the internet at the end of the day. It will be interesting to come back to this subject in 5 years and see if opinions have changed.....

[cnosni]

This system is nothing more than a bus with a very tall and spikey metal hat on.It isnt fast,it isnt "mass"transport,it doesnt have significant stretches of dedicated route for its sole use and it also comes with an exascerbated achilles heel which is inherant to all modes of transport which source their motive power supply from overhead cables.The exascerbation being that whereas trams are on rails,and therefore less likely to have a loss of contact with the OHL,the trolley bus has no such rail to keep it within the sweep of the OHL.In other words its more likely to run off the wires.Indeed the scheme is cheaper,and as pointed out the Supertram was £500m comapared to £200m for this,and as also pointed out that this is taking into account inflation.But you have to ask yourself,at £300m less are we going to get the significant mass transport system for the city,that will reduce the number of cars on its roads by pursuading car users/commuters to leave their cars either at home or at a park and ride area and travel quickly and comfortably into the city centre on a reliable mode of mass transport which does not have to share a route with other road vehicles?No it wont,it is neither quick,mass nor comfortable (the roads cant be maintained as it is) and will not tackle the major issue that afflicts any major city,that is how do we improve the environment for its citizens by reducing local air traffic pollution whilst trying to bolster the prospects of the city by expanding the local economy.Indeed local air traffic pollution will be reduced,but imagine just how much more it could be reduced if we could persuade commuters to leasve their cars outside the the centre of the city?That will not happen here im afraid,just ask yourself that if you did/do commute to Leeds then would this trolley bus actually make you think about leaving your car at home or at a park and ride?I asked myself that,and the answer is no.Frankly,id rather the £200m did go back to Whitehall,let that money be spent on a worthwhile scheme,i dont subscribe to the opinion that we should have just because it is there and that no one else should,that was the mindset of the Sheffield council and the citys MP's when Leeds recieved funding from Yorkshire Forward for the arena.Sending it back is not cutting your nose off to spite your face,its the reality that £200m can be better spent on something that could make a real difference to peoples lives,this scheme is too small and its benefits are even less to make a significant difference to peoples lives who live or commute to Leeds.

[Squatch_11]

Taken from wikipedia re: the Edinburgh tramsOn becoming operational, the trams will be operated by Edinburgh Trams Limited, a company wholly owned by the City of Edinburgh Council.[5] Originally costed at £375 million in 2003, the budget was later increased to £545 million; in May 2011, it was revealed that £440 million had already been spent on the project.[6] A report issued the following month estimated that the partial completion of the tram line from the airport to the city centre would cost £770 million.[7] A further report issued in August 2011 estimated that the final cost for the proposed line would be over £1 billion, including £228 million interest payments on a 30-year loan to cover the funding shortfall.[8]I'd have loved the trams to be in Leeds, I think it was an opportunity missed (20 years ago mind), but is the above what we'd want here?As far as I can see, the main objection is that it's a trolleybus rather than a tram. The routes proposed seem similar to those of supertram, they are powered by the same method, one could argue that a trolleybus is more flexible as it can maneouver around an obstacle (within constraints admitedly) whereas if something is blocking a tram line, that's that.cnosni, you say"That will not happen here im afraid,just ask yourself that if you did/do commute to Leeds then would this trolley bus actually make you think about leaving your car at home or at a park and ride?"Assuming the infrastructure is the same (say park and ride facilities are built), would it really make a difference what vehicle took you into town, assuming the times weren't vastly different?Anyhow, what will be will be, I hope for the sake of the city these aren't the white elephants you think they will be, and let's see what other initiatives come in the future.

[Cardiarms]

It is just a different mode of travel. It does not increase capacity or speed. £200m could change a lot of lives a trolley bus wont.Personanlly I'd tip it into improving capacity on the rail network.

[BLAKEY]

Cardiarms wrote: It is just a different mode of travel. It does not increase capacity or speed. £200m could change a lot of lives a trolley bus wont.Personanlly I'd tip it into improving capacity on the rail network. Here here Cardiarms - and just another aside relating to the incredible Edinburgh farce, at least Leeds has no majestic thoroughfares like Princes Street waiting to be wrecked for expensive years on end.There's little or no visible evidence of the "fifty extra coaches" that we were promised on Northern Rail a while since. I atttempted to travel on the 1759 on Wednesday from Leeds to Headingley and gave it up before departure time as the conductor was instructing passengers which of the doors on the two car train they should attempt to crush into - already impossible as there wasn't any possiblity of another small sardine being daft enough to risk travelling thus - and what about the occasional gabbled tannoy message about "safety notices are posted throughout the train, please familarise yourself" etc etc and "if you see anything unusual please notify the conductor." Two carriages on a peak hour train on one of the busiest lines in the region - a criminal scandal, and I often fear the worst as we leave Armley junction (northbound) and use that inexplicable stretch of jointed rail as far as Kirkstall viaduct - especially with four wheel carriages as opposed to bogie stock.I eventually got on the 1829 - two cars until nearly departure time when we were treated to the thrill of an incoming two car set being gingerly linked up to ours - skill in this procedure varies a lot - on this occasion it was faultless, but at other times several attempts are needed and a very nasty jolt is suffered by the victims within.A deviation from the trolleybus topic I appreciate and aplogise for but, as Cardiarms rightly says, its treatment of scandals like this where the money should be going first - and quickly !!

[Squatch_11]

Oh, as a commuter who uses the local railways into Leeds, I couldn't agree more about the scandalous lack of capacity at peak times - both on Northern and TPE - unfortunately I don't foresee that changing until the franchising is sorted. The problem is (and I'm not saying it's right, it's just how it seems to be) is that you can't get this £200m and buy carriages with it. You have to by whatever the money was designated for.As to the discussion on how the railways are funded, well I guess we could go on about that forever, I still don't see how private companies get subsidies yet pay out dividends to shareholders....

[WiggyDiggy]

Viable alternative?CyclingHow about more cycling infrastructure. Its often floated by people who don't cycle that they choose not to for safety reasons.LCC has introduced various routes which in reality are nothing more than a cobbled together section of various back street and off the beaten track routes.What we should be doing is building, along the 3/4 major arteries into leeds, segregated cycling lanes to offer direct and safe routes in and out of the city. I took a tour of some of Leeds worst junctions for cyclists last night and its not surprise why more people don't cycle. The facilities that have been placed at various points simply don't make sense and dont join together in any sensible manner.As an example take this route:From the YEP building running against the flow of traffic up Wellington Road there is a shared footpath for cyclist/pedestrians. So far so good perhaps but after barely a mile it ends at Armley Road. If you wish to proceed pass the gyratory then you cycle up Armley Road, join Canal Street and then enjoy fighting your way across upto 4 lanes of traffic.Who mapped out that route, why has the money spent in creating that been wasted in such a way.So, that is my alternative, take a fraction of the 100's of millions that this scheme needs and give Leeds the Cycling infrastructure it needs.

[jim]

The only schemes which have any chance of success in improving access to Leeds in the rush hours are those that incorporate routeways separate and additional to the existing road and rail networks until they reach within the inner "Loop" system. Whether they be light rail, trolleybus, diesel electric bus, or something dreamt up by Heath Robinson and Emmett, trying to accommodate them within already overstretched infrastructure cannot possibly achieve what is needed.

[headingleylad]

The trolley buses will go behind the Arndale Centre at Headingley on Guided track with all the other buses that use the same route like the X84 from Otley, 28 from Long Causeway, and 97 from Guiseley. There is no method of overtaking buses on guided track, so the trolley bus will have to stand behind other buses at bus stops.There is to be no road widening on Headingley Lane, that is only wide enough for three lines of traffic. there is to be no widening on Otley Old Road to Holt Park, there are only two lines of traffic, and traffic in the rush hour often queues.I just cannot see any benefits over the diesel bus except for no emmisions except at the power station. The guided route behind the Arndale Centre could be built for Diesel buses and that would have the greatest affect for speeding up the Otley Road Route.I also presume they are going to have to put on a new route to cover the section of the number 1 route between the Lawnswood Arms and Holt Park unless they are going to keep the number 1 route running.A complete waste of Money. or as the saying goes " You only get what you pay for" The Lib/Tory government must be laughing all the way to the bank that they have managed to fob off this scheme to us thick Yorkshire people instead of giving the financial centre of the north and Englands third biggest City a decent transport system. I noticed they mentioned about Rome on the news last night and its trolley bus system, believe it or not, Rome is getting rid of its trolley buses, guess what for.I notice they built a Docklands light railway branch to the Olympics, why did they not build a cheaper trolley bus system?

[raveydavey]

Of at least equal importance for me with the much vaunted failings of a trolley bus vs tram / light rail is the single route the damn thing will take.The leg south from City Square to Stourton has 'white elephant' written all over it. Plans are to build a huge park and ride at the southern terminus where drivers are expected to turn off the A61 / M1 in their comfortable warm cars, park up, pay for parking and join a queue to pay for a bus ride into the city centre, before completing a days work and performing the same routine in reverse.Why would they want to do this? They've already driven in from Rothwell / Wakefield / Barnsley / wherever and the clown at Metro / LCC expect them to leave the car three miles from their destination and mess about with a glorified bus.The northern side of the route raises all it's own problems, not least of which is how to squeeze the electric wiring over a main road that is already full to capacity.Another point which hasn't been mentioned is who will operate the trolley bus? Presumably this will go out to tender, so we could end up with Worst running the trolley bus and their own buses on the route as well - another carve up.