Leeds trolleybus scheme delayed further

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Thu 25 Apr, 2013 1:44 pm

NGT Response attached - hopefully - apologies for my scrawl. I was particulalry amused by their comparison with the Cambridgeshire guided bus way which uses biofuel buses on old track beds and is run by two private operators. I'm not quite sure why they raised it.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Thu 25 Apr, 2013 1:51 pm

Hmmm, doesn't like PDFs.

WiggyDiggy · Post by **WiggyDiggy** » Thu 25 Apr, 2013 2:25 pm

Cardiarms wrote: NGT Response attached - hopefully - apologies for my scrawl. I was particulalry amused by their comparison with the Cambridgeshire guided bus way which uses biofuel buses on old track beds and is run by two private operators. I'm not quite sure why they raised it. And the CBW is a shining beacon of success...... NOT!I'm actually pleased they perhaps want to use that as a comparison - highlights where even the route is away from all other traffic it still has issue, cost overuns and (whenever it rains) floods and becomes useless for anything but the buses.

Phill_dvsn · Post by **Phill_dvsn** » Thu 25 Apr, 2013 4:21 pm

Another letter in the Y.E.P.http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 5617213HOW LONG will it take Councillor Lewis to accept that the NGT Trolleybus idea is deeply flawed and hugely unpopular?Leeds people can see that a bendybus on wires is still a bendybus. They don’t fall for the wheeze that a bus is going to speed up journeys because it’s on wires. They know it’s because it’s making fewer stops.Neither do they fall for the line that a single bendybus route from Holt Park to Stourton is ‘going to benefit the Leeds economy by £160m a year’.They know that a bus which has far fewer seated passengers than a conventional one is not going to attract car drivers for one second.And they know that the beautiful tree lined corridor of the A660 is going to be irreparably damaged by those we entrust to protect it.Every public meeting of the Trolleybus is poorly attended whilst every meeting of its Headingley opposition group is standing room only. Have you got the message yet Councillor Lewis? If not, will voters in forthcoming local elections care to ask their candidates and deliver it?Andrew Batty, Keswick Grange, Leeds LS17

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Thu 25 Apr, 2013 4:30 pm

My response to NGT, Mullholland MP and Cllrs. It wpont toally make sense but you get the gist.Dear Mr Hacker - Thank you for your reply I've some comments and queries below.Councillors and MP - Please stop this waste of money. I have found the arguments thin, justification lacking and even contradictory and have no faith that this solution provides the best value for money, that any construction cost over run or shortfall in predicted income will be paid for by the people of Leeds. Richard ParkTomThanks for your response, mainly a cut and paste from your website FAQ but at least you mad an effort. Many of the comments were contradictory or partial and have done nothing to change my view that this project is a waste of money. I've attached an 'annotated' copy of your letter by way of reply but would comment:You state that you hope the bus will be cleaner and well maintained, that's great, you don't have the confidence that Leeds City Council could manage a contract with private operators to maintain a similar environment and then quote the Cambridgeshire guided bus routes as an example of an attractive transport option, where the biofuel buses are operated by private operators. What can Cambridgeshire do that Leeds can't?Permanence and reliable journey times - do regular rail commuters really believe their services are reliable? I agree journey time matters and if the service is quicker and cheaper than a car and parking you may attract users.Using sustainably generated electricity? You don't know if it will ever be available. One day I'd like my car to run on sunlight and moonbeams but for now it's petrol. This section also overlooks developments in electric buses and battery technology.Fares - LCC/Metro will set their own fares just like private operators. How much will the be? You don't know yet.Quality contracts - as referred to above - why can not these be guaranteed/enforced. A contract with a service provider sets the service, standards and penalties for non-compliance. Why is this so hard. Is the inability of LCC to manage a contract a reason to spend £250m?I agree that a Park and Ride facility without investing in the route would be a waste of time. I'm not sure why you've mentioned this but agree bus segregation is required, in what way is this different for any vehicle transporting people?Improvements in ticketing etc are being introduced across the board, speeding up all services. Was this taken into account when calculating the estimated benefits of the Trolley bus? (I can guess)What is 'a high degree of new infrastructure'? The signalling you refer to at key junctions is not exclusive to the trolley bus and priority signalling already exists on other routes as you will know.What were the DoT selection criteria?Did they 'highlight' or determine the solution - i.e. provided a frame work to make choices or to eliminate options. THere's a difference.I'm not surprised that Trolleybuses met the NGT scheme objectives.I'm glad you think it will look awful and requires mitigation. You refer to the proportion of people who would consider using the system. A 10 minute walk to the route isn't the same as to the nearest stop. Did the car drivers know the costs? These stats are pretty meaningless. At the moment I would consider using it. I'd probably have to as other choices will be crammed into less road space.You proudly compare the travel times between the trolley bus and a bus at the moment. How long would it take for a diesel, hybrid, electric, biofuel bus to travel from the Arndale Centre to park row, using the dedicated bus way, signalling and ticketing proposed? Please account for any difference. You mention that 80% of households using the Cambridgeshire bus way have a car. Over 77% of British households have a car so I wouldn't expect anything different. What is the point of this statistic. The scheme uses old railway lines and reaches speeds of 56mph. A bit different to Headingley lane.Having fewer stops significantly improves travel times and performance, why not introduce this now? Or introduce Express services. With a dedicated bus way of course.How much of the cost of the scheme is for developing the segregated bus way and how much refers to the infrastructure required to operate a trolley bus (poles, wires, substations and transformers, bus garaging, traffic management etc)?Thanks for taking the time to reply, I look forward to your response..

Brunel · Post by **Brunel** » Thu 25 Apr, 2013 11:16 pm

MISQUOTE: It has now full funding for one route, two more routes will be funded from the £1 Billion West Yorkshire Transport fund in Leeds, plus routes in Bradford, Wakefield and York are under investigation. Trams will run on one route in Leeds as well to the Airport.THE ACTUAL QUOTE, FROM LEEDS CIVIC TRUST:The £1 Billion West Yorkshire Transport Fund could see trolleybuses running in Bradford, York and Wakefield as well as on three routes in Leeds. Trams are also proposed between Leeds and Leeds/Bradford Airport!

BLAKEY · Post by **BLAKEY** » Fri 26 Apr, 2013 12:39 am

Just one more example of the almost unbelievable ability of the Transport Authorities and the Operators to waste money by the millions can be seen in the erstwhile "Ftr" and "Streetcar" nonsense which insulted the intelligemce of the Public beyond measure. An articulated bus was/is exactly that - building them with metal spats over the wheels does NOT make them into streetcars !! Also the original intention to operate them with a driver only (PILOT remember) sitting in a FLIGHT DECK rapidly came unstuck in Leeds and those on route 4 soon had to have double crew wages by employing conductors (Sorry, Customer Service Hosts - oh please tell me its just a bad dream !!). In York the same occurred but in the latter months First took them off the road all day Sundays and weekday evenings and ran the service with proper One Person operated double deckers, so at least sanity returned to Eboracum. After the withdrawal from York of the "streetcars" and also those in Leeds on the number 4 route the vehicles became redundant (and I imagine impossible to sell even at only 5/6 years old). So now we turn to the last unbelievable chapter of this scandalous economic farce. After around a century of perfectly excellent service with double deck trams and later buses (OPO for many decades past) on the interurban 72 route from Leeds to Bradford someone had the brainwave of employing the sad articulated heaps, now stripped of all their airline and streetcar nonsense, on the service with, yes you've guessed it, conductors. Liable of course to block the city centres and to cause many passengers to have an enjoyable journey standing they were prepared for their new role by being repainted in new colours and vynils, fitted with leather seats, and sent to a specialist vehicle firm in the North East to be so treated - the cost of this farce doesn't bear thinking of, nor does a crew of two on each bus on an enhanced frequency of every 7 minutes. Suffice it to say that if the network was still owned by the Local Authorities - the respective Transport Committees would rightly be marched out of Town.

Cardiarms · Post by **Cardiarms** » Fri 26 Apr, 2013 8:48 am

BLAKEY wrote: the cost of this farce doesn't bear thinking of, But they saved a fortune by not redesigning all the bus stops, realigning the kerbs and spreading buckets of road paint. That would have been a waste of money, hang on....

The Calls · Post by **The Calls** » Sun 05 May, 2013 1:50 pm

Cardiarms wrote: How predicatably dispiriting. Do you have a link to that quote, it's a wonderful piece of tortured logic. Next time I object to a planning consultation I'll remind them of that. Sorry Cardiarms. A friend who was at the meeting, instead of giving me the account I'd been expecting, just gave me his overall impression of the meeting.But there is this account that appeared in the Yorkshire Evening Post:http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-5503703

The Calls · Post by **The Calls** » Sun 05 May, 2013 2:02 pm

WiggyDiggy wrote: The Calls wrote: Transport consultant Don Townsley gave a talk on the follybus back in February to a packed hall. He'll be giving the talk again at 7pm on Monday the 25th March at the Heart centre on Bennett Road in Headingley. I attended February's talk. Alderman Townsley didn't have a single good word for the scheme. Asking as I dont know but what good is this? Does he have any influence on the scheme or any power to stop it?No sarcasm or wit intended, genuinely confused as to whether he can do something. I think it's helpful for people to be aware that we have a transport consultant in Leeds who is highly critical of follybus, and for people to be able to hear the scheme's flaws described in detail. Then they can make well-informed objections.Don Townsley is highly respected in transport circles, so there's a chance his views could persuade the politicians supporting the follybus to change their minds.