NGT involves running trolley buses over already really congested roads with NGT involves running trolley buses over already really congested roads with long distances between stops (meaning lack of convenience for passengers). To proceed with this ill-advised scheme simply to get Governnent money would seem to be very short sighted if not downright irresponsible. How much better to scrap it now and start work on building an underground system. Only an underground scheme can meet the needs of Leeds, a sprawling city with a defined centre. Conferences held in Amsterdam point the way forward for such schemes (modern ones, not Victorian ones like the London Underground). Tunnelling is now very much cheaper than you would imagine.
It would be a labour intensive infrastructure scheme, of just the type the Coalition Government is proposing to take Britain out of recession. It would be costly, but the cost would be in jobs – which surely can’t be bad for the Leeds economy. The scheme could be designed and then implemented gradually as Government money is made available. Once built, it would confirm the importance of Leeds as a prime UK city.
If we had started on this 20 years ago, most of it would be built by now. Once built, we will have it for generations. Just think what it would do for the vitality and future of Leeds.
I have just had a more indepth look at the trollybus, and I still don’t see the point!
A trollybus does not do anything a normal bus doesnt do. OK it may be greener, but the intention of the project is not to make Leeds a greener city.
I think we should do some research and prove theres a better alternative
Thanks Earl. What you say is so true. But NGT has so few benefits that I suppose we can’t blame its promoters for scraping the barrel. Yes, I agree that we should follow up to prove that there is a better alternative to trolleybuses. It will be sad if we lose the opportunity for something which will have advantages by accepting money for trolleybuses (which won’t).
While the NGT scheme undoubtedly isn’t perfect, I can’t what options we have left:
Trams – too expensive for UK governments of all parties.
Underground – 5 to 10 times more expensive than trams. Not going to happen.
As for NGT the main benefit I can see is the segregation provided at key congestion points e.g. Headingley, City Centre. Could this be done with normal buses? Sure, but as the wires are only a small amount of the total cost the savings made by an enhanced bus service of the same quality as NGT won’t come to much.
By all means propose an alternative solution, but I can’t see that there is one.
I would love to think that an underground would work but think this may be losing us credibility. NGT is a terrible scheme, it must be stopped, it is basically Metro building another bus route through the most attractive artery into Leeds. A peak time congestion charge, park and ride buses (lpg or electric in a few years!) and senstive management of traffic would work better! NGT will be a complete waste!! It already is with the amount of consultees that are working on it!!!
Chris and Andy. The problem is that only a rail based off road system will solve Leeds’ transport problems. We will have to have one in the end, whatever the cost. Overland and underground can be investigated. If built gradually it would spread that cost. But the trolley system is of use to no-one – better to get it agreed that we can spend the money on proper bus lanes and UK made hybrid buses of the type Transport for London are buying, plus better parking control, then put together a plan which will solve Leeds’ problems, to be implemented when there is the cash.
It depends on whether Leeds wants to develop or remain static / go into reverse. A proper transport system is an investment which will be recovered in the benefits it will bring. It may well be that Leeds needs to be more innovative as to where it looks for sponsors.
Just found this through West Park Resident’s Association link. We have the same discussions ongoing. There are a mulitude of reasons why this is a short-sighted plan. Mostly I question the realism of whether people are more likely to leave their cars at Lawnswood and get onto a trolleybus than a normal bus. Also the stated aim is to interfere as little with cars as possible, when actually a nice traffic calming effect of a public trasnport system would be a good thing. It is also morally wrong to damage the character of an area and the quality of life of the people that live there by removing trees, historic walls, and york stone pavements and paving green areas in order to provide a transport medium for commuters from outside the city that would absolutely not accept such a plan were it to be proposed by other towns and cities in which they live.