Highways

A four car electric train. The £250m cost of NGT would buy 60 trains like this.

In practice the NGT scheme would produce nothing that could not be achieved by conventional double decker buses in well maintained condition, on good roads, and to a specification at least compatible with that of Yorkshire Coastliner and Harrogate and District (Transdev) vehicles. Bendy buses, diesel or trolley, increase congestion because of their 80% increase in length with no increase in payload and a diesel bendy bus is roughly twice the cost of the double decker. The trolley bus is dearer still, partly on account of the smaller production volume. Mainly used in former Russian and Eurasion states the penalties in this country of using small isolated fleets with regard to spares and operating costs should not be under estimated. There are none currently in Britain and relatively few in Western Europe.

I am amazed at the promoters’ claims that the scheme will result in a projected increase in the annual GDP of Leeds of £176million, creation of 4,250 jobs and a substantial reduction in the City’s carbon footprint. At best these figures are nebulous and at worst economical with the truth. Five years on from its conception and at least six years estimated before completion it should be rebranded Next Generation Transport. These timescales are ridiculous for the solution of a problem that exists now. Surely it cries out for some highway improvements and a small injection of new up to date off the shelf buses to give benefit now without dipping into and wasting the DfT funding which would better be transferred to a sensible light rail scheme on the right route as allowed for in the Early Day Motion submitted to Parliament on 4 July. Thorpe Park to Leeds City Centre suggests itself as an easily realisable cost effective high speed tramway from a catchment point with great park and ride and local development potential for which the major cost could come out of the trolley bus funding. Couple this tramway and park and ride facility with a railway station at Thorpe Park (not Micklefield) and the combined effect on relieving traffic congestion would be enormous. Thorpe Park, at Junction 46 on the M1 with existing and expandable access to the M1, is not only an already committed growth area in itself but is the one place most ideally situated to absorb traffic heading into Leeds from most other areas of high population. Motorists will leave their cars for a fast frequent tramway service into the city centre or for a train to other destinations but they will not do so for a bus, diesel or trolley, which then stops every few yards to pick up the locals or serve the local hospital. There is no such thing as a fit all solution as hinted at by NGT.

A sobering thought is that the cost suggested for the NGT scheme would alternatively buy 60 four-car (240 vehicles) 100mph electric trains. I know which would produce the best return on capital and the greenest footprint. Under present operating conditions to replace NGT the bus companies would provide the standard buses as a normal part of their everyday business and take the commercial risk.

There are more opportunities available now for easing the transport difficulties than have been possible for some time. What is needed is a more pragmatic approach.

Don Townsley

As well as being a former Leeds Councillor and now an Honorary Alderman, Don Townsley is a Chartered Engineer and Transport Consultant with a proven track record over more than fifty years.

Kieran

Kieran Preston, the head of Metro, recently wrote in to the paper placing the blame for the city’s transport ills at London’s door. Correspondent Hannah Johnson wrote a feisty response, pointing out that if Mr Preston was serious about solving the city’s transport problems, he could improve things cheaply and quickly by restoring the city’s original tram network. Dan Laythorpe wrote in reply to say that there would be practical difficulties. G Geapin wrote in to point out the advantages that trams have over trolleybuses. Hannah Johnson wrote a letter in reply to Dan Laythorpe to say that the difficulties he raises are just suppositions.

The above photograph taken in 1955 shows two trams crossing Woodhouse Moor on their way from the city centre. The tram in the foreground is a Chamberlain 105 and the tram in the background is a Horsfield 202.

The central

The central reservation of the A660 is lined with mature trees all the way from the West Park roundabout to the junction with Otley Old Road. The trees have been there for as long as anyone can remember and help to make the A660 one of the greenest and most beautiful avenues in Leeds

The people behind the NGT trolleybus scheme want to bulldoze the central reservation and its trees. In its place, they will lay tarmac. In addition, the trees to either side of the road will be cut back to make room for gantries from which wires will be suspended to supply electricity to the trolleybuses.

So, if the people behind NGT get their way, the current leafy view will be replaced by one of a broad expanse of hard tarmac with gantries and overhead electric wires.

The York Road Effecteffectf

For me, the most important objections to NGT are

1. The ban on discussing an alternative route
2. NGT doesn’t appear to complement existing bus services, but rather competes with them.
3. The possibility that unchecked it will create a dividing wall through the whole area – the “York Road” effect
4. Locals will suffer more inconvenience than benefits.

NGT must be discussed alongside the new powers giving the “Leeds City Region” powers to control their own transport. Local media took this to mean a tram/train from LBA which would join the main train line at Horsforth. Why not switch all NGT plans to a park’n’ride at that Horsforth junction? To introduce a trolley bus into a scheme that is supposed to be county-wide would be foolish.

It was

It was reported in today’s Yorkshire Evening Post that the NGT trolleybus project has a £20 million funding gap. Metro’s chairman, Councillor James Lewis claims to be unfazed by the news. When the gap was announced in a report to his colleagues on the council’s Executive Board, he said that it could be made good by re-valuing upwards land that had been acquired by the council years ago. He also said they wouldn’t have to find the money all at once, and that the scheme might cost less that the estimated £250 million.

The NGT trolley scheme has traffic delay designed into it because of “traffic stacking”. All other traffic is halted by traffic lights while trolley buses move across the carriageway to turn onto the sections of the route that is dedicated to the trolley bus. The traffic stacking causes delay to buses by making them wait at traffic lights. There will be least 5 of these traffic-stacking points, in both directions, on the way to Bodington Hall. These are at, Woodhouse Moor (Library), Hyde Park junction, Headingley Hill (top), Shaw Lane/Alma road junction, and the Lawnswood roundabout. All other traffic including commercial vehicles, bicycles, cars, cabs, are in the stack. I don’t know what happens to emergency vehicles. The diagram below is complicated but it is the best effort to explain the system in the light of the lack of information from the NGT proposers.

The core of the system is a small transponder or tag that can be attached into each trolley bus. To interrogate, a reader sends out a radio signal to the transponder via an antenna. The signal carries enough energy to reach a detector. The transponder then returns a signal that carries the data that it is storing. This data has a unique, programmed pin. When a trolley bus is detected approaching the stack the lights change in its favour. Nearly all our buses already carry them and mobile technology tells the operator where the vehicle is. It also alters the fare stage on inboard machines and accumulates statistics for route planning.

My opposition

My opposition to the trolley bus scheme is based on the same arguments as those used against earlier vanity projects on the A660.

I feel the best solution to the problem of congestion on the A660 is to make walking and cycling a pleasanter option. I have been banging on about physically separate cycle lanes for years now and it is good that even the Times newspaper finally agrees. They ran a series of articles calling for separate space for bikes after one of their journalists was run over and nearly killed.

The reason that bike lanes need to be physically separate on busy roads is that it makes cyclists feel safe rather than feeling that they are dicing with death on every journey. This is the only way to get large numbers of people on bikes. Cyclists are every bit as vulnerable as pedestrians. But we wouldn’t dream of taking pavements away. So the principle is well established.

Leeds City Council have been very poor on cycle infrastructure. They refurbished Burley Road and Kirkstall Road without putting in any separate space for bikes. So cyclists still have to share with buses. These were bad missed opportunities.

If road space is lacking I think we need to say there should be less for private motorists. That’s what Copenhagen did way back in the 70s. They spent money on cycle lanes that felt safe. Now they have more cyclists than any city in the world. No noise, no fumes, healthy people.

(photo courtesy of Velovotee)

asdfc

According to a recent Department of Transport forecast, the NGT trolleybus scheme will cause delays to general traffic, leading to £100m-plus of disadvantages to highway users, with the biggest impact on business travellers. The department estimates that the total cost to Leeds businesses will be £221m.

These are direct costs and primarily consist of higher vehicle operating costs and the loss in productivity of employees who will be delayed during work time.

The Department predicts that NGT will result in a slight improvement in journey times during the morning rush hour and a significant worsening of journey times during the evening rush hour. The northern route through Headingley will be the worst affected as road users will be held up at the junctions that will be necessary so the trolleybus can run behind the Arndale Centre and through the Shire Oak Road conservation area.

The department speculates that the reason local businesses seem to support NGT is either that the businesses consulted by Metro are unrepresentative, or that they have not been told by Metro how much NGT will cost them. Whichever it is, none of this inspires confidence either in Metro, or NGT.

(photo courtesy of Scoobyfoo)

In January this year,

In January this year, Transport Secretary Junstine Greening announced changes to the proposed HS2 High Speed Rail link from London to the Midlands that will add an extra £500 million to the total cost. According to The Huffington Post:

Various changes to the proposed route of HS2 were announced today in an attempt to appease local residents and to ward off a possible Tory rebellion from MPs whose constituencies are affected.

Compared to the route on which the Government consulted, there will be a 50% increase in tunnels, totalling around 22.5 miles.

In addition, around 56.5 miles of the 140 miles of the London to West Midlands line will be partially or totally hidden in cutting.

In the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) just over 1.5 miles of the route will be visible.

Where are NGT’s underpasses, tunnels and cuttings?

There is clearly nothing modern about NGT, despite the “New” in the project’s title. Our Victorian great-grandparents would be ashamed at our council’s lack of dynamic thinking.

(photo courtesy of henskechristine)

The NGT

The NGT trolleybus scheme would produce nothing that could not be achieved by conventional double decker buses in well maintained condition, on good roads, and to a specification at least compatible with that of Yorkshire Coastliner and Harrogate and District (Transdev) vehicles. Bendy buses, diesel or trolley, increase congestion because of their 80% increase in length with no increase in payload and a diesel bendy bus is roughly twice the cost of the double decker. The trolley bus is dearer still, partly on account of the smaller production volume. Mainly used in former Russian and Eurasion states the penalties in this country of using small isolated fleets with regard to spares and operating costs should not be under estimated. There are none currently in Britain and relatively few in Western Europe.

(photo courtesy of Matthew Black)