[pyramar]

How do people feel about trolleybuses in Leeds as an alternative to any other transport solution?

Do you feel it's a worthy second best to a tram or even equal to a tram? Or will it make the city a laughing stock. Here are my concerns:

A recent report by Transport for London (the capital's equivalent to the Metro travel undertaking) states why TfL discounts trolleybuses as part of the solution for London (TfL runs tubes, buses and trams in certain areas). It says trolleybuses are only fractionally faster than the latest hybrid buses, that the green benefits are debatable (instead of exhaust the fumes go up the chimney at Drax), are route specific and whatever benefit they bring to the table is vastly outweighed by the cost and effect of the infrastructure (overhead wires, gantries etc).

The proposed trolleybuses in Leeds are effectively bendy buses on overhead wires, no matter what marketing spin of ngt or whatever is put on them. For the main part, they will run on ordinary roads as part of ordinary traffic. The route planned in Leeds is from Lawnswood via Headingley to the City Centre and out to Stourton.

You've probably already seen Leeds bendy buses, nicknamed purple slugs they run on the service 4 route from Pudsey to Seacroft. They used to run to Whinmoor but fouled up the roads so often the route was shortened. They used to run past St James Hospital until they had the same effect on Harehills and the route had to be diverted to make it straighter and simpler. they don't go the hospital any more. Both Seacroft and Pudsey Bus Stations had to be substantially altered - at ratepayer cost - to accommodate them. Despite this investment, the powers that be have given up and decided to move them (along with the same buses from York - yes they failed there too) to the 72 service between Leeds and Bradford. Except this route will now be shortened so it doesnt serve Leeds Bus Station (bendy buses can't reverse out of the bays) so the terminus will be Eastgate except lots of other bus stops will be moved so that the bendy buses can fit in and thats another £43000 of ratepayers money helping First Bus).

Now imagine bendy buses on overhead wires running from Lawnswood through Headingley and Leeds to Stourton. Except if this experiment fails then these trolleybuses cant be moved to another route. The overhead wires limit that.

So what's my solution? Well, lets bear in mind that Manchester's tram system started out as two British Rail lines stitched together with some city centre track. Now let's look at one of our busiest local rail lines which runs from Leeds to Harrogate via Burley Park, Headingley and Horsforth.

Most passengers are from these stations clogging up the Harrogate trains, so I'd let these trains not stop at Horsforth, Headingley and Burley Park. I'd operate trams on the same line picking up this local service but from Horsforth go on a new line through the fields to the Airport. Leeds to the Airport would be the start of my tram network. At the Leeds end, I'd have the trams use Platform 1 and extend this through the north concourse and down New Station Street to the Corn Exchange, Leeds Bus Station, St James, Harehills and Easterly Road. My tram network would therefore cost less than Supertram. And whilst on the subject, why does everyone think trams are the only solution? Is it because tram makers are a powerful lobby. Just for a second consider monorail (don't laugh). At Disney, the monorail is not a pleasure ride (although riding it is a pleasure) but it runs for over 20 miles on a number of routes with several stations linking Magic Kingdom with Epcot and the car parks. When the parks close, many thousands of people have to be got home quickly and the monorail does this perfectly every day and as it can go above the traffic it is faster and might not need the same level of demolition.

[Rick]

Agreed, the trolley buses are a poor attempt at a mass transit system. And agreed that the airport should be included. I've heard thoough, that the gradient to the airport is too steep for a rail link, and that's why one has never been put forward.

From Horsforth Station to the airport the land rises maybe 80m over a distance of 1500m.

We're always told that a scheme that would do the job (monorail, underground etc) would be too expensive, but I don't know if one has ever been properly costed. A monorail should be cheap. It's a modular system that is assembled on site. Trouble is that there is so few of them that each one seems to invent a new system, so there are fewer economies of scale. It would be one of the best solutions though, as you say.

The proposed NGT is still planning to follow the route of the Headingley by-pass that was proposed in the 70s (?). Pretty out-dated thinking from LCC.

[MrTempleDene]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw

But in all seriousness, the idea of utilising the existing railway has occurred to me before. Micklefield into Leeds seems perfect, and to let express trains past they could re-instate the middle lines at Crossgates Station so trams could park up while the express goes through.

[LS resident]

Are trams a better solution than trolley buses? The key point isn't whether the wheels run on steel or tarmac, the real issues are:

1. the segregated routing, which is what will give any transport the clear run without the endless congestion with other traffic. This has to be the biggest factor for fast urban transport. (I think the preferred plan was to segregate much of the Leeds trolley bus route with dedicated lanes etc).
2. the electric propulsion, this is faster, smoother, quieter, more comfortable, and not poluting the local environment, more so than any type of internal combustion engine propulsion (which 'hybrid' still is, however that is dressed up).

Tram lines are far more expensive, and proved too costly for Leeds. However trolley buses could be considered like trams on rubber tyres and tarmac, with benefits like better traction on hills in winter, improved comfort, and less noise polution.

Perhaps it will be trams that become obsolete before trolly buses!

[Kaolin]

Can't see a huge problem with trolley buses. Hopefully they will be quicker to install than trams and cause less distribution. I lived in Sheffield when some of the tram lines were being laid and the effect of all traffic was massive. The tram lines used to be a real nightmare for cyclists, not sure if this has been mitigated. I think having mass transport without laying lines has to be good. Anything has to be better than firstbus.

[RubyTuesday]

I'm from Manchester and we've had 20 years of **** trams - now they are doubling the amount of lines - so they'll be twice as many disgruntled passengers!
Be careful what you wish for

Just a thought
Ruby

[RubyTuesday]

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday

I'm from Manchester and we've had 20 years of **** trams - now they are doubling the amount of lines - so they'll be twice as many disgruntled passengers!
Be careful what you wish for

Just a thought
Ruby

Sorry didn't realise I wasn't allowed to say s**t

[LS resident]

Originally Posted by RubyTuesday

Sorry didn't realise I wasn't allowed to say s**t

.............................

[Nik B]

I'm not really sure what the difference is between a trolly's and a normal bus, why not just build a tramline?

[Kit G]

At last, ome common sense about the trolley bus proposal. So refreshing. You have hit the nail on the head with segregation of the systems. A trolley bus system is what is known as a " tightly bound, linear system". It is tightly bound because what affects one part of the system affects it all. If a trolley bus breaks down, the trolley buses behind it are stuck. This tightly bound system is going to be imposed on the existing tightly bound system of the existing traffic. Adding trolley buses to the roadsis going to increase congestion on, say, Otley Road.
The only way to alleviate the congestion is to segregate the transport systems. A horizontal segregation, for example, would be a by-pass with all the expense and upheaval that would incur.
Vertical segregation can be achieved by going underground, as many cities have done, though that would be very expensive.
Vertical segregation can also be achievedby going overhead, as with a monorail, as is being done in many Asian cities.
The advantage of a monorail system is that it utilises the airspace above the road system. Land acquision costs, a major high cost item in any transport scheme, are thereby negligable.
A mono rail system would be an opportunity for Leeds to embrace a future facing 21st century transport system rather than looking backwards to an antiquated system.

I raised this in another forum, Leeds Civic Trust. Their response was to point to an episode of the Simpsons about monorails. There are more authorative works available.

[NatureBoy]

Originally Posted by pyramar

How do people feel about trolleybuses in Leeds as an alternative to any other transport solution?

Do you feel it's a worthy second best to a tram or even equal to a tram? Or will it make the city a laughing stock. Here are my concerns:

A recent report by Transport for London (the capital's equivalent to the Metro travel undertaking) states why TfL discounts trolleybuses as part of the solution for London (TfL runs tubes, buses and trams in certain areas). It says trolleybuses are only fractionally faster than the latest hybrid buses, that the green benefits are debatable (instead of exhaust the fumes go up the chimney at Drax), are route specific and whatever benefit they bring to the table is vastly outweighed by the cost and effect of the infrastructure (overhead wires, gantries etc).

The proposed trolleybuses in Leeds are effectively bendy buses on overhead wires, no matter what marketing spin of ngt or whatever is put on them. For the main part, they will run on ordinary roads as part of ordinary traffic. The route planned in Leeds is from Lawnswood via Headingley to the City Centre and out to Stourton.

You've probably already seen Leeds bendy buses, nicknamed purple slugs they run on the service 4 route from Pudsey to Seacroft. They used to run to Whinmoor but fouled up the roads so often the route was shortened. They used to run past St James Hospital until they had the same effect on Harehills and the route had to be diverted to make it straighter and simpler. they don't go the hospital any more. Both Seacroft and Pudsey Bus Stations had to be substantially altered - at ratepayer cost - to accommodate them. Despite this investment, the powers that be have given up and decided to move them (along with the same buses from York - yes they failed there too) to the 72 service between Leeds and Bradford. Except this route will now be shortened so it doesnt serve Leeds Bus Station (bendy buses can't reverse out of the bays) so the terminus will be Eastgate except lots of other bus stops will be moved so that the bendy buses can fit in and thats another £43000 of ratepayers money helping First Bus).

Now imagine bendy buses on overhead wires running from Lawnswood through Headingley and Leeds to Stourton. Except if this experiment fails then these trolleybuses cant be moved to another route. The overhead wires limit that.

So what's my solution? Well, lets bear in mind that Manchester's tram system started out as two British Rail lines stitched together with some city centre track. Now let's look at one of our busiest local rail lines which runs from Leeds to Harrogate via Burley Park, Headingley and Horsforth.

Most passengers are from these stations clogging up the Harrogate trains, so I'd let these trains not stop at Horsforth, Headingley and Burley Park. I'd operate trams on the same line picking up this local service but from Horsforth go on a new line through the fields to the Airport. Leeds to the Airport would be the start of my tram network. At the Leeds end, I'd have the trams use Platform 1 and extend this through the north concourse and down New Station Street to the Corn Exchange, Leeds Bus Station, St James, Harehills and Easterly Road. My tram network would therefore cost less than Supertram. And whilst on the subject, why does everyone think trams are the only solution? Is it because tram makers are a powerful lobby. Just for a second consider monorail (don't laugh). At Disney, the monorail is not a pleasure ride (although riding it is a pleasure) but it runs for over 20 miles on a number of routes with several stations linking Magic Kingdom with Epcot and the car parks. When the parks close, many thousands of people have to be got home quickly and the monorail does this perfectly every day and as it can go above the traffic it is faster and might not need the same level of demolition.

I'll give the ftrs 6 months on the 72. If they last longer than that I'll be very surprised! I like the monorail idea.

[MrTempleDene]

Originally Posted by Kit G

If a trolley bus breaks down, the trolley buses behind it are stuck.

The Leeds trolley buses are capable of disconnecting from the overhead cables for short periods to go round problems like this.

[timthackeray]

I don't think it matters what others think about it, what matters is that Leeds should have the efficient and economical mass transit system that it badly needs. The current proposal is not it. Too small an area is served (though I feel sure it was selected to provide the greatest profit for the existing operators), and using buses of any sort will only put more money in their pockets and keep fares high. We need a completely new Leeds Transport Authority to run a new system, and to plan and coordinate with other operators to achieve the best result. This should be a PUBLIC body, not a private company. Leeds taxpayers have been paying for at least thirty years through their Council Tax for surveys and preparatory construction for various mass transit proposals (mostly through what I suspect were stealth attempts to build one without approval), so the Leeds taxpayer should receive the maximum benefit from anything that is finally constructed, and have a major say in how it is operated and the profits reinvested. The profits of course should be directed at extending the transport network, and expanding it to cover all areas, with a view to creating jobs both directly and creating employment opportunities in the areas served. Anything else would be a wasted opportunity.

[Sirius]

The government is proposing spending £32 billion on a high-speed railway (HS2) that will connect London, the Midlands, and the North of England.

This year, the government has given a £ billion in aid to India (India already has four underground systems, with seven more under construction).

So the money for a Leeds underground system is available. All that's lacking is the political will.

If you think Leeds deserves better than a trolleybus, please could you make a comment on one of the recent articles on the Hyde Park and Woodhouse Online website.

Thanks.