Road, Rail & Access Issues

[LBA4EVER]

With the new terminal been situated in its new location and the parkway scheme proposed can you imagine the traffic on Scotland lane! that road would seriously need to be widened plus where Scotland lane meets brownberrie lane would be mental! Just hope they do a better job of it than the new moortown roundabouts, what a laugh and a half going through them new juncs , lanes everywhere, sharp narrow bits, cycle lanes everywhere! first prize in the stupid awards goes to.. yep you guessed it LCC!

 

[White Heather]

With the new terminal been situated in its new location and the parkway scheme proposed can you imagine the traffic on Scotland lane! that road would seriously need to be widened plus where Scotland lane meets brownberrie lane would be mental! Just hope they do a better job of it than the new moortown roundabouts, what a laugh and a half going through them new juncs , lanes everywhere, sharp narrow bits, cycle lanes everywhere! first prize in the stupid awards goes to.. yep you guessed it LCC!

I agree that Scotland Lane should be widened, and that should have happened years ago anyway to provide an alternative route into the airport that is safe and fit for purpose. However, knowing our Council, the more likely scenario is they will close it altogether to stop people accessing the airport that way - which would of course divert even more traffic up through Yeadon, making it considerably worse. And all of this of course just shows how idiotic it was to scrap the link road in the first place, particularly now we know it would have gone right past any new terminal's front door. Only in Leeds.........…….but they say its because of the climate emergency and because there was no clear support for any particular option (although Option A did attract the most support). Total nonsense and just an excuse not to build it.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I agree that Scotland Lane should be widened, and that should have happened years ago anyway to provide an alternative route into the airport that is safe and fit for purpose. However, knowing our Council, the more likely scenario is they will close it altogether to stop people accessing the airport that way - which would of course divert even more traffic up through Yeadon, making it considerably worse. And all of this of course just shows how idiotic it was to scrap the link road in the first place, particularly now we know it would have gone right past any new terminal's front door. Only in Leeds.........…….but they say its because of the climate emergency and because there was no clear support for any particular option (although Option A did attract the most support). Total nonsense and just an excuse not to build it.

Scotland lane would deffo need to be widened and I feel it would be quite easy to do as down at the end of Scotland lane where it meets brownberrie lane there is plenty of green space, heading the other way well it just goes into country side so again plenty of space. where whitehouse lane meets Scotland lane would require a larger junc,a large roundabout I feel would be ideal there. Plus the parkway would join Scotland lane so a fair bit of planning required. When you work out the cost of doing all this work it does make sense to just have a link road!!!

 

[Heathrowflyer]

...and White House Lane came to a halt this afternoon. 2 cyclists behind each other climbing the hill, accompanied by two sheep dogs running alongside them, off lead. Probably the road engineers testing the route!

 

[LBA4EVER]

Its so amusing how what LCC plan actually increases pollution, instead of letting the experts take control the non expert nimbys always have to get in first! LBAs new eco friendly terminal and its planned location next to a possible train station is such a great thing for leeds and will be so environmentally friendly but the non expert LCC might look at it in a different way!

 

[Mick_LUFC]

I agree that Scotland Lane should be widened, and that should have happened years ago anyway to provide an alternative route into the airport that is safe and fit for purpose. However, knowing our Council, the more likely scenario is they will close it altogether to stop people accessing the airport that way - which would of course divert even more traffic up through Yeadon, making it considerably worse. And all of this of course just shows how idiotic it was to scrap the link road in the first place, particularly now we know it would have gone right past any new terminal's front door. Only in Leeds.........…….but they say its because of the climate emergency and because there was no clear support for any particular option (although Option A did attract the most support). Total nonsense and just an excuse not to build it.

Glad you said it. I can't for the life of me understand why they've sacked it off. So short sighted its untrue.

 

[a300boy]

You will probably find one of the councillors lives or has friends who live near to the projected routes proposed.
Cronyism works and is alive and well in our society.

 

[Aviador]

I'm really not concerned about Scotland Lane and I'd advise others to say the same. Leeds City Council has had more than enough time throughout the decades to sort out the roads in North West Leeds and they have failed miserably. They can block Scotland Lane off if they like so far as I am concerned, it will highlight the traffic problems even more and make Leeds City Council look even more pathetic than most of us already think they are. Like I said already, they cancelled the airport link road plan, let them deal with the problem, it's their problem.

Without a rapid mass transit system such as the former proposal for a Supertram or Trollybus, Leeds is relying on Leeds City Station to take the strain off the city's road network. This simply isn't enough and it isn't acceptable anymore. Leeds desperately needs some kind of Metro or updated Supertram proposal before it starts considering taxing people to drive into the city. My wife uses the train every weekday from Guiseley to Leeds and she says the trains are full every day during the rush hour. Over 1.2m train users use Guiseley annually in an attempt to flee the overcrowded A65 but there's no more capacity for Guiseley to take the strain. So with Leeds City Council no longer pursuing improving roads for car users in the Aire Valley Corridor what exactly do they expect people to do if they need to get to Leeds?

Whatever Leeds City Council do now we're looking at another three years of consultations before anything happens which again is totally unacceptable given the time they've wasted already on so many failed transport projects.

 

[a300boy]

Thats the worst bit as anything could happen in that amount of time !

 

[Aviador]

I think because the new terminal is situated where it is people are assuming Scotland Lane will be the main access point but there just needs to be a realignment of White House Lane where the current access to the long stay carpark is. I think we can expect the road layout to change in whatever scenario the council end up with.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I think because the new terminal is situated where it is people are assuming Scotland Lane will be the main access point but there just needs to be a realignment of White House Lane where the current access to the long stay carpark is. I think we can expect the road layout to change in whatever scenario the council end up with.

A standard size roundabout just before whitehouse lane joins Scotland lane I feel would be the best course of action so that traffic going into the new terminal would take a right turn avoiding Scotland lane, but they would still be a straight ahead to Scotland lane. By having a roundabout traffic would generally keep flowing due to less traffic coming up from Scotland lane, this would be better than traffic lights as the stop/start at lights increases pollution levels.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

I'm really not concerned about Scotland Lane and I'd advise others to say the same. Leeds City Council has had more than enough time throughout the decades to sort out the roads in North West Leeds and they have failed miserably. They can block Scotland Lane off if they like so far as I am concerned, it will highlight the traffic problems even more and 1) make Leeds City Council look even more pathetic than most of us already think they are. Like I said already, they cancelled the airport link road plan, let them deal with the problem, it's their problem.

2) Without a rapid mass transit system such as the former proposal for a Supertram or Trollybus, Leeds is relying on Leeds City Station to take the strain off the city's road network. This simply isn't enough and it isn't acceptable anymore. Leeds desperately needs some kind of Metro or updated Supertram proposal before it starts considering taxing people to drive into the city. My wife uses the train every weekday from Guiseley to Leeds and she says the trains are full every day during the rush hour. 3) Over 1.2m train users use Guiseley annually in an attempt to flee the overcrowded A65 but there's no more capacity for Guiseley to take the strain. So with Leeds City Council no longer pursuing improving roads for car users in the Aire Valley Corridor what exactly do they expect people to do if they need to get to Leeds?

Whatever Leeds City Council do now we're looking at another three years of consultations before anything happens which again is totally unacceptable given the time they've wasted already on so many failed transport projects.

1) And that is very very pathetic at forward planning.

2) It needs to happen. Be it Trolley bus or Tram or a form of underground system (which i'm sure would be a lot easier to build than a tram or trolley bus as your underground). Something like this - https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/leeds-underground-map-shows-what-17301819. Interesting also found this link which showed that there was plans in the 1940's to build an underground system - https://www.leeds-live.co.uk/news/leeds-news/revealed-secret-plans-leeds-underground-14676260. It's actually quite frustrating this was pulled.

3) Yes i agree there's no more capacity yet house builders continue to build within this stations "catchment" area. I also think there is actually a substantial investment needed that would increase capacity overnight. Between junction where the Wharfdale line branches off from main line up through Apperley Bridge and into Gusieley a good chunk of that line is single railway only. There is very little in terms housing which would affected by increasing this to a double railway line and the country side would benefit as we are taking cars away from the roads into the railway line which would instantly face an increase in the amount of services it can handle. I agree it won't happen overnight, i agree it would be a long process to get this done however i feel it needs to be done to allow the services continue to grow. What is interesting is if you wikepedia the Airedale line it says it is the busiest commuter services outside of the South-East (So London). Why is it been starved of investment?

 

[Aviador]

Interestingly the line between Apperley Bridge and Guiseley used to be double lined until it was electrified. Supposedly the line would require lowering to enable duelling again due to the overhead power lines. I have no doubt it is possible but the disruption would be untenable.

 

[Tarn Spotter]

Good to hear Judith Blake on the airways today fighting for HS2, hope she listened to Andy Burnham the Manchester Mayor who really made the case for HS2.
As an audition for Yorkshire mayor she did not do to well, nothing for Dan Jarvis to worry about.
Hopefully all the Yorkshire regions can make the case for one mayor this year, are you listening in York, Rachel Maskill.

 

[Len Fish]

I’m no fan of HS2, especially because it will not link directly with HS1 to the rest of the European High Speed Network. If you’re travelling from say Leeds to the continent you’ll have to leave HS2 at Euston and then make your way on foot, bus, tube or taxi to St. Pancras International for HS1 and onwards to the continent, a missed opportunity in competing with direct, no change required airline routes to Europe.

 

[Aviador]

I’m no fan of HS2, especially because it will not link directly with HS1 to the rest of the European High Speed Network. If you’re travelling from say Leeds to the continent you’ll have to leave HS2 at Euston and then make your way on foot, bus, tube or taxi to St. Pancras International for HS1 and onwards to the continent, a missed opportunity in competing with direct, no change required airline routes to Europe.

Me neither. It is just too costly when so few will benefit from it.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Interestingly the line between Apperley Bridge and Guiseley used to be double lined until it was electrified. Supposedly the line would require lowering to enable duelling again due to the overhead power lines. I have no doubt it is possible but the disruption would be untenable.

The more that gets uncovered the more that i get so angry. Why would they not invest into making it double line even with overhead lines? I actually did some further research and found that it was also to do with potentially land slides further up the line. Why not spend the money to ensure it is double? Sometimes this country is so backward in coming forward.

As for HS2 i'm not entirely sure i agree it is a waste of money nor do i think its an investment. From what i'm hearing is that it could relieve some of the stress on the mainlines as the services on that line would only be for that line. Therefore would improve local services as train companies are able to run more services up and down the east and west coast mainlines. I personally think they need to make a substantial investment into Leeds area (platform 0 is a start, dual arrivals/departures thanks to new layout will also help) but i'd go far as say they need to separate the Wharfdale/Airedale to the Harrogate line and therefore are able to increase the capacity on these lines - providing wharfdale can be double lined which it cannot.

 

[jw2k]

In particular it was also interesting to see the Government take re aviation and climate change and it seems to say that individual airports and cities they serve should not be taking individual action and they should follow Government directives which would be aimed equally across the country. I read that to mean that if one airport has to cut back, so do the rest. For me that is the only fair way. Having read this though I feel more encouraged the Council will support the terminal development, as firstly not doing so would possibly be contravening the Government directive and seen to be treating LBA unfairly (in terms of competition) , and secondly, they are wanting funding from LBA towards what they are planning. This would normally come via a Section 106 payment attached to a Planning Consent, which of course, LBA will be submitting in the Spring. If the Council want LBA to put funds into the pot, they are not likely to say no to the scheme - otherwise they won't get the money from the airport.

I also took particular note of the following paragraph, which I interpreted as a positive thing in the context of the new terminal development and the airport's aspirations for becoming carbon neutral in the near future:

"The Council continues to press the Airport to develop proposals for a comprehensive and proportionate carbon reduction strategy and carbon offsetting scheme to address the carbon impacts at a local level resulting from its operation."

Like you, @White Heather, I was also pleased to see what the document said about the Government being the body setting aviation policy that then has to be implemented by the local/regional authorities. Although I'm sure there are plenty who would like to shut down the airport in the name of the so-called 'Climate Emergency', it would be an act of severe economic self harm for the Leeds City Region, and I'm relieved that it's the national government setting the agenda!

 

[jw2k]

My wife uses the train every weekday from Guiseley to Leeds and she says the trains are full every day during the rush hour. Over 1.2m train users use Guiseley annually in an attempt to flee the overcrowded A65 but there's no more capacity for Guiseley to take the strain. So with Leeds City Council no longer pursuing improving roads for car users in the Aire Valley Corridor what exactly do they expect people to do if they need to get to Leeds?

My other half says exactly the same! Always rammed during the rush hour, frequently delayed, often cancelled entirely. I understand there are plans to increase the amount of parking at Guiseley station, but I don't really see how that helps when there isn't enough capacity on the trains to take those extra passengers! Hopefully the development of Platform 0 at Leeds and the introduction of longer trains will help, but that's going to be at least a year off...

 

[leedslad]

@leedslad I think you have to put things into prospective. I agree it would be a "nice to have" a station directly outside the front of the new terminal but even if this is possible, rail travel to the airport wont be popular enough on it's own to make it pay without allowing for some kind of park and ride facility which wont be possible at the airport.

I think there is every probability a future tram train will operate to the airport. They have the ability to climb steeper slopes and they could also go on towards Yeadon, Guiseley and Bradford making it more viable. Another problem with having a direct link is Harrogate and York would not be connected directly.

But the airport is literally surrounded by car parking?! Surely space could be allocated for a Park and Ride car park which was close to a terminal front rail halt?!

I don't see why as a city we should settle for a Parkway for the sake of half a mile of cutting... The Victorians build Bramhope tunnel by hand and we can't build half a mile of cutting...

Also since the council and many others think its so easy and convenient to get a shuttle bus to the Parkway station from the terminal... Why can't the park and ride customers be bussed to the terminal front station from existing proposed park and ride car park