Road, Rail & Access Issues
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Moderator
- #322
Head up for some road works...
If you going to the airport this Sunday, September 25th 2011 beware that Kirk Lane in Yeadon will be closed for road works. A diversion route will be in operation.
West Yorkshire Metro have also posted on the following information on there website regarding the Airport to Bradford bus service 747.
Source: http://www.wymetro.com/travelnews/busalerts/DuncanStreet
If you going to the airport this Sunday, September 25th 2011 beware that Kirk Lane in Yeadon will be closed for road works. A diversion route will be in operation.
West Yorkshire Metro have also posted on the following information on there website regarding the Airport to Bradford bus service 747.
Source: http://www.wymetro.com/travelnews/busalerts/DuncanStreet
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #323
Leeds City Council has been discussing the implications of the £2.00 pick-up and drop off charge and how it has effected the safety of pedestrians and road users using Whitehouse Lane. In the same debate it has been mentioned that the cost of building a dedicated Hackney Carriage rank on Whitehouse Lane has escalated to almost £900,000, between £350,000 and £400,000 more than originally thought because of the cost of excavation required. The council has recommended planning officials liaise with the airport over a forecourt management plan to address the "negative impact" the £2 charge is having on local roads.
One of the local rags has mentioned the possible electrification of the Harrogate line this week.
Ten new stations sounds a bit excessive, I can think of a couple of places where a station would be advantageous but not ten.
One of the local rags has mentioned the possible electrification of the Harrogate line this week.
Ten new stations sounds a bit excessive, I can think of a couple of places where a station would be advantageous but not ten.
In recent light of the news Aviador, it may seem that the council will be reluctant to pay for, what now seems to be, a large scale job.
I wonder if the council will end up looking for finance from somewhere else to foot the bill, and I can see Leeds City Council going to Bridgepoint for help! LCC will turn around and say "You have forced the need for a taxi-rank, you can help us build one".
I think that after Leeds City Center was denied a tram service, I can see the same for the new proposition in the article Aviador. Anyone can turn around and say "there is a need" but how realistic is it to actually happen....?
I wonder if the council will end up looking for finance from somewhere else to foot the bill, and I can see Leeds City Council going to Bridgepoint for help! LCC will turn around and say "You have forced the need for a taxi-rank, you can help us build one".
I think that after Leeds City Center was denied a tram service, I can see the same for the new proposition in the article Aviador. Anyone can turn around and say "there is a need" but how realistic is it to actually happen....?
All Leeds City Council need to say to Bridgepoint is:- when you need planning permission for the next bit of extention a clause will be added that you must build a lay by for taxis.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #326
ls27 said:
I don't think they need any help with suggestions. They're professionals when it comes to sponging of businesses when they want something doing. They've done it enough already with providing funds to subsidise bus services.
Sherburnflyer92
Elite-Member
ls27 said:
Think all they need to do is say yes to any plans bridgepoint bring to the table, after years of holding back the airport & it's development.
whoshotjimmi
Well-Known Member
I think the airport will have to U-turn on the parking charge. Aside from the fact that it is massively unpopular - and I hear people complaining about it in all walks of life - it is causing a totally untenable issue on the roads around the airport. Soon, those who do still want to use the airport won't be able to get to it due to the ridiculous traffic situation. It is a complete and utter mess and I am very angry at LBA management for making this highly unpopular decision. They are only hurting themselves by doing so.
U
User0001
Guest
When the airport was served by black and white taxis who could 'rank up' and wait for trade, the service offered to passengers was inconsistent. For example, if you arrived back as a passenger on a Friday or Saturday evening you'd find the taxis had gone to ply their trade in Leeds City Centre - leading to long waits for passengers and complaints to the airport. Now, part of the contract with Arrow is that they have provide coverage at all times and a failure to do so is breach of contract. It's a better and more consistent service now than it was then.
The people complaining are the black and white taxi companies who of course liked the idea of being able to pick and choose where they went in the city to collect fares . The taxi trade association have links with the council, so they have been lobbying the council to get them a taxi rank somewhere on site.
Naturally the airport have said they have a contract with Arrow and are happy with the service they provide. They also point out that that private hire can drop off and wait to collect pre-booked trips at the terminal front without paying any parking charges in return for up-front fee of £25 per year. They point out they are having to pay hundreds of thousands to subsidise bus services too and make further contributions to road improvements.
The council response was to therefore build a taxi-rank on the public highway as close as possible to the airport. They believed this would be cheap, that is until the airport and the CAA pointed out that anything that restricted emergency access to the airport would result in the airport having their license to operate removed. So, new plans have been drawn up which need huge investment in highway engieering - total cost nearly £1m - to develop a rank which does not restrict emergecy access.
So, we now have the council boxed into a corner. They are obviously being lobbied hard by the black and white taxi firms who must have some influence with the council that is not immediately obvious. But the public will not stand for £1m being spent on something that isn't needed or particularly wanted. So, the disaster sceario which is looming is that the coucil will use the only leverage they have left with the airport and that is to play hard-ball on the last remaining planning conditions. Remember, development cannot start until a huge number of obligations have been met by the airport. One such condition is that the airport submits a 'forecourt management plan' which shows how the airport will manage the flow of traffic into and out of the airport site. The council are now indicating that the forecourt plan the airport have submitted is not acceptable so we can all see where this is heading. On the verge of a £10 million contract being awarded to local construction firms and the biggest overhaul of the airport building in years, it looks like defeat could still be snatched from the jaws of victory.
One can only imagine what Bridgepoint must think of all this. A council in the depth of economic gloom putting major private sector investment at risk and elements of the general public that believe they have a right to use the airport without having to pay for it.
We can only hope for an outbreak of common sense. With regard to the airport, the council does not have a great track record in this regard
The people complaining are the black and white taxi companies who of course liked the idea of being able to pick and choose where they went in the city to collect fares . The taxi trade association have links with the council, so they have been lobbying the council to get them a taxi rank somewhere on site.
Naturally the airport have said they have a contract with Arrow and are happy with the service they provide. They also point out that that private hire can drop off and wait to collect pre-booked trips at the terminal front without paying any parking charges in return for up-front fee of £25 per year. They point out they are having to pay hundreds of thousands to subsidise bus services too and make further contributions to road improvements.
The council response was to therefore build a taxi-rank on the public highway as close as possible to the airport. They believed this would be cheap, that is until the airport and the CAA pointed out that anything that restricted emergency access to the airport would result in the airport having their license to operate removed. So, new plans have been drawn up which need huge investment in highway engieering - total cost nearly £1m - to develop a rank which does not restrict emergecy access.
So, we now have the council boxed into a corner. They are obviously being lobbied hard by the black and white taxi firms who must have some influence with the council that is not immediately obvious. But the public will not stand for £1m being spent on something that isn't needed or particularly wanted. So, the disaster sceario which is looming is that the coucil will use the only leverage they have left with the airport and that is to play hard-ball on the last remaining planning conditions. Remember, development cannot start until a huge number of obligations have been met by the airport. One such condition is that the airport submits a 'forecourt management plan' which shows how the airport will manage the flow of traffic into and out of the airport site. The council are now indicating that the forecourt plan the airport have submitted is not acceptable so we can all see where this is heading. On the verge of a £10 million contract being awarded to local construction firms and the biggest overhaul of the airport building in years, it looks like defeat could still be snatched from the jaws of victory.
One can only imagine what Bridgepoint must think of all this. A council in the depth of economic gloom putting major private sector investment at risk and elements of the general public that believe they have a right to use the airport without having to pay for it.
We can only hope for an outbreak of common sense. With regard to the airport, the council does not have a great track record in this regard
White Heather
Elite Pro-Member
That is an excellent post LS16 and sums up the farcical position perfectly.
Leeds City Council are playing with fire here and if they push Bridgepoint too far, they and the entire Leeds City Region, could pay the ultimate penalty with either a reduction in, or no future development, with the resultant impact on future services, loss of incoming tourism etc. In the current climate they should be grasping every opportunity to boost the area's economy and LBA is one business that can have an huge impact. Talk about biting the hand that feeds it!!
Another taxi rank is not only unnecessary, it will probably result in action being taken by Arrow Taxis, who won the airport's taxi tender in accordance with EEC rules. Any loss of revenue for them is almost certainly going to result in legal action, with Bridgepoint no doubt, in the firing line, even though this is not actually a situation of their making. I don't think we would have had all this fuss had the Black and White cabs won the tender. The fact they didn't is down to them asking too much and losing - and if they want to redress the situation next time, they know what to do. Put in a lower tender and provide better service in the future than the disgraceful service they gave before. Not only were they absent from the airport later at night as mentioned by LS16, their attitude to customers was terrible, particularly if, having queued for a fare, they got someone like me who only wanted to go to Cookridge - a mere 3 mile journey. The reality is that the service now provided by Arrow is far superior.
As for the £2 dropping off fee - well I think folk had better get used to it, as it won't be long before all airports are charging for such as this. Maybe the larger airports who attract premium airlines and pull in significant amounts of landing fees, much larger retail amounts etc, can afford to not charge, or charge less, but regional airports no longer make a profit purely from aviation movements and retail and rely heavily on revenue from parking. As aviation services are suffering due to the economy, the airlines will be driving down fees even more, and airports, who still have to pay their staff and operate, will turn more and more to other charges. It will become a question of pay to drop off, or use the bus. Leeds City Council are trying to force LBA to get people on the bus, and on the face of it, the £2 charge might encourage a few more to do so, yet the Council are now complaining at the airport for doing something that in reality, they should be happy about, were it not for the fact that so many people seem reluctant to do anything to avoid paying, including clogging up the streets. Personally, I am perfectly happy to pay the £2, particularly if that £2 goes towards future airport development.
Where I am not happy with the airport is that they are still not coming out publicly and explaining why they need to make this charge or what their intentions are relating to the terminal development. People need to understand and if they don't know the facts, they never will - particularly when they are fed a constant barrage of negative and anti airport rubbish by a local newspaper who should concentrate on educating the public, and supporting the airport (AND the many jobs it creates), rather than stooping to the levels it has recently. The sooner LBA's marketing team move into gear, the better, although ongoing interference from the Council will hardly encourage them to do so, especially if, as LS16 says, that interference is putting the development plans at risk.
My only query though relating to what LS16 says is this. LBA has already satisfied the requirements of the planning consent and been given approval as far as I am aware, and also according to what I have been told,and my understanding is that they are free to start on the terminal. Indeed, they have effectively already started with preliminary works. I don't think the council are able to now put new obstacles in the way for this development, although they certainly can, and no doubt will do, if/when LBA gets around to seeking further approvals. They clearly have no problem with what amounts to political blackmail, forcing Bridgepoint to fund what they never did. Rather than this confrontational approach, the Council should be working in partnership with Bridgepoint, to the benefit of the City and entire Yorkshire Region.
However, this is LBA we are talking about, and Leeds City Council. You couldn't make it up!!! :sad:
Leeds City Council are playing with fire here and if they push Bridgepoint too far, they and the entire Leeds City Region, could pay the ultimate penalty with either a reduction in, or no future development, with the resultant impact on future services, loss of incoming tourism etc. In the current climate they should be grasping every opportunity to boost the area's economy and LBA is one business that can have an huge impact. Talk about biting the hand that feeds it!!
Another taxi rank is not only unnecessary, it will probably result in action being taken by Arrow Taxis, who won the airport's taxi tender in accordance with EEC rules. Any loss of revenue for them is almost certainly going to result in legal action, with Bridgepoint no doubt, in the firing line, even though this is not actually a situation of their making. I don't think we would have had all this fuss had the Black and White cabs won the tender. The fact they didn't is down to them asking too much and losing - and if they want to redress the situation next time, they know what to do. Put in a lower tender and provide better service in the future than the disgraceful service they gave before. Not only were they absent from the airport later at night as mentioned by LS16, their attitude to customers was terrible, particularly if, having queued for a fare, they got someone like me who only wanted to go to Cookridge - a mere 3 mile journey. The reality is that the service now provided by Arrow is far superior.
As for the £2 dropping off fee - well I think folk had better get used to it, as it won't be long before all airports are charging for such as this. Maybe the larger airports who attract premium airlines and pull in significant amounts of landing fees, much larger retail amounts etc, can afford to not charge, or charge less, but regional airports no longer make a profit purely from aviation movements and retail and rely heavily on revenue from parking. As aviation services are suffering due to the economy, the airlines will be driving down fees even more, and airports, who still have to pay their staff and operate, will turn more and more to other charges. It will become a question of pay to drop off, or use the bus. Leeds City Council are trying to force LBA to get people on the bus, and on the face of it, the £2 charge might encourage a few more to do so, yet the Council are now complaining at the airport for doing something that in reality, they should be happy about, were it not for the fact that so many people seem reluctant to do anything to avoid paying, including clogging up the streets. Personally, I am perfectly happy to pay the £2, particularly if that £2 goes towards future airport development.
Where I am not happy with the airport is that they are still not coming out publicly and explaining why they need to make this charge or what their intentions are relating to the terminal development. People need to understand and if they don't know the facts, they never will - particularly when they are fed a constant barrage of negative and anti airport rubbish by a local newspaper who should concentrate on educating the public, and supporting the airport (AND the many jobs it creates), rather than stooping to the levels it has recently. The sooner LBA's marketing team move into gear, the better, although ongoing interference from the Council will hardly encourage them to do so, especially if, as LS16 says, that interference is putting the development plans at risk.
My only query though relating to what LS16 says is this. LBA has already satisfied the requirements of the planning consent and been given approval as far as I am aware, and also according to what I have been told,and my understanding is that they are free to start on the terminal. Indeed, they have effectively already started with preliminary works. I don't think the council are able to now put new obstacles in the way for this development, although they certainly can, and no doubt will do, if/when LBA gets around to seeking further approvals. They clearly have no problem with what amounts to political blackmail, forcing Bridgepoint to fund what they never did. Rather than this confrontational approach, the Council should be working in partnership with Bridgepoint, to the benefit of the City and entire Yorkshire Region.
However, this is LBA we are talking about, and Leeds City Council. You couldn't make it up!!! :sad:
wawkrk
Active Member
- Jan 17, 2009
- 478
- 0
I must agree with previous posts the service by Black & White cabs was appalling.
I once arrived from Heathrow and went to the taxi rank. There were about 30 of us waiting. It was windy and the rain was horizontal. No cabs were to to seen. Then after about 5 minutes one arrived, I was not at the front of the queue but I confornted the driver, the nearby compound was packed with cabs.I shouted at the surly driver to call the company and get them to wake up and sort out the disgraceful situation.
When Arrow started with the new system, I was very critical about it. But now, I must admit, they do provide an excellent service although lugging bags accross to the portacabin can be unpleasent in bad weather which is most of the time.The fares are realistic and the drivers lose money if they take a scenic route. All cars must be changed every 3 years so very nice cabs. It works well but not all arriving foreign passengers like this style or are able to understand it. Maybe Arrow could provide a two tier service, pre paid and jump in and go from a rank.
I once arrived from Heathrow and went to the taxi rank. There were about 30 of us waiting. It was windy and the rain was horizontal. No cabs were to to seen. Then after about 5 minutes one arrived, I was not at the front of the queue but I confornted the driver, the nearby compound was packed with cabs.I shouted at the surly driver to call the company and get them to wake up and sort out the disgraceful situation.
When Arrow started with the new system, I was very critical about it. But now, I must admit, they do provide an excellent service although lugging bags accross to the portacabin can be unpleasent in bad weather which is most of the time.The fares are realistic and the drivers lose money if they take a scenic route. All cars must be changed every 3 years so very nice cabs. It works well but not all arriving foreign passengers like this style or are able to understand it. Maybe Arrow could provide a two tier service, pre paid and jump in and go from a rank.
U
User0001
Guest
Heather - unfortunately the forecourt management plan is one of conditions that starts with the words "no development shall commence until......."
There are some minor internal works going on of course, so whether that counts as part of the development or not, I'm not sure.
I agree with your point about engaging with the public about fees, terminal development etc. I put this point to the top man at LBA in one of my recent meetings and the explanation was this.
Firstly, the local press and media get bombarded with press releases and they aren't that interested as you might hope. Secondly, the airport don't want to go public with the terminal plans until they are sure it's going to happen - the fragile economy and dealing with the council on the remaining planning obligations mean things could still go wrong (as we might be seeing with this taxi debacle). They'd rather say nothing than say something which ends up not coming to fruition.
The view was, the terminal works will be the most positive development at the airport for years. They want to grab the interest of the media and the public and use to really start marketing the airport much more. The view I've heard elswhere is that this will start around the 80th anniversary of the airport; Oct 16th / 17th and in the last couple of days, some marketing videos have appeared on the airport's YouTube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/LeedsBradfordAirport
There are some minor internal works going on of course, so whether that counts as part of the development or not, I'm not sure.
I agree with your point about engaging with the public about fees, terminal development etc. I put this point to the top man at LBA in one of my recent meetings and the explanation was this.
Firstly, the local press and media get bombarded with press releases and they aren't that interested as you might hope. Secondly, the airport don't want to go public with the terminal plans until they are sure it's going to happen - the fragile economy and dealing with the council on the remaining planning obligations mean things could still go wrong (as we might be seeing with this taxi debacle). They'd rather say nothing than say something which ends up not coming to fruition.
The view was, the terminal works will be the most positive development at the airport for years. They want to grab the interest of the media and the public and use to really start marketing the airport much more. The view I've heard elswhere is that this will start around the 80th anniversary of the airport; Oct 16th / 17th and in the last couple of days, some marketing videos have appeared on the airport's YouTube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/LeedsBradfordAirport
- Moderator
- #333
The problem has been created by the council.
They should have told people to use the allocated drop off/pick up areas or use the bus.
They should have told people to use the allocated drop off/pick up areas or use the bus.
- Moderator
- #335
I have read another article where it states the cost of providing a taxi rank? will be nearly £1 million. If I was a Leeds council tax payer I would be lobbying my Local councillor/MP (and encouraging everyone else to) stop the council wasting their money. It is not needed, as I have posted before there are adequate facilities for vehicles to drop off/pick up passengers whether payment or not.
The Council should be policing what is in place and not providing more unneeded facilities - it would be a heck of a lot cheaper.
The Council should be policing what is in place and not providing more unneeded facilities - it would be a heck of a lot cheaper.
White Heather
Elite Pro-Member
The easy way to stop people dropping passengers off on Whitehouse Lane is to re-designate the road an urban freeway, making stopping illegal. The odd traffic camera picking up number plates and the council will quickly earn their £1m in fines! Drivers will then have the choice of pay the £2 for convenience or use the no charge area in the long stay car park.
whoshotjimmi
Well-Known Member
It should not even be an issue. The charge is, simply, wrong. All it does is lower the reputation of the airport and harm it in the long term. It is the same when charging in a shop car park. What do you do? Go to a different shop. It may only be £2 but people see it as an unnecessary and cheeky attempt to profit further from their customers. It is the sort of thing that the likes of Ryanair tend not to be too appreciatative of either. I just cannot fathom why LBA management have made such an unpopular decision at such a crucial time. And, I'm afraid, making it illegal to stop on Whitehouse Lane will only make the situation worse. The airport has to retain passengers as it faces tough times as well as trying to attract new routes/airlines. Charging people to ARRIVE at and DEPART the airport is thoroughly ridiculous. People will go elsewhere. Airlines will go elsewhere.
Yes. Even over £2.
Yes. Even over £2.
White Heather
Elite Pro-Member
I totally appreciate your view Whoshotjimmi, although I am afraid I don't agree with you entirely, simply because airports are not a free service any more and have to survive as a commercial organisation. Other posts have made it clear why many regional airports are having to top up their income through parking charges, although you do not appear to be accepting this as fact. I have had personal discussions with the MD of LBA and an explanation of why these charges are necessary, in addition to information submitted to the consultative committee, so perhaps have had more information made available to me to assist me in reaching a view. My conclusion is that it would be nice if airports didn't charge to drop off passengers etc, but the reality is that this is the future. Many are doing now and more will follow. As for making Whitehouse Lane a clearway, just watch it happen! Vehicles dropping people off along that road causes a risk to Emergency Services' access to the airport, and as such incurs the wrath of the CAA. Quite simply, it cannot be allowed to continue irrespective of the cause.
Frankly, if someone living in the Leeds Bradford catchment area travels some considerable distance to fly from another airport that doesn't charge a drop off fee (assuming they can find one), then they are likely to find themselves financially worse off than they would by using LBA. The fuel costs alone far outweigh the drop off charges. If they are so unhappy about paying the £2, use the free area. The distance from the terminal building is no further than you have to walk at many airports, although granted, it is a pain if the weather is bad - which is all too often these days, and a covered walkway would help encourage the use of this area.
However, I think the issue of the £2 fee has been done to death on this thread, and it is such an emotive subject. There are those who are OK with it, those who are mildly bothered and those, such as yourself, who are downright angry. We are never going to agree and it seems a bit pointless us all going round in circles debating this issue endlessly. Time will tell if LBA will withdraw or amend the charges, but I doubt it very much. A compromise in my view would be £1 for the first 10 minutes (sufficient to drop people off) rising to £2 for up to 30 minutes, although that would not resolve the more difficult issue of drivers picking passengers up.
For my part, I do not intend to make any further posts on this issue as just about everything that can be said about this charge, has been said.
Frankly, if someone living in the Leeds Bradford catchment area travels some considerable distance to fly from another airport that doesn't charge a drop off fee (assuming they can find one), then they are likely to find themselves financially worse off than they would by using LBA. The fuel costs alone far outweigh the drop off charges. If they are so unhappy about paying the £2, use the free area. The distance from the terminal building is no further than you have to walk at many airports, although granted, it is a pain if the weather is bad - which is all too often these days, and a covered walkway would help encourage the use of this area.
However, I think the issue of the £2 fee has been done to death on this thread, and it is such an emotive subject. There are those who are OK with it, those who are mildly bothered and those, such as yourself, who are downright angry. We are never going to agree and it seems a bit pointless us all going round in circles debating this issue endlessly. Time will tell if LBA will withdraw or amend the charges, but I doubt it very much. A compromise in my view would be £1 for the first 10 minutes (sufficient to drop people off) rising to £2 for up to 30 minutes, although that would not resolve the more difficult issue of drivers picking passengers up.
For my part, I do not intend to make any further posts on this issue as just about everything that can be said about this charge, has been said.
I have to agree with White Heather on this issue. Here in Edinburgh there was uproar when it was proposed to introduce a £1 drop off fee. Councillors and others all expressed their anger, a petition was organised for those who opposed it and to object and I was one of them. ( I also remember picking someone up at Newcastle when they were waiting for me and I was perhaps 30 seconds in the pick up area and paid £1 and I was mad. ) However many months on in Edinburgh everyone has forgotten about it and got used it. I pay my £1 without thinking about it then pay nearly £2 for a coffee. In fact the other day I used the short term car park and paid £3.50 as I was just over the 15 mins. It is not an issue any more and if it all helps to make airports more secure, Glasgow's event comes to mind, all well and good. Additionally the traffic flows well into and out of the airport and the whole experience is very acceptable. Maybe if LBA reduced the £2 to £1 and then £2 after a certain period that might be more agreeable.
Remove Advertisements
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
NEW - Profile Posts
If anyone would like to share their local airport news right here in our news area let me know so I can give you the correct permissions to do so. It only takes a couple of minutes to upload a news story with an accompanying image. The news items can then be shared on the site homepage by you. #TakePart #Forums4airports Bring the news to one place!
Well it looks like I'm off to Australia and New Zealand next year! Booked with BA from Manchester via Heathrow with a stop in Singapore and returning with Air New Zealand and BA via LAX to Heathrow. Will circumnavigate the globe and be my first trans-Pacific flight. First long haul flight with BA as well and of course Air NZ.
Trending Hashtags
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 3
-
#Jet2Weight: 2
-
#GetUKDomesticFlightsMovingWeight: 1
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 1
-
#EasyJetWeight: 1
-
#LBAreviewWeight: 1