Road, Rail & Access Issues

[White Heather]

Well what we were told was there had been issues with the testing of the tram train which meant it would not be available for some time and certainly later than LBA need something in place, otherwise, as Aviador says, future airport development could be prevented. We should bear in mind though that phase 2 of the terminal development (the building extension) already has planning consent, so the Council can't prevent that now. Anything beyond that would be a problem, but realistically, that would be some time away. Any applications for other airfield developments though, might meet opposition. Its nice to see that once again, the Council are taking a negative stance with regard to an airport they should be supporting at every opportunity, particularly since (as we have pointed out previously) they are trying to force Bridgepoint to resolve issues that the Council(s) never dealt with themselves. Developments such as the tram train or main line electrification are outside of LBA's direct control anyway - it takes all parties to make that happen - including the Council!

 

[whoshotjimmi]

A very good find by Aviador but, I believe, we need to break it down into what is not of benefit to LBA, what is of benefit but not currently acheivable and what is of benefit and is achievable.

Firstly, what is not of benefit. A link road between M1 J46 and the A58 serves only to improve access to the wealthy suburbs of Leeds by removing or reducing the impact of the Seacroft bottleneck. It could even be argued that this would allow inhabitants of this area to more easily access DSA, EMA or MAN due to quicker access to the motorway. It could even have a significant NEGATIVE impact on the businesses of Seacroft & Cross Gates owing to the projected drop in through traffic which could then impact upon LBA in the form of reduced pax due to job losses. This is merely speculation, of course. However, it is important to weigh out all the pros and cons. The link road would not provide better access to LBA so no direct benefit. The only thing I can think of that could be a positive is, should the Seacroft bottleneck be dealt with, the journey time, coupled with A61 junction improvements, could be cut by approx 5 mins.

Secondly, what is of benefit but not currently achievable. The ideal situation is that a tram train link will be built to the front door. The reality is that it won't happen unless private money pays for it. I think we need to forget about light rail for the time being. The line in question is showing huge growth and has huge potential as a heavy rail link. As a result, conversion to light rail is not a necessity to revitalise the service (as was the case with the Manchester - Bury/Oldham lines etc). With that in mind, tram train is probably not the best option for the line; nor is light rail. Electrification of existing infrastructure will require significant private investment. Until that happens, the rail option (and the associated park and ride) is going nowhere.

Thirdly, what is achievable. A link road between the A65 and A658 has long been in the planning. This would allow a journey time improvement to the centre of Leeds of approx 10 minutes. The A65 quality bus scheme is already well underway promising time savings of up to 5 mins. These, coupled with junction improvements at the Horsforth roundabout could, effectively, improve the journey time to central Leeds from 38 minutes to approx 20. That would rival even a rail link. There is, of course, the further benefit to the wider area. LBA planning applications have to get around all sorts of red tape with regards to the impact it will have on the local population. A link road would remove an enormous amount of traffic from the Yeadon area, removing loads of planning restrictions. In my mind, this is the one to really get behind, rather than the stuttering rail link, especially if the benefits of the better bus services can be fully realised.

The Horsforth and Rodley roundabouts are widely seen as the bottlenecks in West Leeds and improvements to these junctions would make access to the airport far easier - a good 5 to 10 minutes (at busy times) I would have thought. Unlike the previously mentioned Seacroft bottleneck, the Rodley/Horsforth junctions are necessary to use for most people travelling to LBA. Therefore the benefit would be palpable.

Obviously, this report comes from Leeds City Council. However, I would like to see them work more closely with Bradford city council to improve access from the South West and M62. The links in that direction are unflattering at best. Quite frankly, you may as well write off Huddersfield and Halifax as well as a large part of Bradford as a catchment area as Manchester is, at least, as accessible from these points of origin. The problem, in my opinion, is the link between Bradford city centre and the airport. From the M62 to Bradford city centre, the route is reasonably quick and straightforward. After that, it is a nightmare.

 

[airforced]

Whilst not wishing to impinge on what might appear to be a 'local' discussion regarding road and rail access issues I hope that everyone involved in the loop on this matter does take due account of those of us who need to use their cars to get to the airport. From where I live (as far east of York as you can go without getting your feet wet!) there is no alternative but to drive to the airport and then park somewhere nearby. No amount of public transport will get me to the airport in sufficient time to catch an early flight out and getting back late at night, well forget it in that direction too.

Therefore any improvements to the Seacroft junction or anywhere else on the ring road is a bonus for me and the many like me who don't have the benefit of using public transport.

Please do therefore bear in mind your 'Country Cousins'. Thank you in anticipation one and all.

 

[Moo2009]

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but well driving round over the last few weeks I have heard on the radio National Express advertising up to 10 times a day to Mancherster and Liverpool Airports. Should LBA not be trying to get a National Express link, I dunno if this is something which could be brought up in the committee meeting?

 

[tleeds]

This was in fact mentioned on the forum I believe a few months back.

Many members suggested I think a possible York/Harrogate-LBA-Leeds-Manchester route or something similar...

 

[White Heather]

An update on the rail issue from yesterday's JCC meeting. Leeds Council, N Yorkshire, Harrogate and York have all now thrown their hat into the ring with regard to the electrification of the Harrogate line, the preferred option now being confirmed as overhead power. The likely rolling stock would be similar or the same as the Ilkley line (so good). There is no funding at this time, but there was cautious optimism for the future rounds of funding and 2016 was mentioned as a target. For now, work has started on putting together a business case to demonstrate the need for electrification and the significant increase in passenger numbers that the line could generate with such an improvement. As previously mentioned, the hope is to 'piggy back' on to the trans pennine electrification to reduce costs. All parties are signed up to the notion that if this happens, an LBA parkway station will be required

It was once again confirmed that the tram train idea is a non starter.

 

[Jordan-34092]

Well that is good to know but a question here, how will they be able to use the class 333 trains that are used on the airedale and whalfdale line when they are at full capacity, operations wise, plus that type of tran is no longer produced. New rolling stock would need to be considered instead.

Also if this all goes ahead, perhaps we could see through trains, using the diesel type, operating services onwards to places such as wakefield, huddersfield, doncaster and york etc via leeds, there wouldnt just have to be the trains operating between LBA - leeds only.

[ Post made via Android ]

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Concorde Lover - in the future, if the Harrogate line were to be electrified, I would not be surprised to see the Heathrow Express Class 332's (which are exactly the same as the 333 except for first class and luggage accommodation) move to Leeds to join their siblings. If 2016 is a target, it may coincide with the first batch of Crossrail units being available, which would allow displaced class 360's to move to Heathrow express and the 332's to move. IMO they would receive a full internal refit and be redesignated class 333/1.

With regards to through trains along the line, I would be far happier to keep the line as seperate as possible from the rest of the system. The likelihood is that frequency would increase to 4tph between Leeds and Harrogate making connecting at Leeds no hassle whatsoever. I think people would find it particularly disappointing to have spent a vast sum of money on electrification only for diesels to continue to use the line widescale. The number of passengers for LBA using the line would probably also not be enough to warrant through trains from elsewhere. Take for example the Pisa airport link. It runs every 30 mins and is perfectly adequate connecting to Pisa Centrale and the services available from there with a roughly similar passenger throughput. The only other services to that particular station are designed entirely around the tourist nature of the airport, which would not be appropriate for LBA. However, the convenience aspect of LBA for the locality would probably demand a 15 minute interval service for people to even consider using it. There is then, of course, the need to transfer passengers from the station to the terminal building.

With all of the above in mind, it is important that sight is not lost on the other improvements that need to be made. For a rail option to be considered, there has to be a significant positive impact. If other improvements can show the growth potential and deliver it at a relatively low cost, it will aid the argument for the stated rail project as well as providing the airport with extra impetus and sustaining recent patterns of growth. There is also the need to improve access from places other than Leeds and Harrogate - ie, areas from which rail is not necessarily the desired option. A 30 minute taxi ride from the centre of Bradford could easily become a 60 minute rail journey via Leeds. In this instance, dramatically improving bus/road access into the heart of Bradford is a must.

 

[Jordan-34092]

The Bus service to Bradford does need drastically improving, two buses 737 & 747 each run hourly, both are always guaranteed to be crowded you got single decker buses operating routes that a Double Decker should be doing, and the buses they use feel like they have no suspension. Each service should be every half an hour at least.

 

[Aviador]

Just slightly off topic but still very relevant to this thread. In the local rag tonight there's an article on the front page regarding a potential new Village to be built in the already over populated Aireborough area surrounding the airport.

[textarea]Anger at ‘new village’ threat to Leeds beauty spot

Campaigners have launched a scathing attack on a scheme that could see an entire village created on the outskirts of Leeds.

Rawdon Billing – a beauty spot near the village – has been identified as land that could be used for development as part of an exercise by Leeds City Council.

The owners of the green belt site, The Rawdon Trust, have put forward their bid for the 98 hectares of land to be included in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

Furious campaigners have now expressed their concerns about the impact that the potential development could have on the surrounding areas.

David Ingham, from campaign group Wharfedale and Airedale Review Development (Ward), said: “It would be appalling if developers were given the go-ahead to build.

“This is something that we have to fight against very strongly.

“You have to think about the infrastructure and the roads are already heavily congested.”

Read more: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... 1-4335683#[/textarea]


The land covered by the Trust stretches from the back of the Emmott Alms across the Billing as far as Horsforth golf course to the South and runs almost the entire length of Bayton Lane to the back of Multiflight to the North but excludes the 'spotters' hill which remains common land.

The council estimates as many as 4000 new homes could be built on the land close to the airport. This is the same council that has put absolutely no money into the local roads and infrastructure surrounding the airport over entire decades. I have absolutely no doubt they will be asking the airport for more money to pay for new roads.

Thoughts?

 

[Jordan-34092]

Well first of all that's all the airport need because people will move into these houses and will try to block expansion at the airport, even though they shouldn't have any right to do so if you decide to move near the airport and second of all i could see Leeds council trying to pull a fast one by having the airport develop the local roads with a promise to allow them to build new infrastructure such as the taxiway and once the roads are done go back on what they have said, i wouldn't put anything past a council to try that, that my fellow aviation friends is how much trust i put in the council and government.

 

[LUFC Jonno]

What's the point building houses near an airport. Its a complete waste of money because as soon as people move into them houses they'll start complaining about the noise thats coming from the airport. The whole idea doesn't make sense which is why the council will probably back it seen as they do the opposite of what the airport wants.

 

[White Heather]

The same thing will happen down at Menston, where they have just been given planning consent to build 600 houses by Bradford Council. Menston has been a thorn in the side of LBA for years. There is already planning consent for 400 houses in Woodside Quarry, Horsforth, and Kirkstall Forge, so I can't see this happening any time soon. Between Menston, Woodside, Kirkstall, and more new homes going up in Guiseley, much of the demand in NW Leeds will be met. On the plus side, if they ever did build at Rawdon Billing, it will increase the pressure on roads in the area and probably enhance the chances of a new link road to the area, which would be of obvious benefit to LBA.

Knowing Leeds Council, it would probably be a requirement that any developers paid for it too!

 

[Bhowani]

...and the daft thing is that Leeds OBJECTED to the 2 new(BRADFORD) sites in Menston, now approved, on the grounds that the A65 corridor (road and trains) is FULL. Try using ity OFF PEAK on a weekend! I must declare I live in Menston, and use the train for work in Ilkley.

 

[News Guru]

[textarea]Leeds Bradford taxi drivers threaten strike

Taxi drivers are threatening to strike over their long- running dispute concerning the new rank at Leeds Bradford Airport, the Yorkshire Evening Post reports. Hackney carriage drivers have voted to take strike action unless they can meet council leader Keith Wakefield to discuss the issue.

Debate has been raging for several years about the provision of a rank opposite the airport terminal on Whitehouse Lane. The airport was sold off by Leeds and its partner councils in 2007 and its new bosses re-tendered the provision of taxi services to a private-hire company in 2008. The hackney operators have always insisted this was unfair, and have argued that city centre congestion has increased as the city’s 500-plus licensed hackney taxis – no longer able to wait at the airport – ply for trade.

Senior councillors have also thrown their weight behind the rank, arguing that a new drop-off charge introduced at the airport had increased congestion, and have promised to press the airport’s owners on the issue. The drivers, members of the Leeds hackney carriage branch of the Unite Union, are angry that decision-makers are dragging their feet and have given the council leader until 14:00 on Thursday to agree to meet them and avoid a demonstration or walkout.

The exact method of the possible action has not yet been confirmed, previous demonstrations and go-slows in the city centre have led to roads chaos.

For more information on this airport news story visit: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-4450200[/textarea]

 

[White Heather]

How can the Hackney Carriage drivers claim that the allocation of the taxi franchise to Arrow was unfair? It was tendered, they bid, and they lost. That is completely fair. It is also in accordance with EEC rules regarding tendering. Next time it is tendered, they will have the chance to bid again and maybe next time, when they are more aware that they actually have competition, they might put in a bid low enough to win back the contract.

The attitude of the Hackney drivers when they operated at the airport was appalling. The last time I and my family used them, on the journey up to the airport, the rear seat was soaked in urine and on the way back we were given a hard time by the driver who picked us up at 2330 because we were only going home to Cookridge. He let it be known in no uncertain terms that he hadn't been waiting at the airport for a fare for 45 minutes just to get a 3 mile journey.

Personally I think that the Hackney company had become cocky and it will perhaps do them good to have lost the tender. That said, I do think that competition is a good thing and it will drive down fares, because even Arrow seem now to be charging more for fares out of the airport than they do otherwise.

Creating a taxi rank on Whitehouse Lane is not as straightforward as it sounds, hence the costs. The road is currently not wide enough so would need to be widened, but the ground to the side of it drops away on to the lower car park, which is airport owned land. LBA management are against it because they tendered the contract fair and square and, whether we like it or not, the airport is a private enterprise now. The Council cannot force their hand on this, nor can they create a taxi rank which impacts on airport land. If they move it further down or up the road to avoid airport land it will be so far away it will be pointless.

For taxi drivers to threaten a strike over this matter is not only stupid, it demonstrates that they have absolutely no understanding of the issues whatsoever.

 

[wawkrk]

I totally agree with your comments Heather about the attitude of the Hackney carriage drivers and a very poor service.

I have to hold my hand up and admit I was very critical when Arrow took over but now, I think they provide a better super efficient service and the cabs are bigger and better and newer and always clean.I don't want to be accused of being a racist again but the Asian drivers in particular are always very polite and never complain about a short distance fare.

 

[Aviador]

I totally agree Heather, you're spot on.

The Hackney Carriage drivers need to get over it and move on.

As wawkrk has already pointed out, Arrow provide a far better service to the one we were used to before. Hackney Carriage never wanted to know the airport on a Friday or Saturday night when the clubs were emptying onto the streets of Leeds. The service during Eid and Ramadam was non existent. Not forgetting the odd meter that seemed to be cranked up a couple of notches during your journey. In comparison we have a booking office where you pay up front and you don't have to pay anything else unless you wish to tip the driver.

 

[Aviador]

There's been a couple of accidents in the area this morning. The airport is advising passengers to set off in good time to allow for the delays getting to the airport.

 

[lbaspotter]

Noticed the following in tonights YEP and thought i'ld forward it on to here seen that it regarding the Black and White Taxi's protest with Leeds City Council over the airport access debate.

Source: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....cabbies-protest-too-little-too-late-1-4525118

Letter: Cabbies’ protest too little, too late

Published on Tuesday 8 May 2012 10:16

MANY in Leeds will believe the actions of hackney carriage drivers deliberately holding up traffic in connection with their grievance over access to Leeds-Bradford International Airport both anti-social and illegal, and will hope West Yorkshire police and Leeds City Council hackney carriage licensing Panel are taking note

Also, what Unite, or any other union, has to do with a group of – by definition – self-employed drivers, who either own their own plated vehicle or rent one off somebody else by the week, also seems a mystery, as does this grievance with the council, when it is the private owners of the airport causing them grief.

Years ago, hackney carriage operators had their own trade groups e.g. Streamline or Telecabs etc, who held exclusive agreements at places like Leeds City Station for their members.

Surely some organisation like that ought to have negotiated with the bidders for Leeds Airport at the time of sale, not years after an exclusive contract for access was granted one private hire firm, leaving them out in the cold.

Why should they even think of asking council tax payers to pay for an airport layby or anything else in these difficult times? I hope Leeds City Council tells them so!

D S Boyes, Rodley Lane, Leeds