Road, Rail & Access Issues

[dmrodgers]

Trolley bus to me is a total waste of money this money should have been put to getting a proper tram system in place which terminated at the airport yes it would be more expensive but am sure it would be better than a trolley bus

[ Post made via iPhone ]

Couldn't agree more, Trolleybus is no more than a glorified bus with a trolley pole on the roof. Completed waste of money, may as well just put cheaper new buses on the route, can't see how trolleybus will solve the traffic problems our city has to put up with. We should be pressing for the resurrection of Supertram with a line to the airport. Can you imagine that city over the hill putting up with a bus with a pole on the roof, think not!!!!

 

[ls27]

I agree, it is an utter waste of money, but blame the powers that be in Westminster. I remember reading an article in a magazine that stated that the Leeds tram was greater value for money than that in some parts of Manchester and also the new tram for Nottingham. So Man gets money for it's tram and Nottingham is allowed to go ahead with its tram, West Midlands gets a tram and Blackpool gets £100m for its tram. Who says there is no byas against Leeds?
Within a few days of refusing the Leeds Supertram. the same money requested was allocated to fit out a station in London for the Olympics.

 

[Moo2009]

Leeds always falls behind are neighbour from over the hill about time we had some strong minded people on the council who are prepared to fight for what Leeds needs and not except a second rate transport system like a trolley bus, what Leeds really needs but will never happen is a underground which I believe was planned in the 1930's

[ Post made via iPhone ]

 

[Jordan-34092]

Something like the DLR in London with links to the airport along with connections from the airport to other areas of the city.

[ Post made via Android ]

 

[cmj]

I agree, it is an utter waste of money, but blame the powers that be in Westminster. I remember reading an article in a magazine that stated that the Leeds tram was greater value for money than that in some parts of Manchester and also the new tram for Nottingham. So Man gets money for it's tram and Nottingham is allowed to go ahead with its tram, West Midlands gets a tram and Blackpool gets £100m for its tram. Who says there is no byas against Leeds?
Within a few days of refusing the Leeds Supertram. the same money requested was allocated to fit out a station in London for the Olympics.

And this is why I will NEVER vote Labour.

 

[Aviador]

I don't see what any of that's got to do with Labour. Locally Leeds City Council has passed between the political parties and nationally it's the Conservatives and LibDems who are in power. In any case, the majority of people these days seem to think all political parties are of the same colour!

With reference to some earlier comments, I agree in that the route should either be extended to the airport or the council should push for the extra money to build the original planned supertram. Previously Leeds only had the trolly bus for around 17 years and I can't see the new version lasting any longer.

 

[ls27]

Having had to be a-political for many years (infact over 46) I do not necessarily put all the blame on the politians, some of it has to go the executive in Westminster. I read the other day in a magazine that a senior civil servant in the Treasury bosted that the main highlight in his career was to delay Cross rail for twenty years. No wonder things don't get done with that attitude.

 

[cmj]

I don't see what any of that's got to do with Labour.

It was a labour government which canned Supertram.

 

[Aviador]

I don't see what any of that's got to do with Labour.

It was a labour government which canned Supertram.

You are right, it was Alistair Darling who canned it. I was equally disappointed but the Conservatives and LibDems have done nothing to resurrect the plans either. It's all hindsight though now as we're stuck with buses with overhead cables. Leeds might as well start preparing now for their replacement as it takes that long to get through the political process. Bring on the Leeds Maglev.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

I have read the large number of opinions posted recently with a degree of incredulity.

White Heather - I think you are correct to a degree that, due to the previous co-owners being the local concern, they should have played more of a part in expanding the airport and improving the local road network HOWEVER, the local infrastructure was satisfactory for the airport in the guise that it was in.

The councils sold the airport when passenger numbers did start to grow, partly to cash in but mainly, I suspect, because they were unable to continue to justify spending to the electorate. After all, the complicated ownership situation meant that any monies required for terminal expansion, road improvements would have to be split proportionally between the 5 councils. You may argue that Leeds City Council alone are responsible for the road situation but I would argue that they should not be forced to pay entirely for improvements to something that is a shared ownership. There would be 100% benefit for the remaining 4 councils and massively reduced benefit to Leeds. At the same time, it is difficult for the other 4 councils to justify to their own electorate spending money on something that is not in their own jurisdiction - especially when, for Kirklees and Calderdale, using Manchester Airport is just as feasible and at a time when Robin Hood was becoming more of a player in the Wakefield market. Certainly if I owned a business with 5 others, I would not pay for all the improvements whilst they sat back and reaped all the rewards. Furthermore, as a Leeds City Council taxpayer, I would be rather annoyed if my money were channelled into another city to fund improvements there.

Whichever way we look at it, the airport is now owned by someone else, they wish to expand and with expansion comes a raft of other upgrades which are necessary. If they are serious about expanding, they will negotiate terms and come to an effective agreement. If they are solely interested in their investment (after all, Bridgepoint are a capital investment company), they will expand as much as they can in their current remit and sell it on when the value of the company is more than the investment they have made.

Wawkrk - I found your comments towards Leeds City Council particularly disparaging especially considering it was due to the laying of a new top surface to a road. I tried saying at the time that this is a perfectly effective way of repairing a road whilst minimising disruption. I was in the area a couple of days ago so decided to drive around to see exactly what you were complaining about. What I found was the standard relaying of the top surface which was having little or no effect on the traffic flow. Imagine this - the roads had been fully resurfaced. What would happen? There would be temporary traffic lights for at least two weeks causing utter traffic chaos in that area. I can only assume that, if that were to happen, you would be criticising Leeds City Council for causing a traffic jam. I don't understand what your problem is but I suspect that you have a deep rooted problem with the council and are using the new road surface as a catalyst for your disdain.

Concorde lover - the roads in Bradford are looked after better than in Leeds? Really? Have you driven round Bradford recently? It is awful. Aside from the poor quality of the roads, they run very slowly at all times of the day due to the overuse of traffic lights, the road signs in the middle of Bradford are unbelievably confusing - some roads appear to diverge into many different routes and, if you are so convinced that Bradford would have made airport access easier if the airport were in Bradford, why is it so difficult to get from Bradford to the airport? Most of that route is through the Bradford area. The only part that is in Leeds is once you get past Apperley Bridge and, I would argue that, this is the most hassle free section of that route, despite it being very busy.

Then we come on to the whole Leeds vs Manchester argument which is largely irrelevant but, since most people have some sort of hang up about it, I may as well discuss it.

Firstly, Manchester airport conveniently lies beside a motorway which connects Manchester with the M6, Chester and North Wales. It has certainly benefitted from the existence of said motorway but the motorway was not constructed with that in mind. I believe a Pudsey - Dishforth motorway was mentioned. At the time this was discussed and subsequently rejected, traffic was not enough of a problem to justify its construction. Indeed, Leeds already had a decent link with the M62 and Manchester that had only recently been opened and with subsequent improvements planned and being implemented in West Leeds (such as Stanningley bypass) a duplicate route was deemed unnecessary. In hindsight, a Pudsey - Dishforth motorway would now be making a positive contribution to the area but you cannot plan for the future in hindsight. I have already suggested in this thread that, if LBA were situated next to the M1 on the opposite side of Leeds, for example, it would be raking in 10m pax per year by now, so there is substance in the motorway argument, however, as I have already said, motorways are rarely planned with airports in mind.

Secondly, the railway station. Manchester airport did not have a railway station built until it was already exceeding 10m pax per year. The airport is conveniently located next to a heavily used commuter route that was already electrified, did not experience any geological or sociological barriers (the land is flat and was mostly owned by the airport) and the spur and station came in at the relatively low cost of £23m. The full cost of the interchange was £60m. This was funded to the tune of £3.5m by the local authority, whose interests are vested in the whole region, NOT just the airport - the fact of the matter was that the construction of this station provided benefits to the wider community through more frequent services throughout the Greater Manchester area. A European grant of £3.1m contributed to the overall project but the remainder of the money came from private concerns, mainly Manchester Airports Group. Since then, the airport and its partners have invested over £100m to maintain and improve the level of service. It is also worth bearing in mind that the station was completed in 1993 - when public spending on the railway hit its lowest level pre privatisation.

Compare this to a proposed LBA station. LBA has an annual total throughput of just under 3mppa. Manchester Airport Station alone has a throughput of 2.7mppa. A spur to the airport would cost £30m at a conservative estimate but would probably cost more than this in reality. The proposed spur would have to overcome significant physical geography and the procurement of land would have to be negotiated (likely to be an unlimited cost as the owners would be able to name their price). The airport has already indicated that it would not be prepared to stump up the cost of the link, nor the cost of running services to it. The local council, development fund and PTE do not see it as a sound investment, partly because there would be no scope to improve services across the Yorkshire region outside of the Harrogate line (services would most likely terminate at Leeds) but mostly because it is a cost that could not be recouped through passenger usage. If you consider that Manchester airport still invests £5m a year to maintain the level of service to that particular station, you will see the scale of the problem facing LBA. Indeed the only way that such a link will ever be publicly funded is if a) the business case for improvements to the Harrogate line is approved and implemented and b) if that business case includes LBA - which, currently, it does not.

Thirdly - Trolleybus/Supertram. It is almost a pointless argument considering that neither the plans for supertram nor trolleybus included a route to LBA, though I firmly believe that it should have been the case. I suspect that not enough private money was forthcoming to include the airport - if you note the similarities with the above. Supertram was not approved because it was not deemed to be value for money. The costs spiralled out of control between the inital consultation phase and the tendering for the works. Indeed, it had doubled from £500m to over £1bn. Sheffield supertram (which Leeds supertram would have been far more similar to than Manchester Metrolink) came in at a total cost of £240m. It simply was not a good investment any more. Lord only knows why the costings spiralled as they did but, as Edinburgh supertram has proven since, it was probably the right decision at the time.

The Manchester Metrolink was initially conceived as a way of REDUCING the cost of the already existing heavy rail. The Bury line was non standard and in disrepair and the Altrincham line was nearing a total fleet renewal. Since the two lines were effectively run independently of the rest of the North West network, they were ideal candidates for conversion. The conversion and subsequent running has been cheaper than maintaining the routes as heavy rail - even the electricity to run it comes from a renewable source. The line to Eccles happened to coincide with the major regeneration project in the Salford Quays area - perfect for tram as it could essentially follow any route and be tied in with the regeneration project. Subsequent route approval has been subject to cost savings (the Oldham line) or significant outside investment (BBC at MediaCity and Manchester Airport itself). None of this is the case in Leeds. And, once again, the benefit of Manchester metrolink is in the wider Greater Manchester area. Leeds supertram served only to improve links in Leeds and had no effect on the wider area. Had the opportunity been taken to convert the Harrogate line and provide benefits to Harrogate (LBA could have realistically been included in this) as well as improving connections between Leeds and other outlying areas, perhaps the scheme would have been more open to approval, however, the cost/benefit ratio would still be very iffy.

The trolleybus alternative follows very much the same routes as supertram but, if successful, there is more scope for expanding the network, especially considering the A65 quality bus scheme. So it is completely wrong to scoff and reject the trolleybus idea out of principle. Certainly, if other projects go ahead, a trolleybus connection to LBA would actually become reasonably likely. There is, of course, the dependance on LBA to provide an amount of funding which, as we have discussed, is not exactly forthcoming. Indeed, the routes which have been selected tend to follow those of significantly wealthy organisations (Leeds University, Asda house, HSBC etc) - the route to St James' Hospital was NOT approved and I believe this will be due to the lack of private investment coming from that area of Leeds.

Hopefully, I have added a little bit more depth and balance to an argument that was increasingly bordering on the ridiculous. If nothing else, it shows that money makes the world go round and that the public purse does not contain a blank chequebook. LBA sits as an expanding airport surrounded by challenging physical and human geography and the catalyst for any further expansion has to be the will of the private organisation that owns it - as is the case at almost every airport in the country.

 

[White Heather]

Some interesting stuff there whoshotjimmi, but I suspect you are in a minority if you think that the road infrastructure to LBA as fit for purpose at the time the councils owned it. It was far from it then, and it is even more lacking now obviously. The problems accessing the airport have long been given as a reason for it failing to develop as fast as it should have done. I have lost count over the years of how many times councillors, MP's passengers and many others have complained about access and how many times people living within the Leeds area have openly stated that (in their opinion) it was easier to drive to Manchester. Personally I felt that was nonsense, but it was a common cry from those seeking to justify the fact they ignored the airport they helped to fund in favour of going over the hill.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Yes I assumed that would be an argument levelled against my post, White Heather, which is why I chose my words very carefully. At no point did I state that the roads were fit for purpose. Clearly they were/are not and were/are certainly a very large blocker to continued expansion. However, I have said they were satisfactory for the guise the airport was in - for most of the previous 15-20 years or so, passenger numbers hovered around the 1-1.5m mark. I would go as far as to say that, even now, they can just about handle the amount of traffic though I would firmly agree that does not mean they should remain as they are - far from it.

When it became clear that the airport and surroundings would need investment, the councils jumped ship. It is very hard work to procure the sort of funding the airport needed from a public source, especially when much of it would have to come from councils other than Leeds and whilst the airport was losing money.

I feel sometimes that people talk about LBA as if it is a major international airport. It isn't. It is a regional airport that is underused and has lots of potential - but that potential will never make it a major player on the airports scene. It would more than likely top out at 5 or 6 million ppa if absolutely everything were in place to make it so. Don't get me wrong, I am an avid supporter of LBA and desperately want to see it succeed. But it will never be Manchester and, as such, I want to try to get away from that comparison by highlighting just exactly what Manchester has to do to achieve its 22mppa. LBA does very little of that and, as you have made clear yourself, white heather, actively avoids doing that.

I would also like to get away from some of the disparaging comments made towards Leeds City Council. Of course, they do not always do what we want them to do. However, selling the airport was the best thing they could have done for LBA. It is now owned by a group who are putting money into it - money which would not have been spent by the councils. Since the airport was taken over, the good news has kept on coming. If they were still in charge, there would be no terminal expansion. There would be no road improvements. There would be no Ryanair, Monarch or British Airways. As my previous post has tried to explain, there is far more to it than simply what you can see. What you can't see is sometimes far more important.

 

[White Heather]

I cannot speak for other posters whoshotjimmi, but the basis of my annoyance re the councils (plural, all councils that had responsibility for the airport) is not simply that they didn't improve the infrastructure around the airport - it is that for years, they failed miserably to even support their own airport. I had the dubious pleasure of taking part in a public enquiry, as an airport supporter, and watching a QC, employed by the council, trying to tear apart the evidence given by both the airport and the group I co-founded, to stop airport expansion. To me, that is short sighted, and unforgiveable, and it set Leeds Bradford back 10 years minimum.

Now, my anger is somewhat different - it is the fact that having sold the airport (and I agree it was the time to do so), the council are putting guns to the head of the owners, to try and force them to introduce road and public transport changes that they never made themselves. In so doing, they are putting the entire future development at risk, and we current have an apparent stand off between the airport management and council plannning group over the £2 drop off fee, which frankly, it absolutely nothing at all to do with the council. Rather than put the airport terminal development at risk, they should be seeking to partner the airport, not constantly put hurdles in the way that will, inevitably, lead to mistrust. I have listened to a councillor recently gloating that he had prevented the terminal going ahead and boasting that he would ensure that the airport removed the £2 fee, and denyinig the airports claims that this is a vital source of funding if the airport is to survive and invest further. I am not suggesting for one moment that the council should allow the airport to do what it wants without scrutiny, but my view is that the council have not learned their lessons and continue to put unreasonable obstacles in the way which, if future development is lost, will negatively impact on the entire city region.

You appear to be very defensive of the council, which is your right, and it is my right and that of other members on here to feel angry with their attitude, so I make no apology for anything I have said about the council. I have had to watch councillors oppose the airport for personal votes far too many times to have regrets about speaking my mind about their policies. Many don't know the first thing about the airport or how it runs and are not really that interested. What they are interested in is securing their next vote, and if they have to oppose the airport, its development, and the jobs it will create, then so be it. In my book that is simply unacceptable.

However, I do no intend to get into an argument on this with you so this is my last post on this issue. Others may agree with you, and I know some will agree with me. The forum is all about opnions and the right to express them without criticism surely?

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Certainly, and I agree, in principle, to most of what you say. The only part I disagree with is that of the council holding a gun to the head to get road improvements. Frankly, the local road network will not cope with a large increase in passengers and, if expansion is to go ahead, work needs to be carried out. The council stance is perfectly reasonable with regards to this. This would be the case in any town or city where a development would have an adverse effect on the local population so this planning "standoff" is not exclusive to LCC. Rather than putting up barriers to expansion, they are ensuring that expansion is sustainable and, therefore, successful. You could have the largest terminal in the world but if the roads can't handle it, the passengers won't come.

I would like to think that the council is able to separate itself to some degree from the self serving power mad individuals who seek only to further their career (I am a big Yes, Minister fan) and I believe that, on the whole, it does serve Leeds reasonably well. Certainly, during my lifetime, Leeds has become a better place to live and work.

Just to clarify, I most certainly am not defensive of the council - I believe they make some very dubious decisions regarding many things - the free city bus being abandoned, among others. However, there are two sides to every story and I seek to balance out the criticism of the council with some very stark facts about what an airport has to do to to ensure that expansion is succcessful. I do not dispute your annoyance at the council on this or any other matter. As you say, the forum is about opinions and the right to express them. As you have done so, you have explained your stance using the information you have. I have done the same with my own view point based on my own pool of knowledge on the subject matter.

Unfortunately, there are those who use such a debate to simply throw random insults without any apparent reason or explanation. It adds nothing to the thread and sends it off at a tangent. As I'm sure you will agree, the thread ought to be kept relevant, free from personal vendetta and protected from anything that could be seen as libellous or publicly disparaging.

As an aside, as white heather has mentioned the parking charge (of which I am not a fan!), am I right in thinking LCC holds a seat on the board to ensure certain conditions are met? Was this not part of the deal to sell the airport? If so, is this a case of LCC simply flexing what muscle they have in the interest of the people of Leeds? After all, the council is made up of members elected as they most closely resemble the wishes of the electorate?

 

[Galaxy]

Here here Mode1, it's high time that somebody genuinely championed transport in this city, I'll vote for whoever decides to!

 

[wawkrk]

whoshotjimmi

I do have a very poor opinion of Leeds City Council, this has been formed over many years.
Often I have questioned their motives for opposing all matters connected with the airport. Pushing the views of a handful of anti-airport constituents but ignoring the 2/3 million airport users who are the silent majority, plus the many locals who depend on jobs at the airport. Also ignoring the huge financial contribution to the regions wealth. Always putting self interest before the wishes of the people of Yorkshire and all the benefits it brings.
Their attitude to the local infrastructure has been appalling over the last fifty years. Even allowing new properties to be built so close to the Harrogate Road that it cannot ever be widened. One councilor even suggested we have an airport in Manchester, why do we need to expand Yeadon. Other quotes , “We don’t want any flights to the USA from Yorkshire”.
The intellect of some councilors is also questionable with quotes like, “ Why do we have to build a tunnel under the runway, what is wrong with a flyover”.
With your robust defence of the council I suspected you had some connection with them, however, this was quickly dispelled when you said you supported the airport.

wawkrk

 

[Aviador]

whoshotjimmi

Thanks for taking time to write all that. It was a good read even if I don't agree with all the points you raised.

I feel you may have mist a point regarding the lack of rail connections to LBA. Manchester may have been handling 10 million passengers when it's station was opened there but if a future Leeds Bradford airport rail connection is planned wisely there is no reason why it wouldn't work. Unlike the Manchester airport railway station it would be possible to integrated a Leeds Bradford airport railway link with a park and ride scheme for the residents of Horsforth, Yeadon and the Aireborough area where an estimated 24,600 people reside. Significantly more passengers would be able to use the rail service than a service primarily aimed at airport passengers. Also a further point regarding a rail connection to the airport. You mentioned the Harrogate line mostly terminating at Leeds. If you are referring to direct connections you can of course go direct to Harrogate (population estimate 71,594) , York (population estimate 202,400) and Leeds. Leeds is of course one of the busiest stations in the UK where passengers would be able to go onwards to just about anywhere from there. Maybe some more direct services would be possible later.

Your points about the airport having sufficient infrastructure in place at the point of sale doesn't stand. Under council ownership the Department for Transport released a White Paper saying the airport could be handling over 10 million passengers by 2030. The council new then they had to plan ahead to improve the roads around the airport for the projected increases. In fact plans to widen and improve the A6120 Outer Ring Road have been banded about for decades with absolutely nothing done about it. I don't necessarily blame the civil servants that have worked hard to plan such improvements. It doesn't help when Leeds City Council tends to go the opposite way to national government which only makes it harder to get the necessary money to carry out such work.

I think you made a point about the Manchester Airport Group making significant private investments in various transport schemes around Manchester airport and so Leeds Bradford under the private ownership of Bridgepoint should do the same. It's worth mentioning at this point that the Manchester Airport Group is in fact council owned so the profits from it's three airports (Manchester, East Midlands & Bournemouth) can go directly back into the council coffers to pay for such ventures around Manchester.

I'm running out of time to discuss some of other the points you raised earlier so I'll leave it there for the moment.

 

[ls27]

Slightly off topic again but just to make a couple of points. Firstly Manchester Airport group is owned by Manchjester City Counil (55%) and the other local authorities of Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Cityof Salford, Stockport, Thameside, Trafford and Wigan who each hold 5%. Secondly The People who work for LCC and have done a great deal of work in the past to try and improve the situation around the airport are Local Goverment Ofiicers. The Civil Servants who try to stop such improvemnts are in the employment of the government.
This has been an excellent debate, and some very good facts have come out.

 

[Seasider]

I first went to LBA in April 1968 (by public transport) and in the 44 years since then, the only improvement to the roads around LBA were done when the runway was extended. Has there been any other development in Leeds had so little done as the airport development?

 

[ls27]

Can't think of any. I do remember the old West Riding County had plans to make by-pass for Rawdon on the A658 from about the junction of Apperley Lane and Micklefield Lane in a line west of the present alignment, and contimu up Green Lane to join with Harrogate Road. The land that is at the side of green was for the road wdening scheme, and the land at the junction of Green Lane and Harrogate Road was part of that scheme. The only item built was the roundabout by the JCT garage. The Thatcher government would not finance the scheme and forced the council to sell all the land, as it was made surplus to requirement.