Road, Rail & Access Issues

[White Heather]

Just as an aside, but sort of connected with infrastructure and access, I have made the point recently that I can never agree with people who say its easier to go to Manchester than to LBA and today I had a graphic illustration as to why that is. My sister was flying home from New Zealand (in view of my Mum's serious illness) and was flying in on the Emirates A380. Great opportunity to go see it and get a pic of her landing, which I did. The journey there was uneventful, but the first shock was the parking fees at the viewing area. For less than 2 hours it cost me £6 and the main attraction, Concorde, was closed, as was the Trident 3. Stay there for more than 3 hours and the parking fee is a whopping £12. Now that is what I do call a rip off.

After watching the A380 land in heavy rain (a landing my sister described as a crash landing!) I headed round to Terminal 1 slowly, to allow for baggage reclaim. In the end, I waited 35 minutes and the car park bill was £4.50, so for less than 3 hours in total on airport land I had paid out £10.50. The pick up car park is hopeless with queues of angry drivers trying to merge lanes and get out - that took 20 minutes. The journey home from Manchester Airport then took over 3 hours due to an accident on the M62, necessitating a diversion via Halifax and Bradford. Every set of lights took forever to get through and although the A380 landed at 1250, we got back to Yeadon (Murgatroyds) and 1645. Sadly this is not a one off - every time I have flown from MAN or had to pick up passengers there, the same has occurred. Maybe I am unlucky.

However, flying to/from LBA is seriously preferable, £2 drop off fee included. Manchester are cashing in big style. It was £1 for a trolley, but if you have just travelled from NZ you don't tend to have £1 coins and there was nowhere open to get a £1 coin airside, so my sister, who suffers from Emphyseima had to drag two suitcases and a bag up stairs (escalator not working) and out to a terminal that was absolutely heaving - literally no room to move. Overall, a miserable experience. And, pouring with rain outside and (just like Leeds) no covered walkway other than limited shelter from the overhead walkway traversing the car park. But even that had water pouring off it on to anyone trying to get underneath it.

LBA gets many complaints about this that and the other, but frankly, Manchester is no better and it should be given its size. Anyone who feels that going there will prove to be a better experience and cheaper than LBA are deluding themselves.

 

[User0001]

Today was the special meeting of the Plans Panel West to reconsider the last remaning condition of the planning application. Here is what was proposed

11.0 CONCLUSION:
11.1 Whilst not all measures requested by Plans Panel West have been met, overall it is
considered that this revised package is an acceptable solution that will ensure that visitors to the
airport will be able to use the facilities easily and would protect the free flow of traffic
on the local road network better than at present.

- 1 hour free parking area with dedicated access onto Whitehouse Lane
- improved signage
- pedestrian walkway from free car park to terminal
- LCC highway enforcement on Whitehouse Lane

11.2 Therefore Members are recommended to discharge the Forecourt Management
Plan condition subject to the caveats set out in the recommendation box at the start
of this report. It is important for the local and regional economy that the terminal
extension is progressed and the agreement of this remaining pre commencement
condition will clear the way for a commencement on site.

There is no news yet on whether this was accepted. If so, the airport have 3 months to implement the plans.

 

[Aviador]

Thank for the update LS16. I've copied your post into the Development & Infrastructure thread as well as it's touching on both topics.

EDIT: Please and everybody keep this thread on topic "Road, Rail & Access Issues" Discussions relating to the terminal development have moved to the Infrastructure and Development thread.

 

[White Heather]

LUFC Pete, it is good to see you back at your best, with your comments re the terminal works. Having just done a tour of the revised terminal, I can assure you that your description of a box that has been decorated is well wide of the mark. In real terms a huge amount of extra space has been produced airside, with a high quality finish and overall a better experience. Most who have sampled it have agreed, even though it is well short of completed at this time and there is certainly a need for more work in the future, particularly more security screening and a larger international baggage reclaim area.

I agree that at times it will still be a little overcrowded, but you don't spend a fortune on building something that will be too big. LUFC wouldn't build a 100,000 capacity stadium if they could only get 50,000 in maximum most of the time - it doesn't make financial sense. When Bridgepoint took the decision to do the work in stages, it was the sensible thing to do. Had they built the full extension then, substantially increasing capacity, it would have been half empty at times, especially in winter. Simply getting the funding to do so in a climate of economic uncertainty would have been a challenge and Bridgepoint have to consider which of their companies/projects are the lowest risk and will provide the highest return for their investments. Given the state of the aviation industry over the past two years or so, its a measure of Bridgepoints confidence in LBA that they even allocated £11m at that time. Having seen little in the way of expansion from Jet2, and the loss of various domestic routes (with only Ryanair offering anything positive), it would have been easier to sit tight and wait for the recession to end and airlines to show interest in LBA before doing anything at all.

We all know that Bridgepoint made a lot of noise about their intentions for LBA when they won the airport tender, but that was at a time of growth and everything changed then. It was perfectly natural that they also changed their plans to reflect what was going on within the industry. Businesses that don't change their plans to reflect the demand don't tend to survive very long.

Personally I hope that Bridgepoint stay and finish the job they came to start, not least because they have provided LBA with a group of directors that are probably second to none across regional airports, as proven by their successes recently. LBA needs a period of time during which their is a consistent approach under one owner and I remain happy that they are in control at LBA. I would take some convincing that any other company would have achieved the changes we have seen so far over a relatively short period of time and despite serious decline within the aviation industry. Given a few more years I expect to see more business/leisure routes into Europe and one or two more longer haul routes to the USA and Canada at least. In aviation, success brings success.

 

[User0001]

lol LUFC (without bat es) wouldn't build a new ground that could hold 33000 when they have 32500 every week. I am not asking for LHR -just an airport that properly can meet the next few years untapped potential. That was the original plan of bridgepoint - to build an airport to grow into -not in stages but all in one go.

You really are arguing against plain (no pun intended) cold logic. I'm sleepy but have a look at Lulsgate plans. Not pie in the sky plans but aiming high and thinking at least medium term (with a masterplan that doesn't resemble toilet paper). I am still a big fan of bridgepoint but now they must build a proper extension, as they at first planned. Well done for getting the routes and airlines in but now give them a bigger terminal to operate from.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Just to drag it back on to topic, I would firstly like to apologise for misleading everyone slightly. On reflection, my description of MAG as "private" is a poor one. I speak of it as the holding plc that it is which is operated as a wholly owned business venture seperate from Manchester et al councils. In essence, the holding company operates without interference or funding from the councils. Indeed, as has been pointed out, MAG makes a substantial profit. However, the profits are not siphoned off to fund other projects (peter/paul scenario) but rather contribute a portion of their income to providing improvements and sustaining service levels.

Secondly, I would just like to clarify that at no point did I say if Manchester spend money on public transport, LBA should. That is precisely the sort of mindset I am trying to distance myself from. What I showed was what Manchester provides in terms of annual and one off investments which LBA wishes to be provided by others. I then suggested that public funding of a rail link to LBA would not happen unless the business case for the Harrogate Line improvements included LBA, which it currently doesn't. Even if it did, it wouldn't guarentee anything. IF the link were to go ahead, the funding for the building of the link and part of the provision of service would have to come from LBA as the public purse will not cover those costs. A quick search on metro and network rail websites shows what sort of money is being directed in what sort of projects.

I would also like to point out that I think driving to Manchester Airport is an awful experience and I am no more a fan of the fees over there than I am here. Indeed, I think some of the fees at Manchester are blatant profiteering unlike at LBA where, at least, it would appear to be a genuine attempt to make the airport profitable.

In response to LS16's post, it would appear that, as was my suspicion, the charge is opposed by LCC due to the adverse effect on the local road network rather than, as has been suggested, a deliberate attempt to place barriers to expansion. The improvements outlined mainly concern directing traffic away from illegally waiting on local roads. The airport will be able to keep their charges whilst making free parking more openly accessible (this was one of my main points of contention regarding the charge - the lack of transparency of the provision of free parking) and the council will get better traffic management and the opportunity to cash in on the odd non-conformist. The benefit to the customer is a more transparent choice of paying for drop off or using a more remote free area; the benefits for the airport are the continuing ability to use drop off as a revenue stream and the improved public relations and the benefit to the council is the "victory" they will be able to declare and announce to the local electorate. Of course, there will be those who say the airport should not be put in this position but, other than the initial increased cost, there are no drawbacks to LBA. I very much hope that the condition is accepted.

 

[User0001]

The council accepted the proposal so we'll see what happens next.




By David Marsh
Published on Saturday 14 July 2012 09:00

A free parking area is to be laid out at Leeds-Bradford Airport to help tackle the traffic congestion caused by motorists picking up and dropping off passengers.

But the controversial £2 charge to park for up to 30 minutes on the forecourt immediately outside the terminal is to stay.

Airport bosses sparked a row when they introduced the charge in May last year.

To avoid the £2 fee, many motorists have opted to drop off and pick up on Whitehouse Lane – the main approach to the airport – causing congestion and safety concerns.

In a bid to tackle the problem, the airport has allowed people to park anywhere in the long-stay car park for up to one hour for pick-ups and drop-offs.

Click here to register and have your say on the stories and issues that matter to you

Now it is going a step further and is to create a dedicated one-hour free parking zone that will have 51 spaces and be a five minute walk from the terminal.

Members of the council’s west plans panel voted to accept the airport’s proposal as part of a new forecourt management plan, a decision that paves the way for work to start on a new two-storey terminal extension, which would allow the airport to handle up to five million passengers a year.

Councillors had pressed for motorists to be allowed to park on the forecourt free for up to 10 minutes, an idea rejected by airport chiefs because the current system brings in money.

A report to the panel said: “Forecourt charging is now regrettably common place across the UK’s airports.

“Leeds Bradford International Airport have stated that it is a key element of the revenue generation for all airports and in the case of LBIA, it will ensure that they can continue to invest in improvements to infrastructure and facilities.”

Coun Neil Taggart, who chaired the panel, said the airport had made some movement from its original position and added: “We should give a green light to the proposal as a thriving airport is in everyone’s interest.”

Coun Paul Wadsworth (Con, Guiseley and Rawdon) argued the airport had not gone far enough in tackling the issue of traffic circulation.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

I think this is a perfectly sensible and reasonable outcome. Well done to both LBA and the council for coming to a decent solution. I am still not a fan of the charge and never will be but at least it will provide transparency and (potentially) sort out the immediate problems around the airport. Obviously, Paul Wadsworth has argued the point further in his remit as the locally elected representative whose pressures come from his electorate. Let us see if the extension is now followed through as all of this negative publicity will have been in vain. An extension announcement would go some way to improving the public image of the airport - which is my main concern.

 

[White Heather]

As for the moaners in the YEP - if you look you will find the same suspects much of the time. I posted something last night to counter their arguments and the YEP's response was to remove the article! I will not say what I think of these people as it would not be very ladylike. Lets just say I have alternative views and feel that LBA won't miss them much. Hopefully they will find a way to drive (or get the train) to Manchester that costs less than £2.

 

[Aviador]

As for the moaners in the YEP - if you look you will find the same suspects much of the time. I posted something last night to counter their arguments and the YEP's response was to remove the article! I will not say what I think of these people as it would not be very ladylike. Lets just say I have alternative views and feel that LBA won't miss them much. Hopefully they will find a way to drive (or get the train) to Manchester that costs less than £2.

The article is still showing and I think your reply is still there given it's the only one in favour of the charges.

What I find annoying is the way they describe car park charges as a cash cow. If the charges are essential to keep the airport running then I wouldn't call that a cash-cow but more of an necessity. These moaners need to realise that money doesn't grow on trees to pay for for new facilities or to simply pay the airports workforce. Admittedly the airport would do better to find an alternative charge that's more hidden so people don't notice having to pay it but whilst the airlines have such a big say in the running of airports these days the situation is unlikely to change.

 

[airforced]

I think I agree with you Aviador. The £2 issue, even after all this time, is still getting up a lot of peoples noses and many of those people are vociferous to boot. In my view any sort of bad publicity (and that is what it is) doesn't do LBA any good whatsoever so finding an alternative method of collecting the £2 monies would be in LBA's best interests.

 

[wawkrk]

I also posted a comment in the YEP comic but it looks as though it was deleted.
Probably because I said only a half wit would believe it costs less than 2 pounds to travel to Manchester.
I still find it hard to comprehend why this idiotic subject about 2 quid brings out so many strong feelings from ultra stingy Yorkshire folk. For 4 people in a car it's 50p each for gods sake.
Then they go into the bar and spend 30 quid.

 

[Aviador]

I also posted a comment in the YEP comic but it looks as though it was deleted.
Probably because I said only a half wit would believe it costs less than 2 pounds to travel to Manchester.
I still find it hard to comprehend why this idiotic subject about 2 quid brings out so many strong feelings from ultra stingy Yorkshire folk. For 4 people in a car it's 50p each for gods sake.
Then they go into the bar and spend 30 quid.

Look, it's less to spend at Bargain Booze when they return!

 

[rmac]

Here in Edinburgh the £1 drop off fee was introduced amidst a storm of protest including a councillor or MP. It was in the paper etc however shortly after the scheme got underway it was all forgotten. At first I made a mistake when driving in and went through "the drop zone" -never stopped but paid my £1 to get out. Since then I have been dropped off and offered to pay my kind driver the £1 only to receive the comment "no not at all its only a quid". There is a free shuttle bus from a long term car park but most I have spoken to are quite happy to pay the £1. It does not seem to be a problem. Scots stingy? seems not.
Maybe reducing the fee at LBA to £1 might help! Maybe twice as many people would use it (and not drive onto Manchester). Of course the terminal would be then too crowded and there would be moans that there was not enough seating!!

 

[tleeds]

I've been finding it difficult to locate the actual article...

Is this the right one: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/n ... -1-4740332 ..?

 

[tleeds]

Here in Edinburgh the £1 drop off fee was introduced amidst a storm of protest including a councillor or MP. It was in the paper etc however shortly after the scheme got underway it was all forgotten. At first I made a mistake when driving in and went through "the drop zone" -never stopped but paid my £1 to get out. Since then I have been dropped off and offered to pay my kind driver the £1 only to receive the comment "no not at all its only a quid". There is a free shuttle bus from a long term car park but most I have spoken to are quite happy to pay the £1. It does not seem to be a problem. Scots stingy? seems not.
Maybe reducing the fee at LBA to £1 might help! Maybe twice as many people would use it (and not drive onto Manchester). Of course the terminal would be then too crowded and there would be moans that there was not enough seating!!

The problem I feel with a £1 fee is there this the.. "What's the point?" attitude. I think it makes it sound even more ludicrous for a quid fee instead of a £2 fee... :whiteflag:

 

[whoshotjimmi]

The problem with the charge in the wider scale is how damaging it has been to LBA from a PR point of view. LBA, whatever we may want to believe, does not have the might and the clout to overcome and silence those who want to be heard in the same way that Manchester/Stansted/Heathrow protest groups can be.

The amount is almost irrelevant - it is the negative impact it has on the customer base. We live in the age of the consumer where we want more at less cost. Having listned to ordinary folk talk about it, it is clear what they think. It is an extra charge that they believe to be cheeky. Whether (Wawkrk) you believe people to be half wits or not, that is what people think and it has a very damaging effect on the airport. The longer the saga drags on, the longer it will drag LBA down with it.

At least the agreement is the beginning of the end of this particular problem. I have long since argued that LBA have mishandled this whole situation and have managed to heap scorn upon themselves but there is now the real opportunity to improve their public image. There is tons of good news coming out of the airport - I have heard as many people talking about British Airways' return as complaining about the charge - and the time is right to remind everyone what is good about the place.

On a slightly different note, today's announcement of rail investment from 2014-2019 did NOT include the Harrogate Line. Though it is not necessarily the death knell for improvements to the line and, i'm sure, it does not mean the end of the campaign to have the line improved, it would now appear to be even more unlikely that the airport will benefit from a publicly funded link. I would think that improvements in the next 5-10 years would centre around providing a 15 minute interval service between Leeds & Harrogate and the already planned Woodside station (which is where the park and ride would be located). I personally believe that, if the service were increased to 4tph with at least 2 of those fast, despite the line not being electrified, Harrogate business leaders would probably settle down for a while.

 

[User0001]

How is the negative impact assessed and quantified?

Presumably the airport assess this on passenger numbers, feedback from airlines and the willingness of airlines to start / grow services. If so, then perhaps unsurprising that, on balance, they are in no hurry to change things.

 

[Bigman]

I cannot help but think that if the powers that be concentrated more on getting the public transport sorted out, ie more frequent buses, more destinations, and a new parkway station at Bramhope, it would be better for all concerned.

I am getting a little bit bored with all this moaning about car park fees. £2 doesn't even get you a pint these days!!

 

[airforced]

Just to add to my earlier post stating the bleedin' obvious that lots of people are still moaning about the drop off fee and how it isn't doing LBIA any good at all, I had a look at another forum that deals with airlines, airline seats, airports etc and the flak and open hostility that is being generated towards LBIA quite surprised me. I tired to counter all the negatives by posting a truthful good report. Maybe other might do the same.

However that doesn't get us away from the bad press LBIA is getting, still, from the £2 drop off charge. Please do something about it. It would be in your own interest LBIA.