Should Leeds should bring back trams?

[adrock1976]

Following on from the "White Rose Leeds" thread (see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/white-rose-leeds.162322/).

As (in my own view) it seems unlikely that a railway station would be constructed on either of the railway lines near the complex, could Leeds could follow in the footsteps of Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Croydon, Nottingham, and Edinburgh by bringing back trams?

Although I am not too familiar with the geography of Leeds, I can see a potential future tram network linking the White Rose, Leeds City (and New Lane for HS2 if still going ahead?) railway station, Leeds Bus Station, University, and Jimmy's Hospital. Also, this could connect areas that are not served by heavy rail.

Would such a network be useful? Obviously, it would have to be built in stages similar as to how Manchester built theirs. Better still, being as Manchester are the experts, perhaps assistance could be provided from them.

 

[swissrailpassion]

Quite agree especially since the figures in the tram business case were fiddled a few years ago. Leeds needs them and the old routes with wide roads would make it easier than many places.

 

[Iskra]

Trams on the already congested streets of Leeds is not a good idea. I think we need to be more creative than that. I'd suggest a monorail network- doesn't add to the congestion and is much cheaper to build than an underground system, it could also be driverless and therefore cheaper than other forms of transport.

 

[swissrailpassion]

Trams would ease the congestion, there are so many buses in the centre that trams are the answer. They had an excellent network years ago and the topography of Leeds means regenerative braking would be a huge asset on the many hills.

 

[Iskra]

Trams would ease the congestion, there are so many buses in the centre that trams are the answer. They had an excellent network years ago and the topography of Leeds means regenerative braking would be a huge asset on the many hills.

Please explain how replacing a bus that carries 50 people, with a tram that carries 50 people, saves any space or congestion? A tram is bigger and takes an extra lane in a road.

 

[adrock1976]

For your information, this has been split into a new thread with further details added to my original post.

 

[yorkie]

Please explain how replacing a bus that carries 50 people, with a tram that carries 50 people, saves any space or congestion? A tram is bigger and takes an extra lane in a road.

I don't understand the question; trams have a greater capacity than a bus (that's why they are bigger!). Capacity of 50? Times that figure by 4 more like. And you can lengthen them if required.

 

[Harpers Tate]

The other important thing that trams have to a far greater degree than buses, is that they encourage modal shift from cars, which intrinsically reduces congestion.

 

[Antman]

The other important thing that trams have to a far greater degree than buses, is that they encourage modal shift from cars, which intrinsically reduces congestion.

Indeed I think trams are seen as a far more reliable form of public transport than buses, it would be great to see them back in Leeds.

 

[tarq]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_Supertram

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Leeds#Progress_of_the_NGT_proposal

 

[Iskra]

I don't understand the question; trams have a greater capacity than a bus (that's why they are bigger!). Capacity of 50? Times that figure by 4 more like. And you can lengthen them if required.

I know they are bigger. What I'm saying is: replacing buses like for like with trams is not saving any space or congestion on Leeds' streets, exactly the same amount of space will be taken up because exactly the same amount of capacity would be provided, but trams will reduce the space available to other traffic.

Leeds is a traffic nightmare, adding trams into the mix it won't make things any better IMO.

 

[Antman]

I know they are bigger. What I'm saying is: replacing buses like for like with trams is not saving any space or congestion on Leeds' streets, exactly the same amount of space will be taken up because exactly the same amount of capacity would be provided, but trams will reduce the space available to other traffic.

Leeds is a traffic nightmare, adding trams into the mix it won't make things any better IMO.

Surely the fact that Leeds is a traffic nightmare is exactly why trams are being suggested?

 

[edwin_m]

I know they are bigger. What I'm saying is: replacing buses like for like with trams is not saving any space or congestion on Leeds' streets, exactly the same amount of space will be taken up because exactly the same amount of capacity would be provided, but trams will reduce the space available to other traffic.

Leeds is a traffic nightmare, adding trams into the mix it won't make things any better IMO.

You wouldn't replace buses like for like - trams would replace an extremely frequent bus (probably so frequent that it is bunching and congesting itself) with a somewhat less frequent tram, but hopefully still frequent enough to be attractive to passengers. Because the tram has multiple doors and no ticket purchase on board it is less prone to "bunching" than a bus, so the more even spacing makes up for the average spacing being a bit longer.

Where this falls down is if the frequent bus route is made up of several routes that fan out to different destinations at the outer end. If the core route is replaced by a tram then the buses become feeders and people have to change en route. This would be unpopular but it works well in places like Germany where they design the interchange so the bus is just a few steps from the door of the tram.

 

[Iskra]

You wouldn't replace buses like for like - trams would replace an extremely frequent bus (probably so frequent that it is bunching and congesting itself) with a somewhat less frequent tram, but hopefully still frequent enough to be attractive to passengers. Because the tram has multiple doors and no ticket purchase on board it is less prone to "bunching" than a bus, so the more even spacing makes up for the average spacing being a bit longer.

Where this falls down is if the frequent bus route is made up of several routes that fan out to different destinations at the outer end. If the core route is replaced by a tram then the buses become feeders and people have to change en route. This would be unpopular but it works well in places like Germany where they design the interchange so the bus is just a few steps from the door of the tram.

This happens in Sheffield. Let me give you an example Sheffield City Centre-Stocksbridge. Car: 19 minutes. Public Transport which is tram then bus: 1 hour 25 minutes- and that's if the traffic is good.

Surely the fact that Leeds is a traffic nightmare is exactly why trams are being suggested?

But how are you going to fit trams as well as traffic on the inner ring road or Boar lane. There simply isn't space! ...it's a bit simplistic to say trams will replace all car journeys in Leeds.

 

[Hophead]

But how are you going to fit trams as well as traffic on the inner ring road or Boar lane. There simply isn't space! ...it's a bit simplistic to say trams will replace all car journeys in Leeds.

Indeed so. Which is why nobody has said that.

 

[edwin_m]

This happens in Sheffield. Let me give you an example Sheffield City Centre-Stocksbridge. Car: 19 minutes. Public Transport which is tram then bus: 1 hour 25 minutes- and that's if the traffic is good.

This shows why trams struggle in a de-regulated bus market. The equivalent in Germany, if it didn't have a through tram, would have the tram bypassing the congested area closer to the city centre and giving timed connection at no extra cost to a bus in the less congested suburbs.

That part of Supertram is also a good illustration of how not to do trams - it has little segregation from other traffic so gets stuck in the same congestion, and the buses can take a more direct route. I'm not very familiar with the previous Leeds tram and trolleybus schemes, or with Leeds itself, but I've seen criticism that some of the proposed routes would have had this problem.

 

[Dentonian]

I don't understand the question; trams have a greater capacity than a bus (that's why they are bigger!). Capacity of 50? Times that figure by 4 more like. And you can lengthen them if required.

A double decker bus has capacity for nearly 90 people (not 50) and a tram is considerably longer than a 10.5 metre double decker bus.

 

[Dentonian]

Indeed I think trams are seen as a far more reliable form of public transport than buses, it would be great to see them back in Leeds.

There are thousands of people in Greater Manchester who would roll about laughing if they read that statement. Yes, buses have their punctuality problems - some of which can be solved at a tiny fraction of the cost of trams - but in terms of reliabiliity, Trams are absolutely shocking. Total and partial network failure of Metrolink is common, but hardly ever happens on buses.

 

[Dentonian]

The other important thing that trams have to a far greater degree than buses, is that they encourage modal shift from cars, which intrinsically reduces congestion.

Very simplistic comment widely used to justify eye watering sums of money being invested in Trams.

1. They have had a reasonable record of modal shift from cars - where car ownership is high! eg. Metrolink Phase 1

2. Like heavy rail there has to be a bit of a trade off in the short-term, as people DRIVE to a remote Rail stop, rather than WALK to a closer bus stop.

3. Where Trams have put bus services out of business (Metrolink phase 3), many people cannot access the tram for health reasons, so are forced to use cars (or in the short-term, taxis). This has got to increase congestion. This is glossed over because the congestion is increasing in poor suburbs remote from the "regional centre".

4. During the (long) period of construction, there is massive upheaval - and again, its bus passengers paying the price, whether its those alongside the tram losing time in advance of probably losing their bus service altogether, or those on the rest of the company's network who are having to pay their share in fare increases, due to the cost of fuel, labour and lost patronage caused by said delays.

5. Leigh Guided Busway: TWICE as successful as originally estimated, despite it being a longer route than some Metrolink lines and serving higher car ownership areas. Full marks to the good, sensible people of Leigh, Atherton, Tyldesley and even leafy Ellenbrook for seeing beyond the class ridden snobbery of the British media and actually trying it - they clearly seem to like it.

In conclusion, as regards Leeds, there might be an argument to serve the better off areas, which if my scant knowledge of the city is any good, means the northern suburbs which also happen to have kept some dual carriageways. But if you start replacing bus with trams in lower car ownership areas with higher proportions of people with physical health problems, you are storing up trouble on the altar of "champagne environmentalism".

 

[duffield]

But if you start replacing bus with trams in lower car ownership areas with higher proportions of people with physical health problems, you are storing up trouble on the altar of "champagne environmentalism".

The tram lines in Nottingham seem to get well-used in low income areas, including by a lot of mobility scooter users and prams, because of the easy boarding and convenience of getting to important destinations including the main hospital. Away from the tram lines there are still good bus services. (Not saying it would necessarily work in Leeds, I don't know the area well enough).

 

[Dentonian]

The tram lines in Nottingham seem to get well-used in low income areas, including by a lot of mobility scooter users and prams, because of the easy boarding and convenience of getting to important destinations including the main hospital. Away from the tram lines there are still good bus services. (Not saying it would necessarily work in Leeds, I don't know the area well enough).

Can't speak for prams - or more specifically young parents - but those using mobility scooters have the mobility(!), so travelling 200 metres on the scooter is no more strenuous than travelling 1200 metres. I was thinking more of those of us who can walk short distances but not long distances regularly, and who don't qualify for any form of Disability allowance (financial or otherwise). Indeed, we probably don't want to qualify for Disabiliity Allowance. And that's before we get into arguments over the myriad of obstacles and dangers pedestrians have to be wary of nowadays, and the state of "seats" on modern trams.

 

[tbtc]

Where this falls down is if the frequent bus route is made up of several routes that fan out to different destinations at the outer end. If the core route is replaced by a tram then the buses become feeders and people have to change en route. This would be unpopular but it works well in places like Germany where they design the interchange so the bus is just a few steps from the door of the tram.

This is one of the main problems for me (as well as "which roads can trams fit along") - it's easy for people out of town to say "Leeds is a big place, so lets build a tram network there", but where's the route crying out for a tram?

Headingley is an obvious example of a busy corridor, there's a bus every couple of minutes from the city centre as far as Woodies on Otley Road (i.e. top end of the Otley Road Run), but these then fan out into serving Adel, Cookridge, Holt Park, Guisley, Ilkley, Skipton etc, so there's not one obvious destination.

There are frequent buses from Pudsey (on the west side of town) to Seacroft (on the east side of town), but via different routes. Maybe something like the 16 from Bramley to Whinmoor would be worth considering. Maybe branches at Jimmys up to Harehills and Oakwood, one at Armley Gyratory towards Holbeck, Beeston, White Rose? Keep it simple and focus on just one route through the city centre to minimise disruption/costs?

But then, is this intended to replace shortish distance bus journeys or is it for P&R to the outskirts of the city (like the previous Stourton proposal)? Do you cater for one obvious market (like the relative straight lines of most Metrolink routes) or compromise with dog-leg kinks to try to serve as many markets as possible (like Supertram)? Both have their merits, but that's a debate that needs to be had before people decide that "we need a tram". For example, should a Stourton service (P&R next to the M1/ M62/ M261) be there to whisk the "out of towners" into central Leeds as soon as possible or divert through Hunslet/ Holbeck to serve local passengers?

This happens in Sheffield. Let me give you an example Sheffield City Centre-Stocksbridge. Car: 19 minutes. Public Transport which is tram then bus: 1 hour 25 minutes- and that's if the traffic is good

Assuming that you are talking about times to central Stocksbridge (?) then the current tram takes about twenty one minutes from Cathedral to Middlewood (https://tiscon-maps-stagecoachbus.s...ndly 2018 Yellow Route Timetable_20122017.pdf) and the feeder bus (SL1/SL1A) takes about twenty five minutes.

Add on five minutes to connect between the two modes of transport (both every twelve minutes off-peak, every ten minutes peak) and you're still talking well under an hour - not sure where you get the 1h25 from (in good traffic)?

 

[randyrippley]

how easy would it be to convert the Leeds guided busways into dual use bus / tram routes?

 

[edwin_m]

A standard 2.65m width tram would probably foul the guidance kerbs.

 

[bluenoxid]

It is tough for the decision makers. Everyone sees the traffic congestion and see the relative success of trams in other cities, so it is regularly wheeled out as the solution.

It has potential but Leeds has major problems today. A cyclist has a puncture on the Armley gyratory and Leeds comes to a halt. Any major closure in the Lofthouse area brings Leeds to a halt. Bus priority is the way forward for the moment.

The big issue is cost. The latest figures I have seen suggest £990m for a couple of lines. Some people have suggestions such as Leeds Bradford Airport Tram-Train then using Kirkstall Road to access the city centre. Others are pinning their hope on very light rail.

Guided busways is interesting. The proposals being consulted on suggest removing them on Scott Hall Road to create standard bus lanes.

 

[Bayum]

As previously said, the big issue is timing. Leeds needs something 'now', not later. There are buses out towards Wetherby that are late at least 15min+, more so on inner city routes. The benefit being on an inner city route is your bus may be late, but they are more frequent so less waiting.

I don't feel like the infrastructure is there in Leeds, anymore. I think there would be a mammoth task working out where the tram routes should follow and where the tram routes 'can' follow. Out towards Wetherby along the A58 would be difficult, even out on the A61 where you have the large fields on the way up to Shadwell and King Lane area would struggle for space.

 

[Andyh82]

Of course Leeds has wasted about 20 years seeking a light rail solution and then a watered down trollybus solution only to be kicked back every time, with millions of pounds down the drain, and time having moved years with nothing actually happening, so I’m not sure they want to go down that road again.

 

[bluenoxid]

No the appetite isn’t there amongst local politicians currently in position to just go for Mass Transit. They are investing money in an outline feasibility study to see which options are feasible AFAIK

 

[jopsuk]

Leeds need massive and fast change. "The motorway city of the seventies" was an absolute disaster, long term, as a policy

 

[daodao]

As previously said, the big issue is timing. Leeds needs something 'now', not later. There are buses out towards Wetherby that are late at least 15min+, more so on inner city routes. The benefit being on an inner city route is your bus may be late, but they are more frequent so less waiting.

I don't feel like the infrastructure is there in Leeds, anymore. I think there would be a mammoth task working out where the tram routes should follow and where the tram routes 'can' follow. Out towards Wetherby along the A58 would be difficult, even out on the A61 where you have the large fields on the way up to Shadwell and King Lane area would struggle for space.

The four big Northern cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield are large enough to sustain tram networks, but recreating them is a different matter. They all had extensive reserved track on the original networks, apart from M/c, which made the decision to abandon in 1930. The other 3 networks continued to be developed until the late 1940s, and decisions to abandon them were only made post WW2, rather narrowly and somewhat short-sightedly, as the decisions were later regretted.

There was a willingness to fund light rail 20-30 years ago, which isn't there now, that enabled M/c and Sheffield to establish limited 2nd generation networks, and M/c managed to persuade the powers that be to fund extensions 10 years ago, in one location (Mauldeth Rd West/Hardy Lane) using space that had been assigned in 1928 for a reserved tram track that was never built at that time. However, many of the other previous reserved track formations have been used for road "improvements" and they didn't generally exist in the inner urban areas, so it is difficult to see where Liverpool/Leeds could start new networks easily or for the M/c and Sheffield networks to expand further, except in a few places where existing/disused railway formations could be converted, e.g. to Marple. Affordability would be a major issue too.