Should Leeds should bring back trams?

[edwin_m]

If I recall correctly the abortive Merseytram scheme was largely on reserved track, probably reservations that were created for the original tramways . But I don't know the area well enough to have a view on whether it was a good idea, and I don't recall why it was cancelled apart from the fact that Alastair Darling as transport secretary was very anti-tram. I think it was the same time that the Leeds and Solent tram schemes were cancelled, seemingly terminally, as well as Metrolink extensions that were later reprieved.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Leeds should bring back trams and convert exisiting bus services 1, 6, 97, X98/X99 and 923 to tram operation, which would help take some buses off the road. Using the mentioned bus routes, it would mean that you'd end up with two simple tram routes creating an Inner City Loop and an Outer City Loop which should be more than enough for a basic tram network.

Inner City Loop: Beeston > City Centre > Headingley > Holt Park / West Park > Horsforth > West Park / Holt Park > Headingley > City Centre.

Outer City Loop: Beeston > City Centre > Headingley > Yeadon > Guiseley > Menston > Otley > Pool > Wetherby > Deighton Bar > Wetherby > Oakwood Clock > City Centre (and reverse).

 

[bluenoxid]

Your outer loop would involve adding a massive suburb to the north of Leeds which I don’t see going down very well.

Personally, I think if Wetherby wants a rail link it has two options.

1. Build towards Harrogate on the old corridor

2. Accept a high density development corridor either down the A58 or the A1M and use the tram to open it up.

 

[backontrack]

How's this?

Red Line: Woodlesford Station > Oulton > Rothwell > Rothwell Haigh > Leeds Valley Business Park > Stourton > Hunslet > New Dock > Brewery Wharf > Leeds City Interchange > City Square > Park Square > The Headrow > Leeds General Infirmary > Millennium Square > Leeds Beckett University > University of Leeds > Hyde Park Corner > Headingley Stadium > Arndale Centre > Headingley Station > Kirkstall Abbey > Kirkstall Forge (for National Rail) > New Road Side > Horsforth Central > Horsforth Broadgate > Horsforth Station > Leeds Trinity University > Rawdon > South Yeadon > Yeadon Tarn > Leeds Bradford Airport > Otley Chevin > Otley > Pool > West Bramhope > Bramhope > West Bramhope > Cookridge > Horsforth Station > back towards Woodlesford

Blue Line: Morley Station > Batley Station > Dewsbury Station > Staincliffe & District Hospital > Heckmondwike > Westfield > Gomersal > Birstall > Birstall IKEA > Morley Central > Morley Station > White Rose > Beeston > Elland Road Stadium > Holbeck > Leeds City Interchange > Park Square > The Headrow > New Briggate > Bus Interchange & West Yorkshire Playhouse > Osmondthorpe > Seacroft Hospital > Crossgates Shopping Centre > Cross Gates Station > Thorpe Park > Swillington > Kippax > Garforth Central > Garforth Station > Cross Gates Station > back towards Morley Station > Batley Station > Dewsbury Station > back towards Garforth via Heckmondwike

Green Line: Deighton Bar > Wetherby > Collingham > Scarcroft > Bardsey > Whinmoor > Scholes > Stanks > Seacroft > Gipton > Harehills > St James's Thackray > Sheepscar > First Direct Arena > Leeds Beckett University > Millennium Square > Leeds General Infirmary > The Headrow > Park Square > City Square > Leeds City Interchange > Armley Mills > Burley South > Armley Park > Bramley Station > Stanningley Fire Station > Stanningley > Farsley > Calverley > New Pudsey Station > Galloway Lane > Pudsey > Stanningley > back towards Deighton Bar

I didn't mean for them all to end in loops, it just sort of turned out that way.

 

[neilmc]

Leeds had a good tram system, operating for the most part on reserved track, and squandered it. So whilst cities like Sheffield and Manchester were getting ahead with well-used new tram systems, Leeds as usual wasted years and money on fanciful schemes which never materialised. Given the paucity of suburban railway stations, and the wide dual carriage ways where trams once worked, the case for reintroducing trams should be obvious.

However the 1950s saw high frequency services to the tram terminus, and new suburbs beyond getting a dreadfully poor bus service, even in times of low car ownership. Any new lines could justify much further extension beyond the city boundaries. Ledston Luck tram every ten minutes anyone?

 

[Busaholic]

Leeds had a good tram system, operating for the most part on reserved track, and squandered it.

Good trams too, with the Felthams. The prevailing orthodoxy, though, was to see trams as antiquated and incompatible with the exponential growth of the car. With Ernest Marples as Minister of Transport, neither Leeds nor any other authority were going to be dissuaded from scrapping trams, or even trolleybuses for that matter.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Good trams too, with the Felthams. The prevailing orthodoxy, though, was to see trams as antiquated and incompatible with the exponential growth of the car. With Ernest Marples as Minister of Transport, neither Leeds nor any other authority were going to be dissuaded from scrapping trams, or even trolleybuses for that matter.

Ah, never waste an opportunity to have a dig at the often misunderstood Ernest Marples.
I am sure that whilst he was (Conservative) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1953 he was indeed ideally placed to persuade local Labour councillors in Leeds to campaign on a 'tram withdrawal' ticket.
With the great bulk of the network closed between then and Marples' promotion to Minister of Transport on 14 October 1959 he may well have been delighted to preside (in a titular sense) over the withdrawal of the last routes to Cross Gates, Halton and Temple Newsam three weeks later, on 7 November. What a result in so short a time!

 

[Busaholic]

Ah, never waste an opportunity to have a dig at the often misunderstood Ernest Marples.
I am sure that whilst he was (Conservative) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1953 he was indeed ideally placed to persuade local Labour councillors in Leeds to campaign on a 'tram withdrawal' ticket.
With the great bulk of the network closed between then and Marples' promotion to Minister of Transport on 14 October 1959 he may well have been delighted to preside (in a titular sense) over the withdrawal of the last routes to Cross Gates, Halton and Temple Newsam three weeks later, on 7 November. What a result in so short a time!

Misunderstood? Please do enlighten me.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Err, 'misunderstood' in that I doubt Marples spent much time worrying about trams in Leeds at any stage of his career. I had never heard that he was asked to opine on them. Apologies for any misplaced irony. Nothing personal.
I agree that the Felthams were a fantastic design.

 

[Busaholic]

Err, 'misunderstood' in that I doubt Marples spent much time worrying about trams in Leeds at any stage of his career. I had never heard that he was asked to opine on them. Apologies for any misplaced irony. Nothing personal.
I agree that the Felthams were a fantastic design.

My apologies for suggesting that Marples had any influence on Leeds's, or any other, tram system, though he may (indirectly) have influenced the abandonment of some trolleybus fleets. I was intensely interested in trolleybus systems nationwide from about 1959/60, although mostly just through the pages of Buses Illustrated mag, and although many had been abandoned or were in the process of being abandoned, others were still ordering new vehicles or purchasing secondhand examples from other operators, even opening or extending routes e.g. (from memory, here) Bournemouth, Reading and Bradford. What changed were new 'ringway' type schemes planned by the Dept of Transport for many towns and cities, some of which got implemented, and which would have a severe impact on any remaining trolleybus routes, for obvious reasons. Actually, though Marples was undoubtedly an unprincipled rogue (even the Conservative Home website concedes as much!) he/his department deserve much credit imo for the way in which the M1, M6 and Hammersmith Flyover, among others, became reality.

 

[duffield]

I was intensely interested in trolleybus systems nationwide from about 1959/60, although mostly just through the pages of Buses Illustrated mag, and although many had been abandoned or were in the process of being abandoned, others were still ordering new vehicles or purchasing secondhand examples from other operators, even opening or extending routes e.g. (from memory, here) Bournemouth, Reading and Bradford.

I remember the trolleybuses in Reading (just!). The system closed shortly before my fifth birthday!

 

[Busaholic]

I remember the trolleybuses in Reading (just!). The system closed shortly before my fifth birthday!

I never saw Reading's trolleybuses: I was also two days too late to catch their Routemasters! Bournemouth trolleybuses I do have some very vague memories of, as we had a family holiday in Christchurch when I was about four - I just wish I could remember seeing the unique (in this country) trolleybus turntable at Christchurch, because I was certainly taken to it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I never saw Reading's trolleybuses: I was also two days too late to catch their Routemasters! Bournemouth trolleybuses I do have some very vague memories of, as we had a family holiday in Christchurch when I was about four - I just wish I could remember seeing the unique (in this country) trolleybus turntable at Christchurch, because I was certainly taken to it.

There was also a trolleybus turntable at Longwood in Huddersfield, which remained in place for several years after the system closed. It was eventually removed with little fuss in the 1980s, as such things were not considered worth preserving (in situ or otherwise) at the time.

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

 

[Busaholic]

There was also a trolleybus turntable at Longwood in Huddersfield, which remained in place for several years after the system closed. It was eventually removed with little fuss in the 1980s, as such things were not considered worth preserving (in situ or otherwise) at the time.

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

I admit to not knowing about that turntable: an article I read in 'Classic Bus' magazine a few months back led me to think that Christchurch had the UK's only example.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I admit to not knowing about that turntable: an article I read in 'Classic Bus' magazine a few months back led me to think that Christchurch had the UK's only example.

Well, it is now the UK's only surviving example...

Or not! Something in the back of my mind was telling me that Christchurch still had its turntable, albeit disused (obviously).

Posted, then thought "hmmm, better check that...!"

 

[exile]

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?



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.s3.amazonaws.com/Timetables/Supertram/Supertram Printer Friendly 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)?

Not only that, Google Maps has 26-45 minutes for the car journey, not 19.

 

[exile]

Question - why would someone who can access a bus be unable to access a tram for reasons of disability? Surely the latter is MORE accessible? (leaving aside the issue of distance between stops).

 

[317 forever]

I understand that Leeds is the largest city in Europe without a tram or light rail system.

 

[Dentonian]

Question - why would someone who can access a bus be unable to access a tram for reasons of disability? Surely the latter is MORE accessible? (leaving aside the issue of distance between stops).

I've only just come across this, probably because I was out of the country for three days immediately after your posting. Basically, you have answered your own question; distance between stops. Don't forget not all (physical) disabilities are visible and there are various degrees of disability.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If ever Leeds was to get a tram system, the White Rose Centre area would be an obvious candidate for a branch, and not only because it would hopefully kill the idea of a heavy-rail station there. Advocates for said station often suggest that the business parks on the city side of the mall complex are as much (If not more so) of a reason as the mall itself. Given the spread of these parks, a tramway would be more appropriate as multiple stops could be provided rather than one station which would be some distance from large parts of the area. Extending up the hill to Morley afterwards would make sense too. From the WRC/Business parks the route could then head up Beeston and drop down to pass the football ground en-route to the city centre, perhaps using Holbeck viaduct as a way of beating the congestion. On the other side of the city, Hyde Park and the universities would be ideal places to serve.

 

[daodao]

Dentonian expressed concern above regarding greater distances between tram stops than bus stops. There is no "a priori" reason why this should be so, but the M/c system, which has high level platforms and requires tickets to be purchased prior to travel necessitates tram stops to be significant structures that are expensive to construct and maintain. Several proposed tram stops on the Airport route, including those at Nell Lane, Darley Avenue and along Hollyhedge Road were removed from the original design plan from this line because they were deemed not economically viable.

 

[edwin_m]

Dentonian expressed concern above regarding greater distances between tram stops than bus stops. There is no "a priori" reason why this should be so, but the M/c system, which has high level platforms and requires tickets to be purchased prior to travel necessitates tram stops to be significant structures that are expensive to construct and maintain. Several proposed tram stops on the Airport route, including those at Nell Lane, Darley Avenue and along Hollyhedge Road were removed from the original design plan from this line because they were deemed not economically viable.

That's partly because tramways are very expensive and if they are no quicker than buses then they won't attract more passengers out of cars so there would be little point in building them. A related but slightly different reason is that the trams have to have a clear speed advantage over buses otherwise deregulated bus operators will cherry-pick the main passenger flows and again the tram will lose passengers. This rules out the model used by most French tramways, where stops are frequent and speeds are relatively low but there are no competing buses and the integration and quality of the tramway makes it well-used. The German model is a bit different, where street trams and buses are treated similarly to each other as the lowest tier of the public transport network but mainly segregated light rail routes along with heavy rail are aimed at longer-distance journeys with fewer stops.

 

[Dentonian]

A related but slightly different reason is that the trams have to have a clear speed advantage over buses otherwise deregulated bus operators will cherry-pick the main passenger flows and again the tram will lose passengers.

I can't help but laugh at this sort of comment - which I've heard before. Forget (for once) the "deregulated" bit, but assuming similar histories in Leeds as Gtr. Manchester it really sounds like "How dare a bus service that has been running for the best part of a century be allowed to cherry pick passengers from a new mode set up at massive public cost".

BTW, the Ashton-under-Lyne to Piccadilly Metrolink takes LONGER than the parallel incumbent bus service took before construction started.

 

[Dentonian]

Dentonian expressed concern above regarding greater distances between tram stops than bus stops. There is no "a priori" reason why this should be so, but the M/c system, which has high level platforms and requires tickets to be purchased prior to travel necessitates tram stops to be significant structures that are expensive to construct and maintain. Several proposed tram stops on the Airport route, including those at Nell Lane, Darley Avenue and along Hollyhedge Road were removed from the original design plan from this line because they were deemed not economically viable.

Sorry, I didn't do Latin at school, but AFAIK, excluding city centres all UK tram systems have stops much farther apart than buses do.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't help but laugh at this sort of comment - which I've heard before. Forget (for once) the "deregulated" bit, but assuming similar histories in Leeds as Gtr. Manchester it really sounds like "How dare a bus service that has been running for the best part of a century be allowed to cherry pick passengers from a new mode set up at massive public cost".

Because the best interests of the majority are served by a multi-level network that has relatively slow routes with frequent stops connecting at interchanges into faster routes that stop less often. A few people may benefit if the service is cherry-picked by a bus operator - but that sort of network doesn't provide good service to all areas of the city, which is something I think is important to you. Just look at the difference between frequent commercial UK bus routes and the desultory service that results if a route is not commercially viable.

BTW, the Ashton-under-Lyne to Piccadilly Metrolink takes LONGER than the parallel incumbent bus service took before construction started.

It would be interesting (but perhaps impossible) to know how much traffic congestion would have slowed the bus in the meantime, had the tram not come along.

However I do agree there's not much point in building street tramways, unless remaining traffic can be diverted and the street effectively closed as the French tend to do. The eastern part of the Ashton route is mainly segregated but the saving there may not outweigh the slower street running further west.

 

[Dentonian]

Because the best interests of the majority are served by a multi-level network that has relatively slow routes with frequent stops connecting at interchanges into faster routes that stop less often. A few people may benefit if the service is cherry-picked by a bus operator - but that sort of network doesn't provide good service to all areas of the city, which is something I think is important to you. Just look at the difference between frequent commercial UK bus routes and the desultory service that results if a route is not commercially viable.


It would be interesting (but perhaps impossible) to know how much traffic congestion would have slowed the bus in the meantime, had the tram not come along.

However I do agree there's not much point in building street tramways, unless remaining traffic can be diverted and the street effectively closed as the French tend to do. The eastern part of the Ashton route is mainly segregated but the saving there may not outweigh the slower street running further west.

I suppose that's where the "deregulation" bit was a double edged sword. I pushed it one side to demonstrate that most bus services competing with new Tram services, were around a good half century before De-reg. OTOH, it is De-regulation that illustrates why Trams won't be in the best interests of the majority. They will be in the best interests of many thousands of young and fit people, admittedly, but they will be of little practical interest to the mathematical majority and the level of dis-benefit to the significant minority of older, less fit, carless people would be greater because commercial buses will be withdrawn. We have seen it in many areas of GM with Phase III of Metrolink.

Its the usual argument with the "majority" - are they measured as individual human beings or based on £££s. The ultimate Cost-Benefit Analysis. OK, that's HS2 but you know what I mean.................

As for increased congestion in the "meantime". The point is that damage to commercial bus services - and their customers - starts with construction, not operational Day 1, because of the major disruption caused by the work. This increases costs, and cuts revenue because passengers are losing precious time. They then look again at re/turning to driving and are not going to be easily re/converted to Trams because of the massive expense of acquiring a car and (In the case of Metrolink), its appaling reliability.

 

[daodao]

I suppose that's where the "deregulation" bit was a double edged sword. I pushed it one side to demonstrate that most bus services competing with new Tram services, were around a good half century before De-reg. OTOH, it is De-regulation that illustrates why Trams won't be in the best interests of the majority. They will be in the best interests of many thousands of young and fit people, admittedly, but they will be of little practical interest to the mathematical majority and the level of dis-benefit to the significant minority of older, less fit, carless people would be greater because commercial buses will be withdrawn. We have seen it in many areas of GM with Phase III of Metrolink.

Its the usual argument with the "majority" - are they measured as individual human beings or based on £££s. The ultimate Cost-Benefit Analysis. OK, that's HS2 but you know what I mean.................

As for increased congestion in the "meantime". The point is that damage to commercial bus services - and their customers - starts with construction, not operational Day 1, because of the major disruption caused by the work. This increases costs, and cuts revenue because passengers are losing precious time. They then look again at re/turning to driving and are not going to be easily re/converted to Trams because of the massive expense of acquiring a car and (In the case of Metrolink), its appaling reliability.

If one can't walk 500 m, then public transport is unlikely to be of much use. Metrolink stops were planned on the basis of potential passengers being willing to walk a slightly longer distance (I believe 800 m, but stand to be corrected). Other tramways have shorter distances between stops, e.g. the Blackpool tramway has 38 stops over a distance of 17.7 km.

As for bus service withdrawals in Greater M/c, there are now significant areas with reduced or no bus services both near and well away from Metrolink. Many frequent long-established services have disappeared over the last 50 years leaving main roads without any bus service, or with one that is of minimal use due to roundabout routes and low frequency.

Examples of key routes that have been withdrawn completely include:
ex MCT 62 Chorlton to Heaton Park - there are now no bus services along Withington Road/Yarburgh St in Whalley Range
ex SCT 73 City centre to Heaton Park - there are now no bus services along Leicester Road going to the city centre
ex MCT 75 Greenheys to Heaton Park - there is now only 1 hourly bus along Lloyd Street to Greenheys

All of these routes were former tram routes (other than the extension of the 62 from Yarburgh St to Chorlton). Cheetham Hill Road/Bury Old Rd are now served only by the 135 Bury-M/c service (every 10 minutes at best), with a re-routed 59 as far as Halfway House.

The former NWRCC route 125 from M/c to Glossop via Denton (which ran every 15 minutes) has also disappeared, leaving virtually no buses between Hyde and Glossop.

 

[Clip]

Sorry, I didn't do Latin at school, but AFAIK, excluding city centres all UK tram systems have stops much farther apart than buses do.

That's not true on the Croydon tramlink which has stops close together

 

[edwin_m]

I suppose that's where the "deregulation" bit was a double edged sword. I pushed it one side to demonstrate that most bus services competing with new Tram services, were around a good half century before De-reg. OTOH, it is De-regulation that illustrates why Trams won't be in the best interests of the majority. They will be in the best interests of many thousands of young and fit people, admittedly, but they will be of little practical interest to the mathematical majority and the level of dis-benefit to the significant minority of older, less fit, carless people would be greater because commercial buses will be withdrawn. We have seen it in many areas of GM with Phase III of Metrolink.

Its the usual argument with the "majority" - are they measured as individual human beings or based on £££s. The ultimate Cost-Benefit Analysis. OK, that's HS2 but you know what I mean.................

As for increased congestion in the "meantime". The point is that damage to commercial bus services - and their customers - starts with construction, not operational Day 1, because of the major disruption caused by the work. This increases costs, and cuts revenue because passengers are losing precious time. They then look again at re/turning to driving and are not going to be easily re/converted to Trams because of the massive expense of acquiring a car and (In the case of Metrolink), its appaling reliability.

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record I would point out that the integrated and regulated networks of countries like Germany and Switzerland have a far more comprehensive coverage than our much more disjointed public transport system. You may be lucky enough to live within a short walk of a frequent and presumably commercial bus service, but there are many people who have to rely on tendered service which is often one of the first victims when the council is short of money (or much more likely they will just drive instead). Some of those people may have chosen where to live at a time when the bus service was better and in the expectation that it would continue. And even a commercial service can disappear at a few weeks notice if the operator decides it is no longer viable for them to run it. Whereas someone living close to a tramstop can be pretty sure there will always be a decent service there, and they can be fairly sure of this for bus stops too if the buses are regulated.

My point on Ashton Metrolink was that if it hadn't been built there would have been no construction disruption and no trams disrupting the free flow on Ashton New Road. But there would have been more car traffic, as drivers would have had one fewer alternative option. Would the net result have been faster or slower buses?

 

[Dentonian]

At the risk of sounding like a cracked record I would point out that the integrated and regulated networks of countries like Germany and Switzerland have a far more comprehensive coverage than our much more disjointed public transport system. You may be lucky enough to live within a short walk of a frequent and presumably commercial bus service, but there are many people who have to rely on tendered service which is often one of the first victims when the council is short of money (or much more likely they will just drive instead). Some of those people may have chosen where to live at a time when the bus service was better and in the expectation that it would continue. And even a commercial service can disappear at a few weeks notice if the operator decides it is no longer viable for them to run it. Whereas someone living close to a tramstop can be pretty sure there will always be a decent service there, and they can be fairly sure of this for bus stops too if the buses are regulated.

My point on Ashton Metrolink was that if it hadn't been built there would have been no construction disruption and no trams disrupting the free flow on Ashton New Road. But there would have been more car traffic, as drivers would have had one fewer alternative option. Would the net result have been faster or slower buses?

Cracked record and egg sucking lectures!

I don't disagree with the simple points, but we are a nation of 60 million people and we don't all conform to he same idyll - much as our politicians and Media industry try to pretend otherwise. And to put it into statistical context in this case; In Tameside and east Manchester; something like 90% of bus mileage is commercial but car ownership is way below that percentage. And assuming "living close to" a tram stop is measured by walking distance, not a short car ride, then a minority of people live "close" to any rail station/stop, and it would take trillions of tax payers money and massive disruption to alter that. Thus its always a difficult job to judge whether the net result is faster or slower buses. The one track mind (if you pardon the pun), works on the basis that everyone except the seriously disabled or homeless has full access to a car (or at least a cycle) and therefore its a simplistic matter of persuading them to just drive the short distance to rail head, thus reducing congestion in the "regional centre". However, there will be those - especially those of us with a basic understanding of Economics and admittedly, who were brought up with different values when it came to money - who will say; I'm live in one of the 30+% of households in the catchment area without a car, but if I my bus service is withdrawn or greatly reduced, I will have to learn to drive. Once, I've shelled out thousands on lessons, insurance and the vehicle itself, what possible logic is there for me to not use it for all but the shortest of journeys. From an economics point of view, the only possible argument against car use is parking costs - which is why the motoring lobby and media are forever demanding reduced and free parking, which of course, largely exists outside of regional centres anyway.
Certainly, if I'd have left school and entered the jobs market in 1985 (or even earlier) rather than 1980, I would not have gone into the bus industry and probably never set foot on public transport after 27th October 1986.

TBH, I have no idea whether Metrolink has reduced traffic or not, as I don't live anywhere near it (Thankfully). I can only go off circumstantial evidence, and that suggests it has, at best, put back the growth of congestion at peak times by a few years. What would be interesting is a comparison of the effects of Phases I and II with the effects of Phase III.