Two additional tracks to be built into Leeds station from the West?

[Grumpy]

Surely this is all madnesss?
Most of the trains running into Leeds are 2 or 3 carriages. No doubt hopelessly loss-making. There is bags of capacity for more passengers by running longer trains. No need for more tracks,viaducts etc

 

[bluenoxid]

My interpretation is that this work supports a shuffle across meaning that Castleford gets a single/pair of tracks to serve it. If that is the case, it would be a huge amount of remodelling work

Is this a different way of boosting capacity in that direction without building another platform or will it require another platform (platform 18) to be built?

Has the proposal/idea to link 13 and 14 been binned?

 

[Grimsby town]

Surely this is all madnesss?
Most of the trains running into Leeds are 2 or 3 carriages. No doubt hopelessly loss-making. There is bags of capacity for more passengers by running longer trains. No need for more tracks,viaducts etc

It's quite simple, platform lengthening and additonal rollingstock caters for the short to medium term capacity issues and additonal tracks caters for longer term capacity issues. It also provides more services which help to provide turn up and go services which make services significantly more attractive. Look at merseyrail station for example.

 

[YorksLad12]

Getting back to the western topic (and apologies for contributing to the eastern conversation): is the proposal to buy just the large plot bounded by Globe Road and Whitehall Road, or is the bit between Globe Road and the river included? My feeling is that you’d need the extra bit to ease the curves out (and in) for new track.

The linking of platforms 13 & 14 has been binned, I believe. There was at one time a proposal to close 14 to give more platform space to 15. Some Leeds platforms are quite narrow in parts; the corner between 16 and 17 being unsafe, as you could get pushed onto the track quite easily.

Northern’s new stock will be 3- and 4-cars units, so we should see fewer 2-car units in Leeds, Manchester etc. Once platforms such as 17 have been lengthened, of course…

 

[geordieblue]

Alternatively - crayon alert - dig a massive tunnel from the four track section where the Harrogate/Ilkley lines join, through to Neville Hill. Stick a couple of stations in central Leeds, four track to Garforth, you’ve got a semi-segregated West Yorkshire S Bahn and four tracks through central Leeds. I’ve long thought that a big investment in a proper heavy rail metro would be better value for money than piecemeal improvements to the mess that is Leeds station. Not sure how you thread any tunnel through central Leeds and past the Aire though.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Alternatively - crayon alert - dig a massive tunnel from the four track section where the Harrogate/Ilkley lines join, through to Neville Hill. Stick a couple of stations in central Leeds, four track to Garforth, you’ve got a semi-segregated West Yorkshire S Bahn and four tracks through central Leeds. I’ve long thought that a big investment in a proper heavy rail metro would be better value for money than piecemeal improvements to the mess that is Leeds station. Not sure how you thread any tunnel through central Leeds and past the Aire though.

Somewhat similar to the ultimate solution for Manchester's Castlefield corridor, a metro tunnel from Salford Crescent to Longsight. I doubt either city will ever receive such an upgrade.

All this stopped when Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton closed in March 1967 because Beeching showed that the line was losing £18,000 a year when it was making £13,000 a year profit. He only looked at booking office takings at Ripon but a third of revenue was army traffic from two large army camps in Ripon paid by MOD to BR directly.
As a cathedral city, Ripon is still mourning the loss of this railway. There is a very active campaign to reopen this railway as the A61 to Harrogate and Leeds is very inadequate for the commuter traffic on offer.

However the following was reported in March last year

https://www.yourharrogate.co.uk/loc...e-train-line-could-cost-hundreds-of-millions/

A transport official has poured cold water on hopes that the Harrogate – Ripon – Northallerton train line will reopen any time soon, saying to do so could cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. Harrogate’s link with Ripon was axed by Dr Beeching during his infamous 1960s rail reforms and the last train ran in 1967. Since then, much of the track was ripped up to make way for the Ripon bypass and former station buildings have been converted into homes. But there has been a long-running bid to see it reinstated, led by Dr Adrian Morgan, who founded the Ripon Railway Reinstatement Association in 1987. The campaign was discussed by Graham North, strategy and performance rail officer at the new York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority, when he gave a wide-ranging presentation to Skipton and Ripon councillors on Thursday. However, Mr North claimed there was not the same level of public support for reopening the route when compared to similar campaigns such as at Skipton to Colne. Mr North said:

“These schemes cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of pounds and we have to prioritise which ones come forward. "We didn’t get the same level of support for Harrogate to Ripon when compared to other schemes. "It’s been one individual all the time who’s been writing. There has to be a more coordinated campaign.”

Given the straightened times we live in I would suggest the Ripon reopening idea is now dead in the water. Especially as £7.8M was provided by the DfT towards the cost of a brand new fleet of all-electric buses, currently being delivered, to operate the Leeds-Harrogate-Ripon service. Massively cheaper than a rail reopening, which would essentially be a new railway, to serve a population of less than 17,000. This is one of those places where the provision of quality bus services is the most affordable way to provide enhanced public transport capacity. Ripon is not going to play any part in improving the rail network around Leeds.

 

[Ken H]

Alternatively - crayon alert - dig a massive tunnel from the four track section where the Harrogate/Ilkley lines join, through to Neville Hill. Stick a couple of stations in central Leeds, four track to Garforth, you’ve got a semi-segregated West Yorkshire S Bahn and four tracks through central Leeds. I’ve long thought that a big investment in a proper heavy rail metro would be better value for money than piecemeal improvements to the mess that is Leeds station. Not sure how you thread any tunnel through central Leeds and past the Aire though.

The bit under Leeds station is largely water. You would have to go very deep to avoid all that. And Lady Beck runs under the bus station and under New York St just west of Duke St. Its quite deep under the road.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely this is all madnesss?
Most of the trains running into Leeds are 2 or 3 carriages. No doubt hopelessly loss-making. There is bags of capacity for more passengers by running longer trains. No need for more tracks,viaducts etc

But certainly need for more platform 17 as you can only just about fit two smallish trains on there.

 

[Meerkat]

To four track the railway east of Leeds there's absolutely tons of buildings that would need to be purchased and demolished - everything east of Lower Briggate.

Not on the south of the railway there isn’t.

There are also many businesses and residents either under the current viaduct, or using the space immediately south of it, all of whom will have to be displaced for at least a few years.

Lots of the arches look empty, or occupied by transient business. How long does it take to build some piers? Could do it in a rolling project so they aren’t all closed for the whole time, or get shifted from in front to behind the work as it progresses. Things get built in cities

To allow space for the actual construction to take place, a whole lot of other buildings would have to be demolished that will not actually turn into anything when construction finishes

There’s still loads of space at Marsh Lane for a work compound isn’t there? If you do have to demolish something you pick a low value one and afterward replace it with something bigger and better.

Heading east over Briggate you'd have to demolish the two low-rise buildings on Call Lane, possibly also Revolution de Cuba.

Revolution de Cuba is alongside the bit of viaduct that is already four tracks wide.

Chancellor Court would lose one building and half of its car park. The car park off Wharf Street would go

Chancellor Court would probably get redeveloped.

once you hit Railway Street there's new apartments that wouldn't be happy with new railway going in outside their windows

At that point the widening would probably have switched to the north side

The remainder of the surface car parking is for railway staff and has always been Network Rail property. I can't see how you could add additional platforms without taking a reasonable proportion of the staff car park and probably the multistorey too

I was thinking that car parking could go over any new platforms. It would be mainly commuters who might be positive about being out the weather rather than negative about New Street vibes.

With all the talk about capacity issues how has Garforth managed to retain TWO stations practically next to each other?!

 

[bigbigcheese]

People mention 4 tracks a lot. But what about 3 tracks? Surely three bidirectional tracks would add enough capacity when combined with longer trains/platforms and require significantly less disruption than quad tracking the whole affair.. This could allow for ECS movements to not conflict with in/outbound in service trains, or for stoppers and fast services to arrive at the same time. Combine this with looped platforms at Cross Gates, Garforth, East Garforth, etc (don't even need to do all of them, just enough to allow them to be overtaken by the fast services) and you could open up a tonne of capacity for less disruption.

 

[may032]

People mention 4 tracks a lot. But what about 3 tracks? Surely three bidirectional tracks would add enough capacity when combined with longer trains/platforms and require significantly less disruption than quad tracking the whole affair.. This could allow for ECS movements to not conflict with in/outbound in service trains, or for stoppers and fast services to arrive at the same time. Combine this with looped platforms at Cross Gates, Garforth, East Garforth, etc (don't even need to do all of them, just enough to allow them to be overtaken by the fast services) and you could open up a tonne of capacity for less disruption.

If any of that 3 tracking involves widening the existing viaducts, you might as well 4 track to maximise the benefits for all the cost and disruption involved.

 

[quantinghome]

People mention 4 tracks a lot. But what about 3 tracks? Surely three bidirectional tracks would add enough capacity when combined with longer trains/platforms and require significantly less disruption than quad tracking the whole affair.. This could allow for ECS movements to not conflict with in/outbound in service trains, or for stoppers and fast services to arrive at the same time. Combine this with looped platforms at Cross Gates, Garforth, East Garforth, etc (don't even need to do all of them, just enough to allow them to be overtaken by the fast services) and you could open up a tonne of capacity for less disruption.

Dynamic loops would be a lot more effective than short loops at stations. There's enough space between Richmond Hill tunnel and Garforth for this to work with no demolitions, and might not need land take beyond the railway boundary.

ECS movements will be less of a problem once Shipley Depot is up and running.

 

[D6130]

With all the talk about capacity issues how has Garforth managed to retain TWO stations practically next to each other?!

East Garforth was only opened about twenty years ago to serve the massive new housing development at that end of the village.

 

[takno]

East Garforth was only opened about twenty years ago to serve the massive new housing development at that end of the village.

It was nearly 40 years ago now. Like Burley Park, it was probably seen as a low-impact station on a line which could easily accommodate the extra couple of minutes on the schedules. By 20 years ago I suspect the thinking might have been quite different, and indeed the new housing might well have ended up on the west end of Garforth instead of the east.

 

[YorksLad12]

Just on Princes Exchange; I have noticed no cars using the first surface car park, which lends some credence to a sale of some sort. The building does/did have tenants, including First (and a charity I went to for a job interview, pre-pandemic). DLA Piper has moved to the new building on Wellington Street. If NR has (re-)acquired the building, you'd hope the use the surface car park for a while to ease the nonsense at the current drop-off point. A free for 20 minutes short-stay car park would be nice...

 

[skyhigh]

Just on Princes Exchange; I have noticed no cars using the first surface car park, which lends some credence to a sale of some sort.

It's definitely true. The law firm have moved out and Regus and all their clients have been booted out. The building is currently empty while work is carried out.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Alternatively - crayon alert - dig a massive tunnel from the four track section where the Harrogate/Ilkley lines join, through to Neville Hill. Stick a couple of stations in central Leeds, four track to Garforth, you’ve got a semi-segregated West Yorkshire S Bahn and four tracks through central Leeds. I’ve long thought that a big investment in a proper heavy rail metro would be better value for money than piecemeal improvements to the mess that is Leeds station. Not sure how you thread any tunnel through central Leeds and past the Aire though.

We can but dream and look on to our European Neighbours with envy at their S bahn tunnels.

 

[deltic08]

Dynamic loops would be a lot more effective than short loops at stations. There's enough space between Richmond Hill tunnel and Garforth for this to work with no demolitions, and might not need land take beyond the railway boundary.

ECS movements will be less of a problem once Shipley Depot is up and running.

As I have said many times before, the railway formation was built to four track width from the top of Marsh Lane cutting to just short of Garforth in 1903 for the opening of the Wetherby line in 1907. Four tracks were only laid to the junction at Cross Gates and reduced in 1965 to two tracks when the Wetherby line closed. Nothing has been built on the line from Neville Hill to Garforth since the formation was built and is still owned by NR so there is no problem in laying two additional tracks to include the stations of Cross Gates and Thorpe Park.

If the four tracks are extended the full length to almost Garforth, stopping trains would not be going faster than 50mph on leaving Garforth when they would be turned off the mains at a 50mph turnout saving precious seconds for following non stop trains instead of a low speed turnout nearer to Thorpe Park.

Yes, I would like to see the Wetherby line reinstated but the East Leeds new town of 10,000 houses is being built over the trackbed instead of future proofing it. I have written many times to Leeds City Council/West Yorkshire Combined Authority over their very blinkered decision but they do not want to admit to this bad decision and have now blocked me. They plan to bus these potential 10,000 commuters into an already gridlocked city centre in the peaks using up to 550 buses an hour!

 

[GingerSte]

I’m interested to know what your defintion of ‘worth it’ is in this example? It would be very, very expensive - I guess well into 9 figures for a two track / two platform station, and that station would reduce capacity on the line and be only 10 minutes walk from the main station, thereby the social benefit would most likely be negative.

Well, I haven't done a full cost-benefit analysis, I have to admit.

10 mins walk? That would be pushing it. I'd say 15 myself. Especially with bags, buggies etc. A big part of the social benefit would be the unlocking of this whole area for regeneration. You've also got the integrated public transport benefits.

I would also argue that both Oxford Road and Deansgate do well in Manchester, despite being close and on the same line. The same goes for Snow Hill and Moor Street in Brum. I'm sure there are many other examples.

What I had in mind was quite similar to Deansgate, except it had passenger loops to allow stoppers on the new lines while fasts went past on the existing lines.

Very very quick sketch (don't criticise too much - I know there's stuff wrong with it)...

 

[quantinghome]

As I have said many times before, the railway formation was built to four track width from the top of Marsh Lane cutting to just short of Garforth in 1903 for the opening of the Wetherby line in 1907. Four tracks were only laid to the junction at Cross Gates and reduced in 1965 to two tracks when the Wetherby line closed. Nothing has been built on the line from Neville Hill to Garforth since the formation was built and is still owned by NR so there is no problem in laying two additional tracks to include the stations of Cross Gates and Thorpe Park.

If the four tracks are extended the full length to almost Garforth, stopping trains would not be going faster than 50mph on leaving Garforth when they would be turned off the mains at a 50mph turnout saving precious seconds for following non stop trains instead of a low speed turnout nearer to Thorpe Park.

Yes, I completely agree.

Yes, I would like to see the Wetherby line reinstated but the East Leeds new town of 10,000 houses is being built over the trackbed instead of future proofing it. I have written many times to Leeds City Council/West Yorkshire Combined Authority over their very blinkered decision but they do not want to admit to this bad decision and have now blocked me. They plan to bus these potential 10,000 commuters into an already gridlocked city centre in the peaks using up to 550 buses an hour!

Whatever the rights and wrongs of that decision, it's now done and dusted. I'm not sure what you would hope to achieve by corresponding further with LCC and WYCA.

East Leeds Extension is 5,000 houses, not 10,000, and I very much doubt that every house will contain someone commuting into Leeds every day. Thorpe Park station will be good for commuters at the southern end of the new developments, and a significant proportion of the development (around the A58) is too far north for either Thorpe Park or a station on the Wetherby line (although either option would work as a park and ride).

One last thought - a four-tracked line from Marsh Lane to near Garforth would allow for a much more frequent local service than a branch line to Wetherby. Which is preferable, a train every 15 minutes from Thorpe Park, or one every 30 minutes from Swarcliffe?

 

[CdBrux]

To the west side. I had a return trip arriving from the south on LNER and leaving to west (towards Halifax). It felt to me that the last few miles in and out of Leeds was pretty slow, as well as adding 2 tracks as per this thread is there an opportunity to optimise alignments or whatever to increase line speeds a little?

 

[Meerkat]

As I have said many times before, the railway formation was built to four track width from the top of Marsh Lane cutting to just short of Garforth in 1903

East of Cross Gates is the formation wide enough or just the bridges? Sure I’ve seen along there that the bridges are lopsided.

 

[YorksLad12]

To the west side. I had a return trip arriving from the south on LNER and leaving to west (towards Halifax). It felt to me that the last few miles in and out of Leeds was pretty slow, as well as adding 2 tracks as per this thread is there an opportunity to optimise alignments or whatever to increase line speeds a little?

In theory, I suppose, if you went right through that development site you could lose the curve somewhat. I don't think it would save much time for the cost and installation issues (road closures, especially). If it stops more student flats going in I'm all for it though!

 

[quantinghome]

To the west side. I had a return trip arriving from the south on LNER and leaving to west (towards Halifax). It felt to me that the last few miles in and out of Leeds was pretty slow, as well as adding 2 tracks as per this thread is there an opportunity to optimise alignments or whatever to increase line speeds a little?

I don't think so - it's all pretty tightly constrained (see screenshot from openrailwaymap below). I recall that the western approach speeds were increased to 25mph as part of the Leeds First project in 2001 which expanded the western approach to the present six tracks. Given the complex layout and tight curves it's probably not possible to increase it further (if it was, they would have done it at the time).

 

[takno]

I don't think so - it's all pretty tightly constrained (see screenshot from openrailwaymap below). I recall that the western approach speeds were increased to 25mph as part of the Leeds First project in 2001 which expanded the western approach to the present six tracks. Given the complex layout and tight curves it's probably not possible to increase it further (if it was, they would have done it at the time).

View attachment 175390

The previous speed limit was 10 or 15, which really was painfully slow. To judge from that screenshot the curves don't actually seem any tighter than the 45mph curve out towards Morley, so I suspect it's the fact that most trains are switching lines over slow crossovers and possibly the lack of any cant which limits the speed.

The addition of more lines might mean you can segregate most of the traffic at Leeds West Junction, simplifying Holbeck East and abolishing Holbeck West. That presumably would allow the 25mph section to be much shorter.

There's also the argument that if you are building new bridges and viaducts over the Glebe Road site anyway, and are considering more platforms on the car park, then you might as well snake over a completely separate viaduct which takes a straighter route. The only beneficiary of that would be the Harrogate line though.

 

[deltic08]

Somewhat similar to the ultimate solution for Manchester's Castlefield corridor, a metro tunnel from Salford Crescent to Longsight. I doubt either city will ever receive such an upgrade.


However the following was reported in March last year


Given the straightened times we live in I would suggest the Ripon reopening idea is now dead in the water. Especially as £7.8M was provided by the DfT towards the cost of a brand new fleet of all-electric buses, currently being delivered, to operate the Leeds-Harrogate-Ripon service. Massively cheaper than a rail reopening, which would essentially be a new railway, to serve a population of less than 17,000. This is one of those places where the provision of quality bus services is the most affordable way to provide enhanced public transport capacity. Ripon is not going to play any part in improving the rail network around Leeds.

Graham North is a paid minion at North Yorkshire County Hall and is ignorant of the facts of the group campaigning to reinstate Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton. He has always been against the campaign. The group committee includes a soil analyst, ex BR bridge designer, retired judge, solicitor, retired civil servant, retired NHS accountant and Dr Morgan. He is NOT a solitary campaigner.

The address by Peter North was to Councillors of Ripon and Skipton. Ripon Councillors and a few of Skipton Councillors knew of Peter Norths opposition to the proposal as Dr Morgan is a past member of Ripon City Council and a former Mayor.

Many studies have been done by Arup, Systra and JMP and all conclude that the line is viable especially after a demand forecast. Admittedly, construction costs have increased from £4M per mile in 2005 to £35M per mile in 2020 but the section with the greatest demand, Ripon-Harrogate, is still viable at £350M.

Latest visitor numbers is 1.3M per annum and all have to visit by road as there is no alternative.

Ripon is forecast to increase to 25,000 by 2030 due to numbers already in the house planning pipeline and Harrogate planned to exceed 100,000 again due to mushrooming house building. Harrogate alone deserves through trains to the north without travelling via and a change of trains in York.

It takes 74 minutes to travel from Harrogate to Northallerton by train via York according to NYCC but less than 30 minutes if the direct route through Ripon was open.

The bus takes 30 minutes from Ripon to Harrogate and 95 minutes Ripon to Leeds. Even longer in the peaks. A train would take 11 minutes to Harrogate and 40 minutes to Leeds. Fact, and just one reason why this line should be reinstated.

The forecast footfall per annum was 900,000 way back in 2004 with 65% travelling south and 35% travelling north. 89,000 would be visitors. I have another fifteen good reasons.
Can anybody tell me one reinstated railway in the last 20 years where footfall has not exceeded the estimated forecast?

 

[deltic08]

Yes, I completely agree.


Whatever the rights and wrongs of that decision, it's now done and dusted. I'm not sure what you would hope to achieve by corresponding further with LCC and WYCA.

East Leeds Extension is 5,000 houses, not 10,000, and I very much doubt that every house will contain someone commuting into Leeds every day. Thorpe Park station will be good for commuters at the southern end of the new developments, and a significant proportion of the development (around the A58) is too far north for either Thorpe Park or a station on the Wetherby line (although either option would work as a park and ride).

One last thought - a four-tracked line from Marsh Lane to near Garforth would allow for a much more frequent local service than a branch line to Wetherby. Which is preferable, a train every 15 minutes from Thorpe Park, or one every 30 minutes from Swarcliffe?

East Leeds new town is 5,000 in phase 1 and 5,000 in phase 2 stretching as far as and including Barwick.

The recognised thumb nail used by planners is 1.2 commuters per household. The nearest employment is Leeds.

As I have said before, the plan was to reopen stations at Penda's Way, Scholes and a P&R station on the A64 York-Leeds road.

I disagree that a more frequent service on the Leeds-York line would be preferable to reinstating the Wetherby line. 40,000 live within a mile of the trackbed now and 80,000 when East Leeds is completed. That is more than Garforth, Micklefield and Church Fenton combined.

 

[quantinghome]

East Leeds new town is 5,000 in phase 1 and 5,000 in phase 2 stretching as far as and including Barwick.

That's the first I've heard of a second phase stretching to Barwick. This is the current Leeds development plan map for the area:



There are two sites at Scholes (HG3-12 and HG3-13) allocated as 'safeguarded land' which amount to 910 houses.



It should be borne in mind that safeguarded land does not mean it will be built on. And even if it was built on, it's a limited extension to Scholes, not a 'new town' of 5000 houses.

So if you have details or links to the plans of this East Leeds new town please can you share them?

The recognised thumb nail used by planners is 1.2 commuters per household. The nearest employment is Leeds.

Who are we classing as a commuter and do you mean Leeds as a whole or Leeds city centre?

This source (https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/labourmarketlocal/E08000035/) gives total employment in Leeds as 392,000, and there are around 300,000 households, so that's 1.3 people per household in work. So it appears that planning rule of thumb refers to overall employment rather than commuters into the city centre. This source (https://www.businessupnorth.co.uk/r...f commuters,to survey research revealed today.) shows that around 15% of commuters travel to work by public transport and 47% use the car. The rest use active travel or WFH.



Those are the figures for the whole of Leeds. The total number of commuters into Leeds City Centre (Source: https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s252961/Connecting%20Leeds%20report%2011%2001%2024.pdf) is around 100,000 (assuming continued recovery of commuter numbers post-Covid), so 0.33 is a more realistic value for people per household commuting into Leeds City Centre.



So claims of an additional 10,000 commuters travelling into the city centre are very wide of the mark. It's more like 1700, assuming similar commuter patterns to the rest of Leeds.

 

[deltic08]

There are 300,000 households in Leeds so by that logic there are 360,000 people commuting into Leeds each day. This is an absurd number so I must question the logic.

No, just from East Leeds households of 10,000 houses.

I attended and spoke in opposition to East Leeds Orbital Road at the planning inquiry and it was mentioned there as a reason for the road. Nothing was mentioned of where 10,000 cars would be parked in Leeds if all commuters used a car and the amount of CO2 produced in the city centre. £120M wasted on a 4 mile road encouraging more car use when that amount would have paid for 3 miles of reinstated Wetherby line. It was a done deal. The inspector was deaf to any valid objections. The last and only time I used this road, April 2024, it was eerily deserted.

360,000 (4 Wembley Stadias worth) is not an absurd number. If you look carefully there will be 1.2 per household who have a job somewhere, not necessarily in Leeds, who have to commute to work. This was pre Covid before WFH was allowed.

 

[quantinghome]

No, just from East Leeds households of 10,000 houses.

I attended and spoke in opposition to East Leeds Orbital Road at the planning inquiry and it was mentioned there as a reason for the road. Nothing was mentioned of where 10,000 cars would be parked in Leeds if all commuters used a car and the amount of CO2 produced in the city centre. £120M wasted on a 4 mile road encouraging more car use when that amount would have paid for 3 miles of reinstated Wetherby line. It was a done deal. The inspector was deaf to any valid objections. The last and only time I used this road, April 2024, it was eerily deserted.

You realise that just because you don't personally use it, it might nevertheless be useful? I use it nearly every day. It's busy. Not clogged up but well used.

The road has been planned in one form or another since at least 1991. The real surprise is how long it's taken to be built.

360,000 (4 Wembley Stadias worth) is not an absurd number. If you look carefully there will be 1.2 per household who have a job somewhere, not necessarily in Leeds, who have to commute to work. This was pre Covid before WFH was allowed.

Your original claim was that an additional 10,000 people were going to be commuting into Leeds City Centre as a result of the planned "East Leeds new town". Yes, the 360,000 working people who live in Leeds are all working somewhere, but the available data suggests only around 100,000 work in the city centre. Assuming a similar proportion of East Leeds Extension development (5000 houses) residents would commute into the city centre, you would have only 1700 people commuting into the city centre. This is six times lower than your claim of 10,000 extra commuters.

Have you got any information about the phase 2 development which you say includes Barwick? I've searched and I can't find anything about it.