Which city in the UK is most likely to get a Tram/Light Rail system next?

[Arkeeos]

It’s obviously hard for me to come back from a thorough debunking as this but maybe you could expand even further on the reasons why you disagree?

I used to live and work in Leeds, I wasted long periods in congested traffic in the city, I’m not arguing against investment in the city

But a lot of the discussion on this thread seems to be little more than “big places have light rail networks” + “Leeds is a big place” = “Leeds should have a light rail network” with little discussion of the practicalities

In a way, Leeds is “cursed” with advantages. It’s got one city centre station, and that station is very central. It hasn’t lost huge swathes of local rail corridors, which sit wasted. It doesn’t have life expired infrastructure on local lines which needs expensive upgrades one way or the other. It has a number of suburban railway stations with at least a couple of trains per hour.

These are the disadvantages that other cities had which were part of the impetus for light rail networks

Plus Leeds doesn’t have any short branches to convert, the “shortest” termini is probably Ilkley, so nothing that looks as ripe as in other cities

So what would the justification be in Leeds? Whilst there are several congested corridors (Headingley!), there’s no disused railway alignments ready for trains to run along, beating the road traffic… instead, the only way of getting trams that way looks to be running them directly on the A61 and getting stuck in the same traffic. A LOT of disruption just to build something no faster than a bus service

There needs to be something more substantial than “everyone else has got one, so we deserve one too”, but the arguments I see in favour of Leeds are very short on specifics and much more focused on complaints about a general “unfairness”

But, as you say, totally irrelevant.

Its not very relevant because no other country in the world determines whether or not a place needs higher order transit by reused railway alignments, its done by modern day need to serve the needs of the city, which the city absolutely does need.

Population figures are the largest driving force behind whether a place needs a higher form of transit, because the primary purpose of higher order transit like a tram or train is to transport more people with less drivers, lowering labour cost, which is also why speed is not too relevant of a factor either.

thousands of other cities do just fine with trams not in old railway alignments, look at France, and the new tram systems that they have opened up. To say that Leeds doesn't have a good business case for trams is quite frankly ridiculous, when you have tiny cities like Le Havre getting new tram networks, unless you think there is something that makes Leeds significantly different to every other city in the world.

The reason people call for Leeds to have trams isn't because "Everyone else has got one, so we deserve one too" its because Leeds is the largest metropolitan area in Europe without a metro or tram system (by a fair margin), which is a pretty good reason if you ask me.

 

[edwin_m]

Its not very relevant because no other country in the world determines whether or not a place needs higher order transit by reused railway alignments, its done by modern day need to serve the needs of the city, which the city absolutely does need.

Population figures are the largest driving force behind whether a place needs a higher form of transit, because the primary purpose of higher order transit like a tram or train is to transport more people with less drivers, lowering labour cost, which is also why speed is not too relevant of a factor either.

thousands of other cities do just fine with trams not in old railway alignments, look at France, and the new tram systems that they have opened up. To say that Leeds doesn't have a good business case for trams is quite frankly ridiculous, unless you think there is something that makes Leeds significantly different to every other city in the world.

Paris has one tramway on an old railway alignment and several tram-train routes on railway alignments that still exist. But you are correct, most of the French tramways are street-based, but they ensure a route free of other traffic (except for crossings where the tram has priority), known as "site propre". Speed and also reliability are important - as well as being a better alternative to the car, a faster service will need fewer vehicles and drivers to carry the same number of passengers. A tram that needs expensive street track but sits in queues of cars is probably just a waste of money.

Population density is at least as important as actual population. If the potential users are thinly spread, as in typical British outer suburbs, then there probably won't be enough ridership to sustain a tram.

 

[bluenoxid]

The reason people call for Leeds to have trams isn't because "Everyone else has got one, so we deserve one too" its because Leeds is the largest metropolitan area in Europe without a metro or tram system (by a fair margin), which is a pretty good reason if you ask me.

It’s a poor case unfortunately.

Leeds has a high population (some of the figures include Wetherby, which is a separate town) but a relatively low population density. Le Havre and Marseille which someone called Tom Forth also pushes have higher densities as far as I understand. These are helped by this big blue wet thing that limit your building options for both of these cities, whilst Leeds has had limited constraints to expansion in all directions.

Density is increasing in Leeds as high rise developments pop up. My hope is that something can be developed off the back of it. It is a shame that HS2 has been pushed out because it offered an opportunity to really do something in the centre and potentially create a corridor that could be used.

 

[YorksLad12]

The reason people call for Leeds to have trams isn't because "Everyone else has got one, so we deserve one too" its because Leeds is the largest metropolitan area in Europe without a metro or tram system (by a fair margin), which is a pretty good reason if you ask me.

That's no reason.

Will it reduce congestion and CO2 emissions? How many households will it serve? Will it open up new business or housing developments? Those are better reasons, if the answers can be quantified.

 

[Parjon]

The reason people call for Leeds to have trams isn't because "Everyone else has got one, so we deserve one too" its because Leeds is the largest metropolitan area in Europe without a metro or tram system (by a fair margin), which is a pretty good reason if you ask me.

While Leeds may be inside a designated metropolitan county, it isn't on its own a large metropolitan area. Assuming any tram doesn't go meaningfully beyond the city boundaries, not serving Halifax, Harrogate, Bradford or any of the other separate and distinct towns and cities in the county, this doesn't quite hold true.

I think it's an important distinction to make, because determining where is to be served - both immediately and eventually - has a massive impact on design choices from the start.

If West Yorkshire wants a "metropolitan transit system", it will need to be quite unlike anything seen elsewhere, due to the distances and web of centres with their own traveling patterns.

It would be a massive investment.

On the other hand, if Leeds wants a city transit system, like Nottingham and Sheffield have, this is more obtainable. But the result will clash with anyone expecting something befitting a city of 3 million people (which doesn't in reality exist).

 

[Vespa]

Surely Glasgow is disqualified as it already has the Subway?

What can work as it did in the old Glasgow tram system is to link the subway to the tram system to make it more relevant.

Glasgow subway is isolated, small and the area where the stops are have changed, it risk becoming irrelevant.

 

[stuu]

It’s a poor case unfortunately.

Leeds has a high population (some of the figures include Wetherby, which is a separate town) but a relatively low population density. Le Havre and Marseille which someone called Tom Forth also pushes have higher densities as far as I understand. These are helped by this big blue wet thing that limit your building options for both of these cities, whilst Leeds has had limited constraints to expansion in all directions.

This is a map of population density. It's a bit old (2015), but I doubt the basics have changed very much. Leeds has very similar population densities to other British cities (even if they have labelled Bradford, not Leeds)

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Leeds has a high population (some of the figures include Wetherby, which is a separate town) but a relatively low population density. Le Havre and Marseille which someone called Tom Forth also pushes have higher densities as far as I understand. These are helped by this big blue wet thing that limit your building options for both of these cities, whilst Leeds has had limited constraints to expansion in all directions.

Part of the reason threads like this have a tendency to devolve into arguments about which population figures to use, is the daft 1974 boundaries which are now apparently set in stone (see also, discussion of Skelmersdale). Leeds may not have an ocean blocking development on one side, but it does have boundaries with neighbouring Local Authorities just a few miles from the city centre in some directions- in particular around the Birstall junction of the M62/M621: a prime example being the "Leeds" IKEA which is technically not in Leeds at all.

 

[J-2739]

Its not very relevant because no other country in the world determines whether or not a place needs higher order transit by reused railway alignments, its done by modern day need to serve the needs of the city, which the city absolutely does need.

Population figures are the largest driving force behind whether a place needs a higher form of transit, because the primary purpose of higher order transit like a tram or train is to transport more people with less drivers, lowering labour cost, which is also why speed is not too relevant of a factor either.

thousands of other cities do just fine with trams not in old railway alignments, look at France, and the new tram systems that they have opened up. To say that Leeds doesn't have a good business case for trams is quite frankly ridiculous, when you have tiny cities like Le Havre getting new tram networks, unless you think there is something that makes Leeds significantly different to every other city in the world.

The reason people call for Leeds to have trams isn't because "Everyone else has got one, so we deserve one too" its because Leeds is the largest metropolitan area in Europe without a metro or tram system (by a fair margin), which is a pretty good reason if you ask me.

This.

 

[Brubulus]

The best solution for Leeds is an elevated light metro system like the DLR. It would be expensive, but as most of the route could be constructed directly above roads and it would be fully grade-separated it could work far better than a tramway. Leeds-Bradford should be the core route with lines running of that route to serve suburban centres across WY.

 

[bluenoxid]

The best solution for Leeds is an elevated light metro system like the DLR. It would be expensive, but as most of the route could be constructed directly above roads and it would be fully grade-separated it could work far better than a tramway. Leeds-Bradford should be the core route with lines running off that route to serve suburban centres across WY.

The fun starts above the big junctions, which will require huge structures to clear them, the elevated stations and in the areas where there really is not a lot of space for anything.

 

[daodao]

The best solution for Leeds is an elevated light metro system like the DLR. It would be expensive.............

While it would keep the light rail system segregated from traffic, unfortunately, it would be unaffordable for a provincial city, yet alone unsightly.

 

[tbtc]

Its not very relevant because no other country in the world determines whether or not a place needs higher order transit by reused railway alignments, its done by modern day need to serve the needs of the city, which the city absolutely does need.

Population figures are the largest driving force behind whether a place needs a higher form of transit, because the primary purpose of higher order transit like a tram or train is to transport more people with less drivers, lowering labour cost, which is also why speed is not too relevant of a factor either.

thousands of other cities do just fine with trams not in old railway alignments, look at France, and the new tram systems that they have opened up. To say that Leeds doesn't have a good business case for trams is quite frankly ridiculous, when you have tiny cities like Le Havre getting new tram networks, unless you think there is something that makes Leeds significantly different to every other city in the world.

The reason people call for Leeds to have trams isn't because "Everyone else has got one, so we deserve one too" its because Leeds is the largest metropolitan area in Europe without a metro or tram system (by a fair margin), which is a pretty good reason if you ask me.

That’s a lot of words to say that you can’t think of a compelling case in Leeds, just the general grievance of “Leeds is a big place so should have one”

Lots of talk on this thread about Leeds “deserving” a network with no clear idea of quite what/ where, just “please write us a cheque for hundreds of millions of pounds because we ought to have trams”

As I say, I’m not against investment in the city I used to live in, but I think it’d be better to start with a genuine problem (e.g. Leicester/ Bristol etc have a “Central” Station some way from the actual city centre, Bradford has multiple central train stations, plenty of cities have significant suburbs/satellite towns that lack rail, we have some “secondary” lines that have terribly located stations, we have branches operated by 139s/230s), there are compelling reasons in many places… simply repeating the population size isn’t going to cut it, sorry

 

[edwin_m]

This is a map of population density. It's a bit old (2015), but I doubt the basics have changed very much. Leeds has very similar population densities to other British cities (even if they have labelled Bradford, not Leeds)

But the other cities have the disused rail alignments that make light rail much easier...

 

[Brubulus]

The fun starts above the big junctions, which will require huge structures to clear them, the elevated stations and in the areas where there really is not a lot of space for anything.

While it would keep the light rail system segregated from traffic, unfortunately, it would be unaffordable for a provincial city, yet alone unsightly.

It would be unsightly, but there is an obvious route through Central Leeds, even if it is 500M from the station but is is possible for a spur to be constructed. Stations could easily be built but the whole system could easily be more of a pain than just digging some tunnels. Maybe HS2 TBMs could be reused for the tunnels to reduce costs but some sort of higher level transport than buses is needed for Leeds but a regular tram system would be a huge cost for little benefit while a slightly more expensive light metro could provide a far larger benefit.

 

[Parjon]

The best solution for Leeds is an elevated light metro system like the DLR. It would be expensive, but as most of the route could be constructed directly above roads and it would be fully grade-separated it could work far better than a tramway. Leeds-Bradford should be the core route with lines running of that route to serve suburban centres across WY.

The population density map posted above underlines the points I made, as does this.

While your option may result in a really impressive system connecting the whole county, in practice it would be a London scale transport system across an area of comparable size of Greater London, but which has only a fraction of the population to use it. And that's assuming it serves all parts of West Yorkshire.

Conflating giving Leeds a transit system with giving West Yorkshire a transit system, and expecting a major city infrastructure project as a result, just doesn't work. West Yorkshire doesn't have the requisite density and monocentricity, while Leeds itself just doesn't have the numbers for anything more than Nottingham or Sheffield.

 

[Brubulus]

The population density map posted above underlines the points I made, as does this.

While your option may result in a really impressive system connecting the whole county, in practice it would be a London scale transport system across an area of comparable size of Greater London, but which has only a fraction of the population to use it. And that's assuming it serves all parts of West Yorkshire.

Conflating giving Leeds a transit system with giving West Yorkshire a transit system, and expecting a major city infrastructure project as a result, just doesn't work. West Yorkshire doesn't have the requisite density and monocentricity, while Leeds itself just doesn't have the numbers for anything more than Nottingham or Sheffield.

You don't need a London scale system - instead London can provide answers for how WY can build a system to a budget. I'd build it as a fixed cost, fixed size system to be built relatively quickly with a single line from Dewsbury to somewhere in East Leeds (plus possibly some sort of spur, budget dependant) via Bradford. The DLR cost only the equivalent of a little over £200 million today using that principle and even if that has to be multiplied by three to five for Leeds/WY given any use of tunnels etc. A key plank of a high quality integrated transport system for Leeds has already been announced and funded as part of TRU providing a frequent service to the local stations between Leeds and Huddersfield. Buses can and should continue to play a key role in the WY transport system, especially off major arteries and the desire should not be to link every settlement into a wide ranging metro, but to instead provide a core artery for the region's public transport, a lot like Metrolink before the Phase 3 expansions but instead in a grade separated environment, given the lack of reasonable corridors in Leeds.

 

[telstarbox]

The original DLR was mostly built in cheap ex industrial wasteland (before the skyscrapers were finished), and the extensions to Stratford and Lewisham only worked because Canary Wharf was by then established as a huge employment destination which also has limited road access due to the river. Does any of this apply to Leeds?

 

[geordieblue]

A few thoughts on Leeds/West Yorkshire generally.
Leeds is not an enormous place but compared to other similar-sized cities - Sheffield, Nottingham, Edinburgh - there’s arguably plenty of scope for a light rail system on population alone. Once you bring in West Yorkshire (which as noted is very much within the Leeds sphere of influence - Ilkley, Wakefield, Birstall etc, even places like Harrogate in North Yorks) and there is a very decently sized catchment as well as a large travel to work area, congested roads and relatively poor public transport.
I don’t necessarily buy the line that the National Rail services into Leeds are adequate. Sure, some lines are well-served by long electric stock but others have a train only every hour or use two-car trains which are packed out in the peak. The stopping patterns on others are very constrained due to long distance traffic, which makes a mess of the timetable. When you consider that a vast swathe of the city through Harehills, Chapel Alperton etc has absolutely no railway (and indeed never has had - Leeds North East is one of v few Parliamentary constituencies to never have had a railway!) and the coverage becomes a bit more lacking.
On top of this Leeds station is relatively centrally located but the centre itself is fairly big which does lead to a lack of coverage more broadly. If you’re going to the universities it’s a good 20-minute walk up the hill. If you’re going to the bus station it’s another 15-20 minutes. Many stations on existing lines serve urban centres poorly too e.g. Headingley, New Pudsey. There is a genuine problem in coverage of urban areas, in the centre but also elsewhere, which adds to travel times. If I live in central Headingley and want to get to the arena, say, by train, it’s a 15-minute walk to Headingley station, a 6-minute train to town, and a 15-minute walk to the arena. The train isn’t a great option for a large number of journeys.

And yet as many have noted the roads in Leeds (barring certain corridors) do not lend themselves to tramways; there are few disused railways, particularly in the north of the city where they would be most useful (although there would be space for four-tracking of some lines); and the relatively low density of much of well-heeled Leeds reduces the ease of serving many people.

My solution: some sort of Leeds Crossrail. It doesn’t help that Leeds station is full - so why not dig a new one underneath, maybe initially linking the Harrogate line with Wakefield Kirkgate and Bradford Interchange to Garforth? You could four-track bits of routes or split others, attaining maximum segregation, and build underground stations in differing parts of the city centre to provide better coverage - without the need to lay miles of tram tracks. Improved frequencies and new stations would reduce the average journey time, and could take pressure off longer-distance routes. You still have the problem of serving the northeast of the city but I’d suggest improving the existing rail network - hamstrung by long-distance traffic and the sheer complexity of Leeds station - could improve matters no end.

 

[YorksLad12]

On the other hand, if Leeds wants a city transit system, like Nottingham and Sheffield have, this is more obtainable. But the result will clash with anyone expecting something befitting a city of 3 million people (which doesn't in reality exist).

The population of West Yorkshire is 2.35 million I think, after the last census (I recall the nmbers coming out late last year).

Part of the reason threads like this have a tendency to devolve into arguments about which population figures to use, is the daft 1974 boundaries which are now apparently set in stone (see also, discussion of Skelmersdale). Leeds may not have an ocean blocking development on one side, but it does have boundaries with neighbouring Local Authorities just a few miles from the city centre in some directions- in particular around the Birstall junction of the M62/M621: a prime example being the "Leeds" IKEA which is technically not in Leeds at all.

Technically, and not actually at all - it's in Kirklees, the motorway providing the boundary. The former West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council decided not to build anything in the area. After the Council was abolished, Leeds kept to the decision while Kirklees went "business rates!" which is why the two developments went ahead on either side of Geldern Road went ahead.

From memory, no form of Mass Transit is planned through the area.

 

[J-2739]

That’s a lot of words to say that you can’t think of a compelling case in Leeds, just the general grievance of “Leeds is a big place so should have one”

Why is that not a case in itself? Surely a city the size of Leeds should be able to sustain a mass transit system, even excluding the outer settlements like Wetherby.

As I say, I’m not against investment in the city I used to live in, but I think it’d be better to start with a genuine problem (e.g. Leicester/ Bristol etc have a “Central” Station some way from the actual city centre, Bradford has multiple central train stations, plenty of cities have significant suburbs/satellite towns that lack rail, we have some “secondary” lines that have terribly located stations, we have branches operated by 139s/230s), there are compelling reasons in many places… simply repeating the population size isn’t going to cut it, sorry

How do you define 'genuine' problem? You could look at Bradford for example and say that it actually does fine with the two stations, that they serve different markets. Then you could look at Leeds with the heavy amounts of congestion with buses during the peak hours on the Headrow.

A mass transit system for West Yorkshire may be larger in scale a solution compared to the 'boring but necessary' examples you've lined out, but that does not make it any less valid nor potent.

 

[YorksLad12]

My solution: some sort of Leeds Crossrail. It doesn’t help that Leeds station is full - so why not dig a new one underneath, maybe initially linking the Harrogate line with Wakefield Kirkgate and Bradford Interchange to Garforth? You could four-track bits of routes or split others, attaining maximum segregation, and build underground stations in differing parts of the city centre to provide better coverage - without the need to lay miles of tram tracks. Improved frequencies and new stations would reduce the average journey time, and could take pressure off longer-distance routes. You still have the problem of serving the northeast of the city but I’d suggest improving the existing rail network - hamstrung by long-distance traffic and the sheer complexity of Leeds station - could improve matters no end.

An excellent suggestion, with just two problems. Firstly, the station is built on arches above a river; secondly, the station is built on arches above a river. (You can fill in the rest of the quotation yourselves.)

The 'T' station plan is still on the table, I believe, ostensibly for high-speed services that don't exists but could be used to provide platforms for terminating services from the south.

 

[geordieblue]

An excellent suggestion, with just two problems. Firstly, the station is built on arches above a river; secondly, the station is built on arches above a river. (You can fill in the rest of the quotation yourselves.)

The 'T' station plan is still on the table, I believe, ostensibly for high-speed services that don't exists but could be used to provide platforms for terminating services from the south.

It is hardly as if *all* of the station is built over a river - plenty of it stays north of the Aire - and you can always dig deeper; some of the gradients on the Tyne and Wear Metro (and indeed on Thameslink if you want) are extremely steep. If you’re staying underground in town then going under the river isn’t necessarily a killer.

My is

The 'T' station plan is still on the table, I believe, ostensibly for high-speed services that don't exists but could be used to provide platforms for terminating services from the south.

My issue with the T-station plan is that it would doubtless cost almost as much as, say, a tunnel under Leeds station and provide far less benefit, whilst further increasing transit times across the station complex. 0 to 17 is bad enough! IMHO there are better ways of spending the money than building a great big T-station which realistically could only be used by anything coming from the Stourton direction, i.e. primarily local stoppers.

 

[stuu]

But the other cities have the disused rail alignments that make light rail much easier...

With the caveat that I don't actually know Leeds very well, it does have lots and lots of wide roads, often where the original tram network ran. Those seem to tie in fairly well with where the bus network runs - which is presumably a sensible proxy for potential demand for a higher capacity service. Clearly there are places where there would need to be engineering solutions, either removing road space from cars, a bit of demolition or underpasses/viaducts, but nothing insurmountable, nothing that hasn't been done across the Pennines.

It's interesting that the north edge of Leeds is nearly 5 miles of solid urban development from any railway station - possibly the longest distance in the country?

 

[edwin_m]

With the caveat that I don't actually know Leeds very well, it does have lots and lots of wide roads, often where the original tram network ran. Those seem to tie in fairly well with where the bus network runs - which is presumably a sensible proxy for potential demand for a higher capacity service. Clearly there are places where there would need to be engineering solutions, either removing road space from cars, a bit of demolition or underpasses/viaducts, but nothing insurmountable, nothing that hasn't been done across the Pennines.

It's interesting that the north edge of Leeds is nearly 5 miles of solid urban development from any railway station - possibly the longest distance in the country?

I'm not too familiar with Leeds either but I know some of these roads have been used for guided busways. These have some disadvantages compared with trams, but have the benefit that bus routes can fan out at the suburban end to serve lower-density development without the cost of tram tracks on every branch.

Bus deregulation is the other reason, not mentioned so far on this thread, why trams are more difficult in the UK. Other countries can re-organise their bus networks to feed into the tram, which can work well if done properly despite many people having to change between buses and trams. In the UK outside London this is virtually impossible, so the tram has to compete on speed, and some people who might otherwise use the tram will be on competing buses instead so tram ridership and revenue is reduced. If Manchester and other cities succeed with bus franchising then that situation might change.

 

[daodao]

With the caveat that I don't actually know Leeds very well, it does have lots and lots of wide roads, often where the original tram network ran. Those seem to tie in fairly well with where the bus network runs - which is presumably a sensible proxy for potential demand for a higher capacity service. Clearly there are places where there would need to be engineering solutions, either removing road space from cars, a bit of demolition or underpasses/viaducts, but nothing insurmountable, nothing that hasn't been done across the Pennines.

It's interesting that the north edge of Leeds is nearly 5 miles of solid urban development from any railway station - possibly the longest distance in the country?

There are a number of wide roads in the outer Leeds suburbs, often where the original tram network ran; I mentioned the route from Harehills to Roundhay (former tram, now bus, route 3) in an earlier post. However, the roads through the inner suburbs are much narrower and there are no alternatives other than tunnelling to bypass them, which is unaffordable for a provincial city. Manchester by contrast had underused rail lines into the edge of the city centre, and these are used for most of the tram network with the exception of the Ashton line. Despite the huge potential demand, there is resistance to building a tramway along Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road in Manchester, and similar problems exist for nearly all potential tram routes into Leeds city centre.

Proposals to re-introduce trams to Leeds, that were ongoing from the 1970s, were killed off by Alistair Darling in 2005, and the subsequent trolleybus proposals were subsequently scrapped too. The idea is now dead in the water.

 

[geoffk]

I seem to be the first to mention Bristol, the city where I grew up. At that time a number of lines closed which might have formed the basis of a light rail system - to Yate/Warmley and Brislington/Whitchurch as well as lines into the docks, one of which passed behind Temple Meads station. One of those mentioned is now a busy cycleway and the other rights of way have disappeared under new development. The city still relies heavily on buses but these, outside London, are seen as having a low social status. This perception, along with the lack of comprehensive bus priority on the highway, makes it difficult to attract car owners. The UK does have the Workplace Parking Levy, a charge on workplace parking spaces used for commuting, but so far only Nottingham has made use of it. It was supposed to be the answer to funding large-scale investment in public transport but acceptance by the public and the business community are likely barriers. Perhaps we need to consider the OP's question again after the next election!

 

[daodao]

Perhaps we need to consider the OP's question again after the next election!

The historic record in Leeds and the UK as a whole shows that Labour are anti-tram; they are not a fairy g-dmother for light rail enthusiasts.

 

[geoffk]

The historic record in Leeds and the UK as a whole shows that Labour are anti-tram; they are not a fairy g-dmother for light rail enthusiasts.

True, but we might get a coalition government!

 

[tbtc]

Why is that not a case in itself? Surely a city the size of Leeds should be able to sustain a mass transit system, even excluding the outer settlements like Wetherby

On paper, of course a city the size of Leeds could sustain a mass transit system (Blackpool can sustain trams), but where?

People on here keep focusing on population statistics rather than looking at the real problems in Leeds and where light rail could be a solution (given that there are no obvious corridors to convert, unlike in some other cities)

You can point to congestion in Harehills/ Headingley etc but how does a tram solve those? By running along the same streets as the existing traffic (because there’s no alternative route for a tram to run, but also no other roads to restrict vehicles to)? Spending hundreds of millions of pounds on something no faster than existing buses?

How do you define 'genuine' problem? You could look at Bradford for example and say that it actually does fine with the two stations, that they serve different markets. Then you could look at Leeds with the heavy amounts of congestion with buses during the peak hours on the Headrow

That’s a genuine problem, I’ve been caught in that traffic on many occasions, I’m not a big fan, but how do you solve it with light rail?

Would it be looking tram tracks on the existing road and having trams caught in the same congestion? Or making Headrow tram-only, in which case where do the buses go? Boar Lane is often snarled up already. And , whilst trams might mean fewer buses needed, the wide variety of routes serving Headrow mean you’d need a lot of tram corridors to have much effect

Sheffield had Arundel Gate, so the buses that used to use High Street/ Church Street to get between Castle Square and Furnival Gate now run along the former dual carriageway, leaving High Street for the trams (plus a handful of bus services towards West Street, but only in one direction). But where’s the Leeds equivalent (of being able to divert buses etc)?