Road, Rail & Access Issues

[Bigman]

Time for my daily daft post!!

I wonder if the government has ever thought about extending the M65 from Colne right across to meet the A1 somewhere near Kirk Deighton. This would effectively be a new northern relief road for the M62. Would be mighty close to LBA if it went through the Wharfe Valley.

 

[White Heather]

Bigman I think you should write to the PM and the Minister for Transport suggesting it. Sadly I can't see it happening any time soon, but its actually not a bad idea as it would also provide a motorway Skipton By Pass plus an Ilkley and Otley by pass. If it linked up then with the Harrogate and Knaresborough by pass, it would end up providing them with a motorway too - along the route of the original Pudsey - Dishforth road.

Of course it would mean putting a motorway through areas of outstanding natural beauty which means it will probably never happen.

 

[wawkrk]

New link road to DSA.

http://www.constructionenquirer.com/201 ... link-road/

 

[White Heather]

I doubt very much that they were planning a dual carriageway - probably just a decent width single carriageway road. I agree though that there would be some engineering required. The stretch from the A65 up to Brownberried Lane is too steep and would need levelling out a little, so probably a cutting required. Then a roundabout at Brownberrie Lane, a cutting through the golf course and quite possibly a bridge over for Bayton Lane. The area around the old reservoir would be a challenge, and then the deep valleys between Whitehouse Lane and Bramhope would probably require bridges too. Certainly not cheap, but many benefits not only for LBA but in terms of diverting traffic away from both Yeadon and Rawdon. Effectively, traffic heading from Otley/Harrogate etc would be split from the Bradford bound traffic at Bramhope and travel times into Leeds would be cut considerably.

 

[wawkrk]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

Well done Leeds city council for making Leeds the number 1 most congested city in the UK.
Probably down to reduced road widths, bike lanes, and, no new roads for 50 years.

Top Ten Cities for Congestion (% busier at peak times than during non-peak times):
1.Istanbul (Turkey) - 57%
2.Warsaw (Poland) - 45%
3.Marseille (France) - 40%
4.Palermo (Italy) - 40%
5.Rome (Italy) - 34%
6.Paris (France) - 34%
7.Stuttgart (Germany) - 33%
8.Brussels (Belgium) - 32%
9.Hamburg (Germany) - 32%
10.Stockholm (Sweden) - 30%

...and the ranking of British cities in the European list:
1.Leeds/Bradford - 27%
2.London - 26%
3.Nottingham - 24%
4.Manchester - 22%
5.Birmingham - 20%
6.Sheffield - 20%
7.Newcastle-Sunderland - 20%
8.Liverpool - 20%
9.Glasgow - 17%

wawkrk

 

[Bigman]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

And I bet the A65 has a lot to do with it. Horsforth roundabout has been abysmal this week.

Funny that in the YEP today there is growing support for an underground metro/tube of whatever description. Maybe that's exactly what we need. An underground railway that comes down the existing Ilkley line, and goes underground somewhere near High Royds, and then goes under the airport, Horsforth, Headingley, Hyde Park, Leeds and comes out somewhere near Stourton.

Would probably cost about the same as the £16 billion Crossrail scheme in London, but by god it would benefit one hell of a lot of people.

 

[cmj]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

And I bet the A65 has a lot to do with it. Horsforth roundabout has been abysmal this week.

The A65 and the A660.

The A660 from the outer ring road in is just a cluster***Please Read Forum Terms of Service***. It fails badly at two tasks it's trying to do. It's rubbish as a main road in and out of Leeds from Otley and beyond, and it's awful as a road for the people who live on it to get to places.

I'd strip it of it's 'A' status at the ring road and send traffic around the ring road and the A61. which is at least dual carriageway.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

You wouldn't need to send me down the A61, as that's exactly what I do every day, even though I live in Cookridge. Lots more do the same thing, although eventually the A61 which reach breaking point too. Its already a pain between the roundabouts at Potternewton and in the evening there is a queue all the way from Sheepcar to Potternewton Lane. The A660 through Headingley is a complete joke and has been for years. Even in the 60's and early 70's the queue at Shaw Lane was back to the old Headingley Bus Depot, and from Hyde Park was back to the Original Oak.

However, I have just contributed to a thread that is rapidly departing from the intended topic..............

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Leeds Bradford Infrastructure & Developments

Well done Leeds city council for making Leeds the number 1 most congested city in the UK.
Probably down to reduced road widths, bike lanes, and, no new roads for 50 years...............

................and the ranking of British cities in the European list:
1.Leeds/Bradford - 27%
2.London - 26%
3.Nottingham - 24%
4.Manchester - 22%
5.Birmingham - 20%
6.Sheffield - 20%
7.Newcastle-Sunderland - 20%
8.Liverpool - 20%
9.Glasgow - 17%

Earlier this year another survey showed the slowest UK cities by average traffic speed which I suppose amounts to broadly the same thing as congestion:

1. London 11.8 mph
2. Manchester 17.4
3. Edinburgh 18.5
4. Glasgow 19.0
5. Bristol 19.6
6. Belfast 19.9
7. Birmingham 21.8

Leeds didn't make this list.

Interesting to see that the cities with trams (Manchester, Sheffield, Nottingham and parts of south London) are in one or both these lists so perhaps trams are not the panacea that some people seem to believe.

 

[Aviador]

[textarea]Leeds Bradford Airport rail link 'to happen'

Plans for a rail link at Leeds Bradford Airport should happen in the next ten years, the leader of Leeds City Council has said.

Improving public transport to the airport from cities and towns forms part of a £1bn upgrade of the transport infrastructure across West Yorkshire.

Full Story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19978920[/textarea]

The BBC Look North coverage of this was totally incorrect. It made it out as if the Harrogate line would be made into a tram train and we already know this is no longer the case.

Last week was speaking to a member of the Harrogate Chamber of Trade & Commerce who sits on the airport Consultative Committee with White Heather. He insisted it would be new stations with upgraded rail stock as opposed to a tram train as the BBC seems to think.

 

[flyboy]

Whatever you've been told, Aviador, I wouldn't dismiss the tram train proposal that the BBC reported. Nothing has been decided about the Harrogate line and it won't be the Harrogate Chamber of Trade & Commerce that makes the decision! Metro still have proposals to introduce tram trains on the Harrogate line with a link to the airport and on-street running in Leeds City Centre. Indeed both Harrogate line "heavy rail" electrification and an airport tram train using the same tracks may well come about as the very nature of a tram train is that it is compatible with ordinary trains on the same tracks. The tram train experiment soon to start between Sheffield and Rotherham is designed to prove the technology in the UK and Metro is watching it with much interest.

 

[White Heather]

If they do both options, those tram trains had better get a move on, as the intention is to double frequency of trains on the Harrogate line, whilst the trains themselves will be considerably quicker. I can't see how they can fit both on the track if they do that. Aviador is correct however, in that it has been openly stated at the Consultative Committee that the tram train option is dead and the preferred option is a parkway station with shuttle to the airport. It can be done much sooner and has, overall, a greater impact not only for the airport but the entire area between Leeds and Harrogate. A tram train is useless to Harrogate unless it goes there too - and it won't. I am sure Metro are interested in the tram train, but they won't make the final decision either. A business case is already being drawn up for the electrification of the Harrogate line including the parkway station, whereas the tram train option hasn't even been looked at in any real detail yet as they don't even know for sure how it would work - not helped by a delay in the testing. Originally it was supposed to be tested on the Penistone line a couple of years back.
What the BBC didn't mention that was in the YEP was the fact that the extension of the proposed trolley bus to the airport is also an option for future consideration - I presume as well as, not instead of a rail link.

However, it is great news that the transfer of the power to direct spend in the Leeds City Region has had an immediate impact

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Wawkrk

I suggest you look at your post again and understand it for the diatribe it is. The very measure of "congestion" in that report is nonsensical. All it says is that the roads are 27% busier at peak times than non peak. It is ludicrous and absolutely does NOT suggest that Leeds is congested. Quite frankly, it is not. It is perfectly easy to drive around Leeds at peak times without sitting around for too long (with some minor exceptions that have already been mentioned). Certainly, I have driven around numerous other cities in this country at peak times and, let me tell you, Leeds is heaven. Manchester? A disgrace. London? Apalling at all times of the day AND you have to pay for the privilege. 2 cities with tremendous public transportation infrastructure.

All this report shows is that Leeds has the biggest uplift at peak times. All it possibly shows, if anything at all, is that the public transport system in Leeds is either at saturation point, inefficient, or both. It also proves that you can use any statistic you like to make something look worse than it is. You have fallen into this trap in a big way and used it to add fuel to your anti council fire. It could even be suggested that it shows that Leeds has a massive effect on the surrounding area in terms of jobs. In other words, it is a very successful city and a centre for employment for a much larger area than Leeds itself.

As for no new roads in 50 years? M62, M1 link, Stanningley Bypass, Inner Ring Road completion etc. Plus, great strides have been taken in recent times to improve public transport, especially along routes that see heavy traffic use - guided bus, A65 scheme etc. There is then the failed tram bid. This was not the fault of LCC. It was at the behest of the government. This would have brought a massive improvement along the Otley Road. Sadly, it did not come to be. It is not like LCC has just not bothered - it has been an integral part of an awful lot. And, frankly, purely for getting around, I would rather live in Leeds than Manchester, London, Birmingham, Newcastle, Sheffield etc etc etc.

 

[wawkrk]

whoshotjimmi -
I assume you work for Leeds City Council but pretend not to.
Can you then explain as to why no road improvements to the airport in the last 50 years.

 

[ls27]

If you go back to one of my previous post, you will see that the West Riding County Council did start work in the Green Lane area. The roundabout was built at the junction with the A65 and the road was widened. All the land from the A65 was purchased to widen Green Lane (now designated A658). The plans were drawn up to alter the junction at the top of Green Lane along with a bypass to run from Apperley Lane the A65. This was all going to go ahead. but the Thatcher Governmet pulled the plug on the money and told the County Coucil to sell the land. Blame the Government of the day not the old County Coucil.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

whoshotjimmi -
I assume you work for Leeds City Council but pretend not to.
Can you then explain as to why no road improvements to the airport in the last 50 years.

I can quite categorically say that I do not work for Leeds City Council. Indeed, I currently work in Huddersfield (which, incidentally, is another place with a significantly worse traffic problem than Leeds).

I speak as someone who has lived my whole life thus far in numerous districts of Leeds. I know almost every road like the back of my hand. I know what is good about the city. I know, and am realistic about, what is bad about the city. Congestion simply is NOT one of them. At rush hour, I can travel from the furthest extremities of the city, through the centre and out to the opposite extremity in roughly 45 minutes to an hour - regardless of which route I choose. The only exception to that is the Otley Road. And there are numerous ways around that. Indeed, I try to avoid Headingley at ALL costs.

The other bottlenecks are well bemoaned - the A65 going past VUE cinemas - cannot be widened and will therefore always be a troublespot. The Ring Road anticlockwise at Horsforth. Dawsons corner to Rodley roundabout and Armley Road inbound due to the 2+ lane. But there is a route around all of these and, even if I choose to follow these routes, it will only add 15 minutes or so onto the journey.

However, all the bottlenecks have some form of public transport masterplan. I would suggest that the reason there has been no improvements to the airport roads in that time is because, for the most part, they were not required as the airport was not expanding much. Or that the airport could not be provided as justification for the direction of public funds. In my time, all road building and improvements in the city has been to the benefit of industry and business as that is what brings in the money. It makes sound fiscal sense and shows that LCC have the future economy in mind and not just the here and now.

Of course, access to the airport is now an issue as the network is reaching capacity. But for the council to spend money on improving access, they would have to be convinced there would be a medium to long term return. I have no doubt that, with a bit of political will, the roads could quite easily be improved.

I can think of numerous ways to deal with all the aforementioned bottlenecks without putting too much effort in and without significant major reconstruction or additional building required.

But, let's say the roads were improved so that 6mppa could be handled. Would LBA itself be able to handle that number? In the current guise, no. So the future growth at LBA would (currently) not be able to pay for the work. Which makes the likelihood of throwing money at it very slim. Rainbows do not produce pots of gold and nor do councils.

Now, if LBA got its act together, made massive strides to build a better working relationship with the council, committed fully to increasing passenger numbers and made a financial gesture towards certain works, the central public fund may well open up a little more as the return in taxes would more than make up for the investment. There may very well have been failings by the council in the past - name a council that hasn't failed in some way or other. But you cannot put all your eggs in one basket and say that it is the council's fault that it hasn't happened. There are many more baskets that need to be considered....

 

[ls27]

Well said.

 

[User0001]

But, let's say the roads were improved so that 6mppa could be handled. Would LBA itself be able to handle that number? In the current guise, no. So the future growth at LBA would (currently) not be able to pay for the work. Which makes the likelihood of throwing money at it very slim. ....

Where is your consideration of time in this theory? Quite clearly the ability of the airport (in terms of terminal and stand capacity) to accommodate 6mppa is going to happen in a much faster and easier way than achieving planning, funding and construction of road & rail improvements. The planning is in place for the terminal part of this anyway. So the real quesitons here are (a) is 6mppa achievable and if so, (b) in what timelines.

The economic value add that 5mppa vs 3mppa would bring to the region is not difficult to calcuate. Plenty of airports are handling 4m, 5m & 6m in the UK and Europe to make a pretty reliable estimate of what this is worth in terms of jobs, investment etc.

On that basis, you would evaluate the road and/or public transport improvements required to achieve 6mppa & the likely cost & any economic benefits they might bring to the wider North Leeds / Airedale region. Unless we are talking a dedicated 'airport only' link, more general improvements in the network have to have a wider benefit.

It's then a simple cost & benefit decision

Now, if LBA got its act together, made massive strides to build a better working relationship with the council, committed fully to increasing passenger numbers.........

...and given you don't work for the council, what is your evidence that they aren't working hard on the relationship with the council ?

What more committment do you want to see in terms of increasing passenger numbers ?

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Thanks for the rebuttal LS16, however, I am theorising loosely on the concept that the anger towards the lack of road infrastructure relates to the airport. The cause and effect of the wider population in that part of Leeds is a totally different argument which is being dealt with in numerous ways including private investment and public transportation funding. I maintain that the quality of road network in that part of Leeds is reasonably closely related to the proportion of business and industry. North West Leeds is primarily residential and the level of private money for road improvement schemes is small and slow to appear. Without major government investment in large scale road schemes (such as M60 in Manchester), improvements will be largely based on the private investment available and the projected income of development brought about by a scheme compared to the cost of the scheme. The medium term income has to be able to pay for the development.

When the airport was a publicly owned entity, investment had to be justified on two levels: the cost of developing the site and the associated cost of improvements necessary. It would be very hard to spend that sort of public money and justify it to the electorate, who would be far more concerned about local police/fire/schools. There would have been a Peter/Paul situation and private investment would be difficult to come by. Now the airport is privately backed, the council are able to put in planning conditions regarding remedial and future road improvement based on throughput. I know this is a thorny issue amongst many here but I make no apology for saying that this is a reasonable expectation when planning of this scale and potential impact is sought.

The difficult political situation regarding the airport means that certain works have been pushed to one side and now a little pain has to be inflicted to ensure that the balance is redressed. Once that is sorted, there is no reason why a good working relationship cannot be forged between LBA and LCC based on mutual respect and the understanding that each can be of benefit to the other. If the two grow mutually and with openness, the money will be less of a problem.

And, finally, with regards to timescales, I would suggest that growth, planning, development etc is on a 10-20 year medium term basis. Rome wasn't built in a day and, I suspect, Leeds wasn't either.

 

[Bigman]

One thing that strikes me that would be an immediate improvement would be the buses. Why are we just about the only Airport in the country that does not have an express but to the airport?? The 757 stops at every port and piss pot en route, including people on Kirkstall Road going just 2 or 3 stops to get to Asda or Morrisons.

What we need is a series of limited stop express buses, one via Kirkstall (maybe X57) and one via Headingley (maybe an X84 diverted at Dyneley Arms?), and the same from Bradford. the 737 via Baildon and Shipley is a joke. Funding should come from either Metro, the airport or this new £1billion fund that we are hearing so much about now. I am betting that the annual cost would be a drop in the ocean compared to a tram-train scheme and would act as a stop-gap until a parkway station can be built. best of all, this could be running in am matter of weeks and not years!!

Right then, tin hat on ready!!