You can blame a certain Mr Beeching for that ! I have been told and know of his dirty doings but Fred maybe alble to recall and explain ?

As I have been invoked, I can say that anyone can look up what Dr. Beeching did via Google. Of course, with hindsight, we can wring our hands now, but the explosion of car ownership, and the population in general was not foreseen in the early 1960's.

Well for one I didn't compose or write the petition "header" but I think it's factual and quite to the point. So do you think Tony Blair, and the rest of Labour party has something agaist Leeds because they live outside of the city ?... Don't tell me, your a Tory! ? And if it's because London and other cities are mentioned what's the problem ? It's a fact mate and that's it, like it or not.

Don't think the petitioner is against London or any of the other cities mentioned ! It's a factual point.

By the way I signed the petition for the devlopement for taller buildings in London so even though I'm from Leeds there is one thing I'm not and that is biased in a unfair way.

Leeds Supertram was cancelled by Alistair Darling in 2005.

Okay this is largely true, although one suspects it had more to do with economists in the department than a Scotsman's personal vendetta (which is what naming Darling implies).

Despite the go-ahead being given to the £20bn crossrail project in London ontop of London's existing developed transport network, the £500m supertram was cancelled for being"too expensive".

-Crossrail has yet to get the go-ahead.
-London does have an existing/developed transport network, but it's highly congested and needs capacity enhancements if it is to grow.
-Supertram wasn't cancelled because it was 'too expensive' but because the DfT didn't believe the projected ridership and therefore the cost-benefit analysis.
-Crossrail and Leeds are entirely unrelated. Why bring it up?

Leeds remains Europe's largest city without a Metro, Light Rail, Tram or Underground system, and also one of the UK's most congested cities (far more so than that of the other main cities of Birmingham, Glasgow and Sheffield),

I don't know if this is true or not, but it isn't common knowledge or accepted wisdom, so to state it as fact is misleading.

Basically my problem is that the argument will be ignored because it is so poorly made. And Leeds has a good case for some form of transit system, which deserves better advocacy.

A better persuasive case might be:

Leeds has grown into a very successful city, however as it grows it may become a victim of its own success through pollution and congestion. Leeds Supertram was proposed to counteract these negative aspects of economic growth, however it was rejected by the Dft due to cost. We the undersigned petition the government to reconsider their rejection of the scheme, as it is vital for the future development and prosperity of Leeds and the wider Yorkshire region.

Leeds Supertram was proposed to counteract these negative aspects of economic growth, however it was rejected by the Dft due to cost.

Correction: I don't think it was rejected for the cost per se.
It was alleged lack of VALUE for the money to be spent that did it.

Easy answer; save billions by doing away with I.D cards and Nuclear weaponry that we don't need and build me a supertram. OR maybe just take all the busses in Leeds and go on Pimp my ride; that would be super sweet!

..

Correction: I don't think it was rejected for the cost per se.
It was alleged lack of VALUE for the money to be spent that did it.

I thought the C/B analysis came out positively, however the DfT didn't believe the results of the investigation because of supposedly inflated ridership figures. But that's far too complicated and best glossed over because it doesn't support the 'build it' case. Since they effectively said 'have buses becuase they're cheaper and therefore less of a gamble' cost seemed the best shorthand description to opt for.

I thought the C/B analysis came out positively, however the DfT didn't believe the results of the investigation because of supposedly inflated ridership figures. But that's far too complicated and best glossed over because it doesn't support the 'build it' case. Since they effectively said 'have buses becuase they're cheaper and therefore less of a gamble' cost seemed the best shorthand description to opt for.

Well the DfT must have been cynical about the C/B considering the poor financial performance of most of the already established tram schemes. Sheffield was a prime example of ' optimistic appraisal' in its forecast of expected passenger figures.

I'm sure they had a point. To my mind the Supertram was something of a misguided scheme, and think that some sort of West Yorkshire train tram would be a much better idea (although obviously I've no particular evidence for this) but think that it did have some merits and if the people of Leeds want to restate them they should do so in the most effective manner posible.

Maybe another partition should be set up?
Having two can not hurt.

Yes it can - it will halve the number of people signing each one, and both will become invalid as it won't be clear who has/hasn't signed each one. Also it clearly states there should be one petition per subject... :)

484 signatures and counting... I don't think we need another :) !

Petition. P E T I T I O N. A partition is a barrier, wall or divide.

Think he's referring to the Pennines - we need another partition from Lancashire... :)

I just signed up, now 518 signatures placing it about 290th biggest petition (out of 6032) and I noticed Jan Fletcher OBE has signed up. Excellant.

everyone here needs to sign it do it?

Saw a very interesting TV programme last night on buses. It’s a real shambles in Manchester with more than 40 private companies providing services. Tickets are not interchangeable even though two or more companies might operate the same route. Also one company employs Polish drivers who can’t speak a word of English. Sheffield was also featured, but what I found particularly interesting is that it stated that there has been tremendous progress in attracting passengers to the tram system there over the last five years.

everyone here needs to sign it do it?

New to this forum, but I have to say this sort of petition will not change any govt decision on the Supertram. We need to get over the decision and move forward as is best possible.

The East-Leeds radial road, completion of the IRR and other road improvements (what is the deal with the extra dualling of the ORR?) will help, but a light rail system is dead in the near future.

Posted this a few days ago on Manchester forum, could help with financing supertram / tbus some time in the future...

(sorry if already discussed!)

From the Telegraph:

Local authorities may levy extra business rates
By Richard Tyler
Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 22/03/2007



Local authorities should be allowed to charge businesses a supplementary tax to pay for local services and infrastructure improvements, the Lyons Review has concluded.

The much awaited report by Sir Michael Lyons, the former chief executive of Birmingham City council, stopped short of calling for the return of business rates to local authority control.

It also argued that the link between national business rate rises and inflation should be maintained.
advertisement


But Sir Michael did ask the Government to allow all local authorities to introduce a supplementary tax, after consulting on the rate and what it should be spent on.

He calculated that a 1p supplement would create a £7.7m fund for Birmingham and a £20.3m fund for Greater Manchester. He saw a 4p suppplement as the "upper end" of the tax range.

Sally Low, head of policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, was not impressed.

"Sir Michael Lyons' recommendation on supplementary business rates is essentially relocalisation by another name," she said.

"It is hard to imagine any local authority turning down the opportunity to raise more money from businesses, with consultation being nothing but a box ticking activity.

"What is being proposed will give local authorities the ability to levy an extra rate on businesses without any accountability and no guarantee that the extra revenue raised will be spent on projects that actually benefit those paying for them."

But London First, which is backed by 300 businesses based in the capital, welcomed the proposals.

Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive, described them as "a watershed moment".

"We pressed for supplementary business rates for local infrastructure investment, building on the proven business improvement district model, subject to acceptance from business. We also argued that local authorities should receive a large share of business rate receipts from new development. In both cases, the Lyons report accepts our argument."

And the Guardian:

Other proposals are to go to consultation. They include a plan, exclusively reported in the Guardian yesterday, for a supplementary business rate to pay for huge transport projects such as London's Crossrail, and Manchester's expanded tram system.

Taken from a mailing list dedicated to trams...

Email 1...

It has been authoratitively reported that the Leeds tram project was
not refused because it was judged "poor value for money", in fact it
was judged "good value for money". Then what is the REAL reason?

It is probably something very embarrassing or shameful, otherwise we
would have heard of it by now.

Reply 1...

Pockets salted by oil barons, of course.

Reply 2...

ack of an effective lobbying body. We should learn from Manchester and
Nottingham's success, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds and Portsmouth's failure.


(from someone in Nottingham)

Reply 3...

That the promoters did not put up a sufficiently robust case and are
looking for an excuse, as occurs with train operators "the DfT won't let
us" which really means "we weren't prepared to put enough of our money
behind it".

Petition update:
Signatures to date to reinstate Leeds Supertram: 934
Signatures to replace the national anthem with 'Gold' by Spandau Ballet: 6051
(http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/goldanthem/)

Petition update:
Signatures to date to reinstate Leeds Supertram: 934
Signatures to replace the national anthem with 'Gold' by Spandau Ballet: 6051
(http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/goldanthem/)

Its crappy partitions like that which mean the genuine partitions won't be taken seriously.

Its crappy partitions like that which mean the genuine partitions won't be taken seriously.

Yes we must establish a dividing wall/ separation (i.e.partition) between our petition and that of some others !

It has been authoratitively reported that the Leeds tram project was
not refused because it was judged "poor value for money", in fact it
was judged "good value for money". Then what is the REAL reason?

It is probably something very embarrassing or shameful, otherwise we
would have heard of it by now.

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Council_and_democracy/Councillors_democracy_and_elections/Political_parties/page.aspx

Following the results of the May 2006 local elections, the political composition of the council is now:

Labour - 40
Liberal Democrat - 25
Conservative - 24
Morley Borough Independents - 4
Green - 3
Independent - 2
British National Party - 1

The leaders of the Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Green groups have formed a joint administration to work together in running Leeds City Council.

Dothog - was there a larger swing against Labour in the affected areas compared to other places in West Yorkshire.

So far:
Deadline to sign up by: 07 March 2008 – Signatures: 957

Its also 211th Bigest petition out of 6910.

:)

And you thought it was dead and buried!


Heseltine review to put Supertram back on track

By Tom Smithard, Political Correspondent

The Leeds Supertram is being put back on the political agenda by the Conservatives – two years after it was scrapped by Labour.
Transport officials have long believed that the best way to solve the congestion that regularly gridlocks Leeds is to build a three-pronged tram system, each line ending in park-and-ride car parks on the city's outskirts.

But former Transport Secretary – and now Chancellor of the Exchequer – Alistair Darling pulled the plug on the project in 2005 after deciding that the estimated £500m construction cost had spiralled to £1bn.

Mr Cameron said the Conservatives were considering bringing back Supertram – and have assigned former Deputy Prime Minister Michael Heseltine to look into the possibility.

His policy review report into regenerating cities is expected to be published in the next few months and will include measures to improve productivity in Yorkshire. It will either come down firmly in favour of Supertram – or come up with alternatives to get the region moving.

Mr Cameron said: "Improving transport in Yorkshire is a big issue and Michael Heseltine is currently looking at how we can do that, things like Supertram. The report will reflect the needs of people in Yorkshire."

Also yesterday, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West Greg Mulholland wrote to Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly calling on her to look again at Supertram. He wrote: "The case for a light rail system in Leeds should be re-examined. Such a system would provide a cost-effective method of significantly reducing congestion and encourage more people to use public transport, as well as being an environmentally sustainable option. Further, funding must be found for additional rail capacity in the area.

"This is vital to support economic growth in the Leeds city region and we must have clear assurances that future capacity will meet the required levels, and that units currently in operation will be replaced."

After Supertram was shelved West Yorkshire transport commissioner Metro went back to the drawing board.

Officials are now trying to win funding for a network of buses powered by tram-style overhead wires and an innovative tram-train project that would see carriages run on road and rail.

Mr Mulholland said: "The new Secretary of State must recognise that there are serious transport problems in Leeds, causing congestion and gridlock, and hell for commuters. These problems will not go away of their own accord. The only way to address them is to actually dedicate the same type of funding to Leeds that cities in the South enjoy."

The Yorkshire Post is running its Road to Ruin campaign highlighting the historic lack of investment in Yorkshire's transport infrastructure and calling for more funding.

Its first success came yesterday with the Government promising to invest about £100m in buying between 60 and 90 new carriages for the Leeds rail network.

(courtesy of today's Yorkshire Post)

Call me a cynical but that whole story smells like the Tories using the sensitive issue of Transport in Yorkshire to try and get a foot in the door.

Whilst I don't particularily dislike the idea of vote targetting policies, after all all policies are driven by that, I do think that this perhaps is a hollow promise.

:ohno:

Call me a cynical but that whole story smells like the Tories using the sensitive issue of Transport in Yorkshire to try and get a foot in the door.

Whilst I don't particularily dislike the idea of vote targetting policies, after all all policies are driven by that, I do think that this perhaps is a hollow promise.

:ohno:

I think this is a great thing.

We need public transport to become a political issue, so that it gets debated and raises the focus of it and just maybe something might just get built.

I think this is a great thing.

We need public transport to become a political issue, so that it gets debated and raises the focus of it and just maybe something might just get built.

Well, it would be if it isn't kicked under the carpet as soon as a seat is won from it.

is this to make all of leeds vote tory? lmao.

Its good that more carriages are being funded. Its about time we got a little bit of funding for things in leeds, rather than it always going to poorer regions like liverpool, manchester, newcastle, south yorkshire etc.

It really shows that if they keep badgering the government to a point where they realise this issue wont just go away, then the government will eventually have to deal with it.

PW. Full article not available yet.

After seeing its supertram dreams derailed, Leeds City Council is going back in time for its replacement, tram vs trolleybus. One is ‘super’, the other is more supermarket.

As stated before, anything is better than nothing (within reason).

Don't rise to the bait, guys. He's just trying to get us arguing amongst ourselves again :ohno:

The Conservatives Want and Need and have Realised that Leeds is a Kea City.
They will give up the Children’s hospital and now perhaps the Super tram.

Every time they do something right people say its just for votes:
1) It’s the Aim of a political party to win an election by getting votes.
2) Why can’t they just be doing something that is good and that is needed?

Don't rise to the bait, guys. He's just trying to get us arguing amongst ourselves again :ohno:

Actually I was posting the start of the article so the Leeds Forum members could read the rest of the article when it's made available. Who are 'you' anyway Mr 382 posts. Arse!

^^ Methinks he doth protest too much :)

^^ Methinks he doth protest too much :)

Don't you feel silly now. I'll leave it at that, so the thread doesn't go off topic anymore.

Don't you feel silly now. I'll leave it at that, so the thread doesn't go off topic anymore.Er.. not sure why I should feel silly but.. fine, whatever you like...:weird:

PW. Full article not available yet.

After seeing its supertram dreams derailed, Leeds City Council is going back in time for its replacement, tram vs trolleybus. One is ‘super’, the other is more supermarket.

The full article is now available.

Leeds gets trolleyed
07.09.07

After seeing its supertram dreams derailed, Leeds City Council is going back in time for its replacement, tram vs trolleybus. One is ‘super’, the other is more supermarket.

Following its long, frustrating and ultimately disappointing supertram saga and, in a nod to its past, Leeds is now planning to install a trolleybus system. Along with Bradford, Leeds pioneered the use of trolleybuses in the UK, back in 1911.

Although it sounds far less glamorous, the only real difference between trolleybus and supertram is that the former runs on wheels instead of rails. Both methods of transport are powered by overhead cables, but, according to the Department for Transport, a trolleybus system could cost half the amount of money.

Developers have paid section 106 contributions, known unofficially as ‘supertram contributions’, towards a new and improved public transport system in Leeds since 1998. Their money has not been returned. Leeds has to fund 10% towards the £300m trolleybus scheme and it is developers who will once again be asked to fork out.

Councillor Andrew Carter, co-leader of Leeds City Council, warns the property industry that the money ‘can only come as the result of contributions of developers. We want to work in partnership with investors in our city,’ he says. Requests for developers to put their hands in their pockets have received a frosty reception.

Some within Leeds’ property market, however, believe that the trolleybus could end up being more beneficial than supertram, and locals are already backing the trolleybus, giving it a pet name of ‘son of supertram’.

Off the rails

Work began on the Leeds supertram concept in 1993. It ended in 2005, when the government rejected the city’s proposals, saying it was too costly. Almost £40m was spent on the scheme before the Department of Transport cancelled it, insisting that the cost should be no more than £500m and recommending the city seek what it called a ‘bus rapid transit’ alternative.

A massive blow to Leeds, neighbours Manchester and Sheffield’s supertram systems continue to rub salt in its wounds.

On that dark day in November 2005, government consultants suggested 90% of the benefits of a tram system could be delivered by the tram alternative for around half the cost. Ever since, Metro and Leeds City Council have been developing plans for a 20 km bus-based transport network, which follows much the same route as the one proposed for supertram.

In June this year there was a breakthrough when the scheme received the backing of the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly’s Regional Transport Board. It endorsed the first £150m phase of funding for the £300m scheme from the Department for Transport’s £1.01bn regional funding allocation.

A full business case will be submitted to the Department for Transport by mid-2008. Subject to approval, construction work on the scheme could start in 2011/12, 100 years after the first trolleybuses were seen trundling silently round its streets. Leeds’ 21st-century offspring could be completed in phases by 2014/15.

Leeds is an increasingly congested city, and continued inaccessibility of schemes that were built with supertram in mind, such as Clarence Dock, has led to developers becoming cynical.

‘There is a lack of trust between private commercial developers in this city and the city council,’ says Ian Pennington, regional director of HBG Properties. ‘They asked us for money for the supertram project and then didn’t go ahead with it. Contributions weren’t returned.’

Even though the modern system is the great- grandchild of the one that closed in 1928, the name ‘trolleybus’, will still conjure up images of a bygone era. ‘The connotations attached to “trolleybus” is the kind running up and down Blackpool Pleasure Beach,’ says Andy Stoddart, managing director of Above & Beyond architects, which specialise in property infrastructure and transport systems.

Steve Hemingway, associate director at construction and management consultant Turner & Townsend, is project manager of the scheme. He assures that it will be rebranded, ‘once we have more of an understanding of what the technology will be. At the moment, we refer to it as the New Generation Transport project or NGT.’


‘Call the scheme what you want, if perception is what makes people use it, then great,’ says Richard Lewis, development director of Town Centre Securities. Lewis believes the outcome of getting people out of their car and on to environmentally friendly trolleybuses will be worth all the trouble Leeds has been through.

John Brookes, director of planning at DTZ believes that once more, Leeds will be seen as a pioneer for electric buses in the UK. ‘Being the first city in the country to have a trolleybus could be a good thing for Leeds,’ he says.

The system does have benefits over supertram. Unlike a tram, the trolleybus can avoid obstructions en route. It can drop off its overhead wires and drive around anything in its path. David Hoggarth, development director of Metro, believes the scheme holds potential for expansion. ‘It could be a bigger network than the one we are initially proposing,’ he says.

Back on track

The construction of the trolleybus system will also be less disruptive as it will not involve moving as many utilities to install rails.

‘Sheffield did go through a long period of building works and disruption to get the tram in place,’ points out Jeff Pearey, head of Jones Lang LaSalle’s Leeds office.

Its set route means trolleybus has the permanence of a tram. ‘It is generally segregated from other traffic, helping to make them more punctual and reliable,’ says Leeds councillor Carter.

Although the congestion in Leeds is not putting investors off the city yet, this could change once developments such as Land Securities’ and Caddick Developments’

Trinity Leeds scheme are completed.

‘When people do come in to take that accommodation, demands on the roads and public transport will begin to creak,’ says Hemmingway.

One of the aims of trolleybus is to ‘keep investment alive’ in Leeds, says Hemmingway. Further development in the city will depend upon access to a fast and efficient public transport system. ‘In the south of Leeds various schemes went ahead on an understanding that there would be a fast public links,’ he adds, naming Clarence Dock as an example.

The next step on the road to trolleybus is the development of a full business case. This will compare it with a number of options, including hybrid vehicles and more conventional diesel buses.

Metro and the city council hope that the modern electric trolleybus will prevail throughout this process. ‘It is the next best thing to supertram,’ says Hoggarth. ‘And it is in line with the government’s recommendations.’

Hopefully, the story of ‘son of supertram’ will be a happier one for Leeds.

The city of Caen in Normandy has a guided trolley system which offers a smooth, reliable and good-looking transport system. Nothing supermarche (sorry can't put in accents) about it. Allons-y !

^^ Thats abit of good news about the Trolleybus.
Im so glad an alternative is being thought out instead of completely disregarding the whole scheme after the cancellation of the supertram.
Who will run these trolleybuses then First? Some of the current buses they use are awful and bloody expensive aswell.

I think First were in the running for Supertram. I hope they dont run it though. Or at least if they do, run it under contract from Metro who would set fares and times. It would be healthy for competition to hve a different company running the trolleybus so that it would force down prices on buses and work vice versa.

The Property Week article disappoints a bit. Although it gives some positive information about the proposed system, it spoils this by including a couple of errors and by not being able to resist the tabloid hack jibe about shopping trolleys (Ha! Geddit? Trolley-bus - shopping-trolley? Laugh? I thought me trousers would never dry).

I noticed in todays news that Liverpool's 3 line Merseytram project is now oficially back on track to be built next year, with £170 funding confirmed to be in place from the secretary of state plus interest, and Keolis still signed up to operate the trams. Its just a question of finalising details between all parties. The application for merseytram doesnt expire until 2010, by which time line one should be constructed.:)

Can someone give me a bit of info on whether the leeds supertram application has expired or when it will expire? Surely there is still some hope of leeds getting their tram network in the not too distant future. It appears to me that recently there has been a dramatic shift in govenment opinions on trams and similar infrastructure projects. Leeds cant be left behind on this.

The application expired late 2005/early 2006 I believe. I remember it become an urgent issue so that it was given funding while approval was still there. It must be way past that now

There's no hope of a supertram in the near future I don't think, especially not now considering the tram-train/busway plans.

Added to that, Alistair Darling is chancellor.

I noticed in todays news that Liverpool's 3 line Merseytram project is now oficially back on track to be built next year, with £170 funding confirmed to be in place from the secretary of state plus interest, and Keolis still signed up to operate the trams. Its just a question of finalising details between all parties. The application for merseytram doesnt expire until 2010, by which time line one should be constructed.:)



I believe Merseytravel wants to push for Mersey tram to be built, but there has been no approval given by the Department of Transport.

Well, well, well.

Every single time I dare to mention the fact that the olympics is an absolute joke I seem to get shot down with "Oh you'd love if it if you lived in London," or "It'll benefit everyone."

So why am I posting it here you ask? There are a few reasons, as I'll now outline. Warning, this may turn into a rant and a half so if you support the olympics etc you may want to look away now.

Point Number 1: One attitude for one, another for everyone else

Our esteemed chancellor, former minister for London transport..... sorry I mean transport in general.

In July 2004, I took the decision to withdraw funding for the Leeds Supertram because of excessive cost increases.

Hmm, fair enough. No-one likes cost increases do they Mr Darling?

Whats's that you say.......

MP Report into Olympic expenses

"costs were estimated at just over £4bn, but last year the budget was put at £9.325bn. "



Hmm, I suppose it's understandable that an estimate can be wrong, but £5.3 Billion? Let's hope there's some spare change down the back of Gordon's sofa. (Don't worry, the lottery, previously a funder of good causes will always be there to top up the funding eh Gordon?)

Fair enough, here's what Alistair said about our cost increases.

Mr Darling

"Since then we have been in discussion with the scheme promoters, West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (WYPTE) about their alternative proposals.

I have considered very carefully all the new information provided by the promoters."

So we're now reviewing the costs, making sure someone's accountable. Funny, Don Foster makes the following point

Don Foster Lib Dems

"This report shows the figures for the original Olympic bid were at best a stab in the dark.

The fact that the government missed out so many foreseeable costs has further damaged confidence in its ability to manage budgets."

TUT tut..... I thought it was important to be accountable? Does that now mean the Olympics are on hold? Should someone have to comission an independent report to decide on the future of the games Mr Darling?

Point Number 2: EXCUSES EXCUSES

As I said, I'm not one to state that all estimates must be entirely correct, so this is what the government have to say about things escalating ever so slightly in terms of Olympic pricing.

government minister (unnamed)
"a lot has changed" since the period the report focuses on.

Oh deary deary me. Yep, amazingly, in a good economy (as ours was at the time) prices do increase over time. A primary school child could probably have pointed that one out for Christ's sake.

So let's revisit the tram report from Mr Darling....

Leeds Supertram was given approval in 2001 with a cap on the public sector funding of £355 million in 2001 present value terms. Since funding was withdrawn, the promoters have made great efforts to reduce the scheme costs. Their submission of November 2004 suggested that the funding requirement for a revised proposal was £392 million, in present value terms.

Hmm, I guess in the three years between 2001 and 2004, inflation must have remarkably disappeared. Strange that.......

Ok, I can see the arguments coming now. As Mr Darling pointed out

This was for a reduced scheme (the current proposal truncates the southern line) and with some risks taken back into the public sector.


Hmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the designs been scaled back for the Aquatics Centre? Surely not.........

and, hasnt some risk for the overspend passed to the public sector?

Oh yes, it appears it has....

Ministers report

"it pointed out the prediction for private money had fallen to £165m, leaving taxpayers and National Lottery funds to make up the difference. "

Edward Leigh, chair of committee

the increase in public funding was "astonishing"

Hmm.

Point 3: Cost

Chalk and Cheese I grant you. An Olympics is nothing like a transport system.
However, there are some similarities. Both bring long-term benefits to the part of the country they are located in. After all, the Olympics did wonders for Barcelona, a city that required a boost to move into the A List of International destinations. Does London need this boost? Well, I'm sure the people in the area immediately surrounding the new games park willl be please, as they should be. For everyone outside here though, probably minimal benefits will be felt. For almost 10 billion, let's hope someone is happy.

I leave you with this point:

Ministers report

"Meanwhile a contingency sum of £2.747bn, not included in the original estimates, has been added to the Olympics budget, while tax liabilities have added a further £836m."

"the "delivery budget" has risen from £16m to £570m. "



So the rise in the delivery budget, or tax liabilites that were 'forgotten' could have payed for the Leeds Supertram. Hell, combined they probably could have covered Leeds and Liverpool.


Bitter? You're damn right I am.

You may already know as the news is about two weeks old, but Metro and a host of other papers reported that the Metropolitan Police are to have their headsets 'microchipped'...

''Every single Metropolitan police officer will be 'microchipped' so top brass can monitor their movements on a Big Brother style tracking scheme, it can be revealed today.

The new electronic tracking device - called the Automated Personal Location System (APLS) - means that officers will never be out of range of supervising officers.

But many serving officers fear being turned into "Robocops" - controlled by bosses who have not been out on the beat in years.

Although police chiefs say the new technology is about 'improving officer safety' and reacting to incidents more quickly, many rank and file believe it is just a Big Brother style system to keep tabs on them and make sure they don't 'doze off on duty'.
''

This (in the metro) was followed by a picture of a police woman parking on double yellow lines to pick something up at Tesco... thats not the bit thats bothering me.

It stated that the overall cost of this project would be £250 million...

Our government are willing to spend £250 million on this but not £300-400 million on a new transit system for a growing city? B0LL0CKS. Because it doesnt represent value for money? Do they not know people will pay to use the f*cking thing? It will help this cities economy and growth in many ways thus helping the countries in general.

Do they get £££ return on the microchip? :ohno:



what a bunch of donkeys

Hey guys. When will you realise that we're just not as important as the people in the south east. they need all that money because they are better than we are :(

I hope the 'guided buses' aren't like that rubbish purple bendy 'FTR' bus that always smells a bit funky inside :(

Well, well, well.

Every single time I dare to mention the fact that the olympics is an absolute joke I seem to get shot down with "Oh you'd love if it if you lived in London," or "It'll benefit everyone."

I am with you on this mate. The way Olymics been pushed through is even dodger then Iraqi dossier, and we need them as much as Iraqi war.

With Government expenses piling up by tens of billions every day (Northern Rock, recent £100 Bln banks bailout) another £18 Bln (I bet expenses will double at least once again) would just finish off British economy.

All for the sake of certain politician's personal ambitions.

cant the people of leeds get to gether and kick up a stink.. with the help of the papers, and writing to their MPs.

If everyone boycotts voting for labour in local & general elections they'd take supertram very seriously. It wouldnt be too hard for a Leeds paper to ball roll such a campaign

Sorry to be a wet blanket wiggley, but they already tried that last year. There was an online petition supported by councillors, MPs, development people like Jan Fletcher and a campaign in the local newspaper. It got 1,353 names in 12 months.

I think they could have got a lot more if they'd tried harder, but, as I said a few weeks ago, the Government aren't going to listen unless you get so many hundreds of thousands of names that it scares them into action.

The Government's pitiful response to the petition can be seen at:
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15206.asp

Considering that the petition to 'Make Jeremy Clarkson Prime Minister' got 49,419 names :ohno:, you can see that, in comparison, there's an uphill struggle to get people motivated around this.

That petition was made by me ages ago. So no access to media etc. It was still one of the larger petitions, but unfortunately many people don't care. Those who do often don't know about the petitions site etc... it needed an official body to set it up that could take care of promotion.

Having said that, wasnt there a petition on the official Leeds Supertram site which was then sent to 10 Downing Street?

Yes let's also bring the London Crossrail scheme into the equation.

Crossrail cost - £16,000,000,000 - to link a few existing rail lines etc
Leeds Supertram - £400,000,000 - to provide a brand new system to the UK's second largest Financial centre.

The whole thing stinks if you ask me!!

That petition was made by me ages ago. So no access to media etc. It was still one of the larger petitions, but unfortunately many people don't care. Those who do often don't know about the petitions site etc... it needed an official body to set it up that could take care of promotion.

Having said that, wasnt there a petition on the official Leeds Supertram site which was then sent to 10 Downing Street?It was last year, as I said. The petition was supported by the Yorkshire Evening Post and Jan Fletcher, who campaigned to get people to sign it.

From the Yorkshire Evening Post, 12th March 2007:
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Supertram-petition-is-launched-online.2114417.jp

Supertram petition is launched online

Published Date:
12 March 2007
By Jo Rostron
A PETITION calling on the Government to fund a Supertram in Leeds has been launched.

Marketing Leeds, the firm that promotes the city, is backing the on-line petition, urging businesses and residents to sign on.

It is the latest move in the long-running campaign to create a tram system in Leeds after the Government refused to fund the project in November 2005.

Jan Fletcher OBE, chairman of Marketing Leeds, said: "Marketing Leeds is urging businesses and residents to sign the online petition to demonstrate the strength of feeling in the city about the lack of Government funds for a fully-integrated transport system in Leeds and the region.

"However, we would like to see the petition widened to include all transportation funding and alternatives to the Supertram.

"Whilst Supertram cannot be retrieved at least if sufficient people sign the petition it will help keep the Leeds transport issues high on the Government's list of priorities.

"We support any campaign that pushes Leeds to the top of the Government's transport agenda. Leeds is going from strength to strength, but the lack of such an integrated transport system will hamper the continued growth of the city and the city region.

Opportunity

"Three times more money per person is spent in the south than in the north on transport. This online petition is an opportunity for the people of Leeds to show that they are united in their call for funding to provide the kind of comprehensive transport system that the city not only needs, but deserves.

"It is imperative that as many people as possible sign up quickly to give it impact.

"Marketing Leeds is encouraging its own champions and supporters to put the link to the petition on their own websites and to add it to their outgoing emails."

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott gave the tram scheme the green light in 2001. But Transport Secretary Alistair Darling withdrew funding for the scheme in 2004 amid concerns about spiralling costs, and revised plans were subsequently drawn up by the council and Metro.

That bid for funding was later rejected. The transport secretary said he felt it still did not represent value for money. More than £40m of taxpayers' cash has been spent trying to get the project off the ground.

The Government launched the online petition website with charity mySociety to allow anyone to address and deliver a petition directly to the Prime Minister.

Millions of people signed a petition against congestion charges earlier this year.

To sign the petition go to http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Leeds-Supertram/

I didn't hear about the Metro petition though. Any idea how it went?

By the way, No. 1, I didn't realise it was you who set up the petition. I apologise if I seemed a little dismissive. The petition did well to get the attention of local movers and shakers and, as you say, in relative terms, got a reasonable amount of names.

If you compare it with the national tram (light rail) petition, which got 823 signatories, then that's a good effort, and shows the difference that can be made when a petition is tied in with a specific issue or campaign.

However, these two petitions and the one for trolleybuses (which got 1788 names) are all roughly in the same ball park - i.e. under 2000. In order to make the Government sit up and take notice, you'd need hundreds of thousands.

This needs to go way beyond petitions.........

I feel something can be done, however there are 3 major problems at the moment.

1) The apathy of some people in Leeds. They need a rocket up their arses. i.e I think whoever set up the petitions deserves credit for taking the initiative and actually doing something. However, there is no way that less than 2000 people want a decent transport system in the city centre. It needs to be rammed home just where this city is heading. GRIDLOCK. There will be no "popping into town." Look forward to a three hour commute from the suburbs.

2) It may be too late. We've let this slip from the national spectrum, to such a level where there are only a handful of people who seem remotely interested.

3) The current climate is a perfect excuse for the government to say "Oh the time's not right."

Still, you can't fail if you don't try, so it's got to be better than sitting here in 15 years time reminiscing about the supertram proposals of the 90's.


A few more issues.

We lack strong leadership. The way our council was focred down the trolleybus route was pathetic. Darling even said himself that they WILL NOT bring all of the benfits of supertram, so essentially he fobbed us off with an inferior product. Our council should have thrown that back where it came from. Perhaps the Olumpic delivery committee should be told that we can't build all of the buildings needed for the olympics as the country can't afford them?? A scaled down olympics??? I think not.

It is also hard to guage what people in West Yorkshire actually want. Too much sitting on the fence. If people don't want Supertram and are happy wih the buses fair enough, that should be accepted. if people do want the supertram, perhaps they need to do something about it. The YEP should run a poll inviting people to offer their opinions, or run some forums with members of the council to actaully assess where we stand and where we are going. A united front is much better than the odd whimsical idea being accpeted because people aren't sure where we stand with regards to other schemes.

It is also incredibly hard to find the necessary details about Supertram and what EXACTLY happened, as most sources of info have removed the important facts and in the public sector they now seem beyond reach.

No it's ok. I know I set up the petition after realising there wasn't a petition for it already and it was quite a major issue. However, from the beginning I knew there wouldn't be much to come out of it. Yeah I noticed the YEP responding to it- I didn't really want to say I had made it incase it reduced credibility.

I agree with the above post. Perhaps gridlock would get people to actually act though...

As for information on why it was cancelled. There never really was any. I mean, there were the vague statements saying it had become too expensive etc- but no credible responses. I think it is this that led many people to believe there had been corruption over this. The response I got from Downing Street on the petition was nothing I didn't already know, and just was naff really.

But how do you get a city to back transport in an effective way? Perhaps to set up an independent party to campaign on the issue, more as a pressure group-party, would force change. Imagine Labour/Cons/LD being threatened by an independent party in one of the UKs biggest cities. Kidderminster did this on the issue of healthcare, and that party is still going strong I believe.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5246731212_076751f8ca_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5246139693_a60b7f3021_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5246113889_d827b50b74_b.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5246731212_076751f8ca_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5246139693_a60b7f3021_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5246113889_d827b50b74_b.jpg



:lol: Thanks for these, no.1 - Leeds powering into the late 1980s/early '90s... or not.


There was a column in the Guardian's Money section yesterday which invited readers to solve another reader's dilemma about whether she should stay in Leeds with better pay or move to London. Anyway, the cartoon drawing of the town hall was amusingly flanked by a tram, showing us what the average privately-educated-oxbridge-lefty thinks Leeds is like (apart from the deprivation, obviously).As for the responses, well, predictably they made my blood boil like a boiling vat of boiling stuff. I'll post them when they're available on-line.

Remember the video of the Supertram route in animation. I was there, I was gliding through Leeds on a shiny new tram and then that specimen darling snatched it away.

Great pics, a bit like a starving man looking at roast chicken now though.