http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/index.html

Are there plans to introduce Tbus to Leeds? To be fair, while I would prefer supertram, this is by far my favourite option over superbuses, ftr bus etc- it could exploit the existing and planned busways. I did not know about any Tbus proposals prior to this...

Great find! How did you come across that?? Looks fairly reasonable idea, though not to sure about having those wires all over all the main roads in and around Leeds (without the benefits a tram brings). Also nothing like as good as a tram (as you say). Doesn't look too official though - no Metro/council/government involvemnt apparent...

same site as the London Tbus- there was a link on it for Leeds Tbus...

But I do actually think it brings the benefit of a tram, if it was up to the top standard. By that I mean, segregate it on seperate busways- on supertram routes so that it doesnt get stuck in traffic. Then it will be practically the same. One example was a tbus up to such a high standard that it could be upgraded to supertram if funds became available, another was a tbus with a guide rail in the ground and another was the Geneva tbus that has buses the same size as a Leeds Supertram, able to carry 200 passengers.

Looks very good, not a bad second best to Supertram.

Why wasn't this proposed and pushed for in the immediate aftermath of the cancellation when the government were back-healing and offering 'guilt' money ?

..

it actually has an advantage with it being able to overtake trafic.

Similar, it will stuck in traffic as easily as a bus. The main tram advantage IMO not the look, but the fact it travels fast and on schedule. Nice picture there of a tram being stuck at the corner, but I've never seen this in real life.

http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/TramBlock3.jpg

TB would be a greener solution for a city, but this is the only advantage I can think of.

Sorry but what WILL stuck is this thing turning from Headrow to Park Row:

http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/LeedsTbus6Medium.jpg

I like tis better then the tram...I hate the mess of the rails... to me the wires look much better...and it would be easier to expand this type of system. I bet it still costs heaps more then it needs to do.

But it's just a bus that's powered differently isn't it? If it has dedicated Trolleybus only lanes, then surely the cost of creating these lanes and overhead shenanigans will be the same as a tram?

http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/index.html

Are there plans to introduce Tbus to Leeds?

Eeee, daft lad! Leeds 'as 'ad t'bus for years, tha nos... :)

Eeee, daft lad! Leeds 'as 'ad t'bus for years, tha nos... :)

:applause:

Stop laikin and frame yersenn

Hello everybody. I was told about this excellent forum by one of your members, who e-mailed me to ask about the Tbus idea for Leeds. I am the culprit behind the website at http://www.tbusleeds.org.uk ! I'm glad that some of you liked it.

Although I couldn't really describe myself as a trolleybus enthusiast, I am extremely interested in regional development from a variety of angles. For this reason, the issue of skyscrapers is of interest to me also.

In addition, I have a particular interest in Leeds because it is the pre-eminent city in the region, from an economic point of view. For my sins, I am also a Leeds United fan!

I am promoting the idea of electric trolleybuses (Tbuses) in Leeds because they are the ideal solution to the twin problems of congestion and pollution which affect the city.

To answer a few of the points which have been raised:

* A Tbus (or any other kind of bus, for that matter) is no more likely to get stuck in traffic than a tram. If a tram mixes with ordinary traffic on the streets, it will get stuck in a jam just as easily as any other vehicle (I lived in Sheffield for five years - I've seen it happen). If, on the other hand, the tram is segregated from traffic, then this won't occur - *but* you can have a segregated busway just as easily as a segregated tramway and the same will apply. In such circumstances, the Tbus can be just as quick and reliable as any tram.

* The large Tbus in the picture (post #8) would be able to manouevre the junction at Headrow and Park Row just as well as a tram - in such vehicles, the middle and rear sections follow the front section faithfully. In addition, the Tbus would not suffer from the same kind of problem as that seen in the picture in post #7, because it can steer away from the obstruction, even whilst still connected to the wires - the tram cannot do this, as it is wedded to the rails. This kind of problem has been known to happen on the Croydon Tramlink, too.

* Constructing a trolleybus system costs much less than a tram. Many people do not realise that, in order to install a street-running tram system (like many sections of the Supertram route), it is not just a question of putting down the rails - the whole road has to be dug up to a depth of perhaps nine feet or more and all the services (sewers, electric cables etc.) have to be removed and relocated. This is because, once the rails are down, no roadworks are permitted - otherwise the tram lines would be blocked. The Tbus does not suffer from this problem, since it can overtake roadworks, or re-route altogether by running on batteries.

I hope that this answers your points adequately. Please tell me your further thoughts on the matter.

Sorry that this post is so long but I've been trying to get full membership rights on this forum since last Thursday! I think they must have been having problems. Never mind.

Keep up the good work on this fascinating forum.

PS. I must admit, the "t'bus" idea never occurred to me before. The gag's a gift for a future PR campaign!

Welcome to the forum Electric City!

The picture does look great, but what happens when the driver goes off course, does the t-bus then lose power or what? I suppose at least with the t-bus, there would be more chance of a greater route structure with a cheaper option to the supertram.

Hello, Smartcity.

If the driver goes off course too much, the trolley poles will come off the wires. This does happen very occasionally - these days it's a rare occurrence because of better equipment. However, it isn't really a problem, since all modern trolleybuses have some kind of back up power - usually batteries, or perhaps sometimes a small diesel generator.

The driver can then maneouvre the vehicle back under the wires and reconnect at a suitable location. The trolley poles can be raised or lowered by controls in the cab.

Some trolleybuses are designed specifically to run for some distance off-wire, such as the ones in Rome, where overhead wires are not allowed in the historic centre of the city. The claimed range for the batteries is 10km off-wire but I'd halve that to be on the safe side, especially during the Roman summer, when the air-conditioning is going full tilt.

If you were to introduce the Tbus on the same routes as the proposed ones for the Supertram, it would cost around half as much. Adding to the route would be a lot easier - if it's just a question of putting up the poles, wires and substations, then it's a lot quicker than putting down rails. Of course, any additions that were segregated would require more work but still not as much as with a tram.

Hi Electric City, thanks for the information, the website looks really good. The TBUS concept looks brilliant (both in concept and the all important image), and surely a good compromise for the defunct supertram requirement.

http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/LeedsTbus6.jpg

One further question though, has the Electric Tbus Group contacted Leeds City Council or Metro to sell the idea ? because the product looks superb and could be just what Leeds needs as the cheaper but effective alternative to supertram.

really seems like the best option at the moment. plus with the government pro busses it should(!!!) get approval.

I do agree, and to be honest everything could be the same except Tbus not Supertram, therefore cutting the preparation time down. Surely there would be the funding for this too; Im sure the city could raise the money if not- Metro, Yorkshire Forward etc could help. If necessary, one route could be built first to see how it works out and to cut the initial cost.

Not wishing to sound cynical but how much investment does this Tbus idea have and how originiated is this idea? Is it just one man in a shed or are large corporations behind this idea?

It does look good though but would probably prefer an underground (although a tram would be more realistic). It is odd though on that render as the tbus negotiates City Square as it kinks inwards like that because originally trams were to go straight on into a tram stop for city square (just where the pavement is outside of Wokmania) and this is one of the few examples of work that were done for that aborted scheme which I would have thought Tbus could potentially use.

Also what routes could be used for this if it is ever to be built. Is it the same as those for the axed supertram scheme or will different routes be used?

I was in Sofia the other day and saw the hundreds of trolley buses they have. Same idea as T'bus with wires etc (which trams use also). Their buses are a little older in design. Look like 1960's coaches with a big dodgem type pole at the back. I noticed that one of them had come off the wire, the 'bus driver' simply had a poulley system to reconnect. As outdated as they looked, they had that typical communist efficiency and for a busy city it seemed very clean and lacking pollution.

I really like this t'bus idea and have to say that I actually prefer it to the tram. I think with guided routers in key areas (Kirkstall road etc) this could be they key. I think they would be as comfortable as trams and should reduce congestion as much. They would also allow for many routes to come on board very quickly. I think if we would have got the three lines for the supertram, we would have been waiting at least ten years for any more lines. This system would give flexibility to extend routes wherever the roads allow and wherever there is demand.

The YEP should pick this up big time and push for it. I think people in Leeds would really go for this. It would also prevent the old folks in the city not moaning about the fact that we had a perfectly good tram network that was ripped up.

Interesting posts. I also think the TBus idea is a WINNER. So far it has been all positive. Maybe a push into the media is needed to get peoples opinions and a push towards the powers that be for planning.

humm, i would say headingley would be its biggest problem, its either going to get caught up in congestion all the time, or you need a separate road for it. this wasn't a very positive thing to the people living next to the road, who would loose some of their gardens to road widening.

Thanks again for your positive comments about the website and for your questions and contributions.

I'm afraid that I felt it best to hold off giving too much information on the forum because I didn't want to clutter the place up with huge posts! I have previously answered some of the questions that have been asked, in an exchange of e-mails that I had with one of your members recently (I won't mention his name in case he wishes to remain anonymous!). I did send him a message last week, asking him for permission to put our exchange on a private web page (to be viewed by the forum members) but he hasn't replied yet - I am guessing that he is away on holiday at the moment.

Anyway, instead I think I'll try to summarise all the points that were made in the e-mails and put them up on the website for you all to view.

In the meantime, here are a few brief snippets:

* The trolleybus (Tbus) option is currently under consideration by Metro, as mentioned on the Supertram website. Members of the WYPTA Development and Environment Working Group have so far visited Arnhem and Solingen (last year) and Nancy (this year) to look at modern trolleybuses in operation. They have been very impressed so far. One councillor in particular is pushing trolleybuses very hard and is himself a trolleybus enthusiast. He agrees with me that any vehicles that are introduced must be cosmetically-enhanced (rather than looking like an ordinary bus) in order to create the greatest impact amongst potential travellers.

* We don't have any connection with any firm, political organisation or public body. However, it has been suggested that we might give a presentation to the WYPTA at some stage.

* Coming in at around half the cost of a Supertram network, the government couldn't reasonably refuse funding for an equivalent Tbus system. To do so would create even greater outrage in the city and would be final proof that Westminster is anti-Leeds.

* Val Verde - no need to apologise for being cynical - you are quite right to be cautious! Although the Tbus shown in the picture is only a concept design, trolleybus systems are installed in hundreds of places all over the world and vehicles and infrastructure items are available custom made or off the shelf from a variety of manufacturers, including MAN and Siemens in Germany, Irisbus (Renault) in France, Skoda in the Czech Republic and Van Hool in Belgium. The Tbus concept is based on existing large-capacity chassis designs with an enhanced body and seating arrangement.

* The shot of the large Tbus is a composite of a 3D render of the design, simply superimposed on an existing picture of Leeds city centre. We haven't made any attempt to represent any re-routing or alterations in the road structure because we wanted to make up the images as quickly as possible.

* Most trolleybuses in Eastern Europe are rather old-fashioned - nearly all of them are high-floor models, for example. All trolleybuses being produced in the Western World nowadays are modern low-floor designs. The outdated switching systems which led to so many de-wirements in the old days are now superseded by more advanced equipment. The network in Wellington, New Zealand, for example is to be updated like this soon.

* Last year, transport consultants The Atkins Group produced a report for the WYPTA which showed how a bus-based system could be used to replicate the features and route of the Supertram. They didn't include trolleybuses in this proposal (most UK transport consultants are remarkably ignorant of trolleybuses) but instead suggested the 'ftr' system, which is currently getting such a slating here in York.
We in the Yorkshire Tbus Group are suggesting that the Atkins report be implemented but with Tbuses rather than diesels. The Executive Summary of the report can be found at:
http://tinyurl.co.uk/lr5v
with the full version at:
http://tinyurl.co.uk/yklv

Glad you liked the website Rob - it's all me own work y'know.

Any more questions - please fire away!

Yes, Monsoon, you're right that the Tbus would suffer from the same problems as the Supertram when it comes to new rights of way. Nobody likes the idea of losing some of their property through compulsory purchase orders.

However, the local authority has to make decisions that risk upsetting some people all the time - as they would with any skyscraper, for example. There will always be a minority who are against.

The only way to get around (or underneath) this problem would be to build a tube network instead - although even this would involve some land usage for entrances, vents, access points and the like. Anything that involves building a tunnel, though, is always going to be horrendously expensive and time-consuming. If the government baulked at allowing a tram system, then there is no way they'd stump up for something even more costly.

The Tbus issue has already been raised in the media, mainly through letters pages - although none of the papers has yet taken up the opportunity of having a proper article on the subject. There was a lengthy and heated exchange of letters in the Yorkshire Post beginning with my letter last September and finishing around February. There is also a page on the BBC Leeds website on the matter (although there are a couple of inaccuracies in the article written by the reporter).

However, namsingh is correct in suggesting that more should be done. I don't get the YEP regularly (my flat is already groaning with copies of the Yorkshire Post and the York Evening Press!) but maybe some of you would be kind enough to let me know when any relevant letters or articles crop up in there - you can use the e-mail address on the site at:
http://www.tbusleeds.org.uk/email.html

I did have one letter in the YEP but that was back in January. Perhaps it is time for a little more lobbying. We would be grateful for any support!

The only way to get around (or underneath) this problem would be to build a tube network instead - although even this would involve some land usage for entrances, vents, access points and the like. Anything that involves building a tunnel, though, is always going to be horrendously expensive and time-consuming. If the government baulked at allowing a tram system, then there is no way they'd stump up for something even more costly.

What about monorail systems? Cost 10% of the tube, minimum land requirements, all benefits of the tram/metro.

^ impact of skyline is a major issue

What about monorail systems? Cost 10% of the tube, minimum land requirements, all benefits of the tram/metro.
I must say I quite like the idea of monorails. Unfortunately they do suffer from similar perception problems to the Tbus - that is to say they don't usually come on the radar of transport planners and even when they do there are a lot of misconceptions. One piece of nonsense that you will sometimes hear is that 'you can't do switching with monorails'. In reality there is a variety of reliable switching methods.

Having said that, I am trying to approach all of this from a practical viewpoint, rather than a 'blue skies' perspective. An advanced trolleybus network for Leeds is achievable - and within a relatively short time. A proposal is likely to get central government funding.

A monorail proposal would be a different kettle of fish. Monorails cost around the same per mile as trams to install, so would therefore end up being refused funding - just like the Supertram.

One idea might be to go for the Seattle approach. Seattle has a long-standing and well-loved trolleybus network for which the city is quite famous. It is also famous for its short but iconic city centre monorail. For those who are obsessed with city status, perhaps it would suffice to have an extensive but flashy Tbus system to do the donkey work and then have a short (but equally flashy) monorail to serve the city centre - say, a loop that covers City Station-Headrow-Bus Station-City Station.

After all, if by some freak of government planning, Leeds were to get a tram, the best you could say would be that Leeds is now as good as... Nottingham. No offence to Nottingham people but I think that Leeds needs to be 'punching above that weight', so to speak. The Tbus would make Leeds different and so would a monorail.

^ impact of skyline is a major issue
good point. that really would bring out the nimby types. Back to square one!

My major concern about t-bus is the reliability. It will still be riding along the same roads as buses, driven by the same drivers, who think +/- 20 minutes is acceptable deviation from a schedule, and you must be happy if it comes at all. I was waiting for a bus at Sheffield's Interchange some 30 minutes, when it was 10 past the schedule, with the next one in 40 min, I ran Metro to ask where it might be, they connected with Arriva (I think) and they said the bus just left 5 minutes ago. Must be a new invisable model I guess. Well we all know how it is. So will the electric engine solve all this? I doubt. Unless the whole new breed of a public transport company set up. And without reliability it simlply won't work; why would people all of a sudden leave their cars for a t-bus, if it will still take same hour to get to a place where it would take you 10 minutes on a car?

There's no reason why a Tbus can't be just as reliable as most other forms of transport. It's a question of the way it's organised. Buses of various kinds have sometimes had remarkable success in getting people out of their cars (such as in Brighton and Arnhem) simply because the operators have got everything right. If the service is reliable, comfortable and frequent, then people will go for it.

The Atkins report ( http://tinyurl.co.uk/lr5v ) outlines how this could be done for Leeds, with buses at 12 per hour, taking 21 mins (North), 21 mins (East) and 14 mins (South) to reach the city centre. These timings are roughly the same as those for the Supertram.

If the system is given the same levels of quality as a Supertram, with traffic priorities, isolated driver, on-platform ticketing, platform stops, level boarding, passenger information and automatic vehicle location, then it can easily attain the standards required. Plus, if you add to this the same type of segregation as the Supertram and the fact that the Tbus is electrically-powered, it will give people even more incentive to use the system.

The drivers themselves would have to have special training to use the Tbus and would therefore be of a different status to that of regular bus drivers. With automatic vehicle location (using GPS) and in-cab communication with the base, monitoring of reliability would be much more efficient.

None of the above features are exactly leading-edge technology. They are all freely available from a variety of manufacturers and developers and are all in use as we 'speak'.

All of this could be included in a modern Tbus system at around half the cost of an equivalent Supertram network.

sounds good
note: if it was leading technology then it would cost alot more!

You sound so convincing Electric Man :)

My scepticism comes purely from the experience of public transport here in the UK, and so far the most reliable moving thing was DLR, guess why? - no driver!

As you are from York, do you have an oppinion why ftr does not work - obviously it was introduced with much hipe as a "model project", paving the way for ftr in Leeds?

Do you believe a new company will be formed to run t-bus, rather than a franchise given to usual suspects (first, arriva ect)?

I think you are right to have a certain amount of healthy scepticism, JOliver. A variety of transport schemes have been introduced in this and other countries over the years which have promised much but delivered little. The main thing is to get it right first time.

It is important to lobby for a high-quality system with the features that I outlined previously, rather than allowing the authorities to bring in some half-baked solution that wouldn't be a solution at all.

Speaking of which, the 'ftr', which has received so much criticism here, is an example of a not-bad idea which has been badly implemented. Looking at the avalanche of letters on the subject in the York Evening Press there are certain recurring themes: the bus is too long for the streets of York; it's still only a diesel bus under the snazzy exterior; there are problems with the ticketing system; people don't like the colour.

Personally, I quite like the colour and I don't think the length of the vehicle would be so much of a problem in Leeds. However, the other problems are more serious. Unfortunately, it isn't possible to get a ticket at the bus stop - you have to pay at the machine on the bus and have the right money (unless you pay in advance). This causes delays as people queue up at the machine, with the queue stretching out of the front door, because the machine isn't set far enough back from the entrance. Ideally, you should have ticket machines which give change at the stops and on the bus but further from the doors.

The problem of diesel propulsion is obviously one that cannot be solved with the current vehicles. Only electric propulsion from overhead cables (or tracks) can deliver an efficient system that does not pollute at street level. This also means that, potentially, you have a choice of energy sources, whether it be wind, wave, tide, fossil fuels, etc. With the diesel, you are stuck with oil, with prices set to rise even further in the foreseeable future.

I could go on, but I think you catch my drift!

I believe the most likely scenario would ultimately be that one of the 'usual suspects' would be chosen to do the day-to-day running of any future Tbus system, with perhaps the infrastructure being administered by someone else. I think this is the way the Sheffield Supertram is run.

I see in the paper that they've had to spend another million quid just to wrap up the Supertram business. What a mess! Apparently according to the Dft's own documentation, they could have funded the Supertram anyway and stayed within their own rules. whats the betting they'd pull the same trick with a tbus or any other cool idea?

Pertinent point, Myvik. There's no guarantee that the government would fund any transport project. However, I think they would have a tough time justifying a refusal.

Having said that, it is often hard not to be drawn into the belief that they are biased against cities like Leeds. I think, though, that it is important that the WYPTA come up with a new proposal quickly, whilst the memory of the Supertram rebuff is still relatively fresh. Leave it too long and the government will invent new priorities.

Well they are biased against Leeds; anywhere that isn't the SE really. Its easy to tell- listen, this country has money to burn. If they wanted to they could build an underground in every city with ease- the fact they're spending £20bn on Crossrail says it all really. That says to me a supertram could go in every city N times over, and in towns. So why don't they do it is the question that annoys everyone- its not hard to do anything, if you want it to happen. For example, it only took Alistair Darling to say one word, yes, to the supertram for it to happen- but even that seems too hard. It's not like its his money that he has to hoarde! But this country is money obsessed; spending is to a minimum and profit to a maximum, and that is the reason all these things don't go ahead. It's to do with greed! If people can't fight that I don't think they should be running the country.

Anyway, could Leeds raise its own money to build a rapid transport network? £50m on supertram already- that means surely another £50m could be raised, with funding- at least for one line, that hopefully could lead to expansion? If its Tbus should be even easier- every option must be looked at! Would be generally easier to keep the government out of future funding needs!

I'm not sure if Leeds (or WYPTA) would be rich enough to raise all the necessary money for a full project but they could certainly consider funding a limited system like the monorail I mentioned in an earlier post.

I sometimes think that we have always been a cheapskate country! Look at the canals, for example - many of them were built narrow in order to save money. Very quaint nowadays for the tourists but it didn't take long for the limitations to be exposed. As soon as the railways were introduced, canal freight was seriously under threat. In contrast, the wider continental canals endured much longer.

The Tbus is a wolf in sheep's clothing - it can appeal to the cheapskate bureaucrats but deliver a high-quality solution for the people of Leeds.

hmm yeah... well. Dont know what to say! But one line at least, surely?

I really couldn't say, No. 1, I don't know how much money any of them have available. Perhaps the possibility could be raised if we ever get to meet them for this presentation that was mooted. Don't hold your breath though!

Well, just an idea; Metro, Yorkshire Forward, Leeds City Council funding on top of some fundraising (might take a while, but every penny counts!). Ill be on a bit more today anyway cos Im not working :D so I might be able to find out about funding.

Hi, Leeds No.1 - did you manage to get any info on funding?

not that it really bother s me at all, but what about the wires? lots of people were complaining about that when the supertram was still in the frame. They don't like the idea of having wires all over the place.

The issue of overhead wires is largely a question of 'perception of the new, or different'. Many cities around the world manage to cope with such wires without any problems - some of them the most historically-sensitive on the planet - Athens, Salzburg and Rome, for example. The other week, I noticed the trolleybus wires during the car-chase sequence in the Steve McQueen film 'Bullitt'. I have never heard anyone complain about the wires in San Francisco - residents are proud of their trolleybus network (as they are of the cable cars). More recently I noticed more trolleybus wires on the slick opening titles of the stylish cop thriller series 'Killer Instinct'. Evidently, the US program makers feel that the wires make a cool enough statement about the city to be included in the introduction. The fleet there is currently being renewed.

Any objections to the wires would be from those who do not like change - in the same way that people objected to telephone wires, TV aerials and the like when they were first introduced. People hardly notice them nowadays. At any rate, modern methods of overhead construction can employ stylish and even artistic 'street furniture', or existing lamp posts to lessen the visual impact.

Most people these days are fairly environmentally conscious - at least in spirit, if not in action. The sight of overhead wires is a statement that says: 'This city is environmentally-positive', which is something that people can be proud of. It is also an advertisement for the route of the trolleybus itself, which says: 'This route will not be shut down any time soon' (as it could be with a diesel route - at short notice). This is what transport planners refer to as 'perceived permanence of service'. These issues are what makes the Tbus a much safer bet when trying to bring about 'modal shift' - getting people out of their cars and onto public transport. With the tbus, this can be done without creating 'pollution corridors' along routes with more frequent buses (one of the latest issues to come up).

Hi all,

been reading your discussion -I wonder how many of you know that at least 50 of the ftr "StreetCar" buses have been sold to Las Vegas - where they will be operate as electric hybrid buses. The benefit of that is that with an electric drive train already fitted it would make these vehicles easy candidates for full electrification, as trolleybuses.

btw, I have been campaigning hard for trolleybuses in my local area; they were actually proposed for the east London transit scheme but now TfL are backtracking and want to give us more polluting diseasal (disease - diesel) buses.

see this thread...

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=363480

London's transport planners spurn "clean air" solutions to air pollution.

Simon

found a cool picture of a tbus in France. looks petty stylish n'est pas?

http://www.transbus.org/actualite/pic_2005_11.jpg

With a bit of imagination could almost be passing Queens Hotel through City Sq. Looks like their 'fountains' are as crap as ours!

Yes it does; looks like its going past The Old Post Office, City Square!

With a bit of imagination could almost be passing Queens Hotel through City Sq. Looks like their 'fountains' are as crap as ours!
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:bx-OIrsIopX7oM:http://i3.ebayimg.com/05/i/06/c6/75/b1_2.JPG
Oh well - please yerselves!

found a cool picture of a tbus in France. looks petty stylish n'est pas?

The bus in the picture is a Cristalis articulated model, produced by Irisbus (Renault). The location is Lyon, which has a population of around 2.4 million. Lyon has an extensive trolleybus network, which uses lots of these modern, air-conditioned vehicles.

Here is another shot, which shows how the trolleybus can swing quite some way from the wires without coming off.

http://transclermont.itrams.net/letram/cristalis.jpg

Travelled on a FTR bus to York Uni last week. What a disappointment. It's no better than the bendy buses that go up past Leeds Uni, and there was an irritating beeping noise that would not cease making it extremely difficult to read about Martin O'Neill taking over at Villa.

Travelled on a FTR bus to York Uni last week. What a disappointment. It's no better than the bendy buses that go up past Leeds Uni, and there was an irritating beeping noise that would not cease making it extremely difficult to read about Martin O'Neill taking over at Villa.

Di livio - although i havn't travelled upon one of these trolley buses myself. If it takes a gimmick to get ppl out of their cars and onto public transport its got to be hailed as a success! After all we all supposed to be more environmentally friendly today.

Elec city - isn't air con very un-environmental? do the buses come as standard now with air con.

Everyone - would the lack of air con make you think twice over travelling on these buses?

Yes, di Livio, I must say that I was a little underwhelmed myself when I first used the 'ftr' service. The exterior is quite radical and gets a lot of admiring comments from tourists but the interior, although pleasant (like many spanking new buses are) is not really much different from other buses. The seating arrangement at the back seems unusual to me but I suspect that's only because of my own limited experience of travelling on new vehicles in other parts of the world.

Can't say I noticed any beeping noise - maybe it was just that particular vehicle.

What struck me, though, was the fact that there was such a big difference between the height of the floor on the aisle and the floor where the seats are. One wonders how elderly and disable people would go on with it.

In contrast, the advantage of many of the new trolleybuses is that they are 100% low-floor, meaning that there is no difference in floor height throughout the vehicle. In some cases, this is achievable because vehicles use a series of hub motors, meaning that there is no big motor at the back to get in the way of things. You can also have designs which have exits/entrances almost wherever you like - even right at the back.

Di livio - although i havn't travelled upon one of these trolley buses myself. If it takes a gimmick to get ppl out of their cars and onto public transport its got to be hailed as a success! After all we all supposed to be more environmentally friendly today.

Elec city - isn't air con very un-environmental? do the buses come as standard now with air con.

Everyone - would the lack of air con make you think twice over travelling on these buses?

I must stress that, of course, the 'ftr' is not a trolleybus. As mentioned in previous posts, it's just a standard modern Volvo diesel with a re-designed exterior and seating layout.

Air conditioning is common in many buses these days, particularly on the continent. I suppose you are right, air conditioning does use up energy. In a diesel bus, this means that more fuel is being burnt. For an electric trolleybus, however, it depends on where you source your fuel in the first place. In Vancouver, for example, all the trolleybuses get their energy from Hydroelectric power stations, so there is no pollution at all, whether air conditioning is used or not.

In this country, at least with a trolleybus you would potentially have a choice as to where the energy came from - either renewables, fossil fuel or whatever. Taking energy from overhead wires also has the advantage that the source is usually a large power station. Because of economies of scale, this means that the energy is more efficiently-produced than with lots of small diesel motors (in buses).

As far as 'gimmicks' are concerned, I think the best one you could have would be electrically-powered transport! Not just a gimmick but practical, too.

Everyone - would the lack of air con make you think twice over travelling on these buses?

Its not just air con, or the lack of it I'm afraid; its the whole image of buses. I would certainly have used trams (as I do in Manchester) but I just can't imagine using a bus on a regular basis. its not a snob thing (I used buses for many years when they were really crap, full of cig smoke)....its just the overall image of buses (dirty, congested, poorly maintained, naff ..naff...naff). Sorry, but I won't be on them no matter how much they are made to appear like trams.

But are you saying that, even if buses were clean, uncongested, well-maintained and stylish, you would still not travel on them? Even if they went exactly where you wanted and were on time? Even if they were emission-free, environmentally-friendly electric trolleybuses? With platform stops, on-platform ticketing, isolated driver and passenger information displays? With segregated busways and traffic priorities?

… and you say, 'it's not a snob thing'?

It's not a question of making buses look like trams - what does a tram look like? Old trams look old. Modern trams look streamlined. So do modern cars. Does this mean that trams are trying to look like cars? Of course not.

The same goes for Tbuses - old trolleybuses look old, but new designs are streamlined and attractive. They are meant to look like what they are: modern, streamlined, attractive transport.

If you don't want to use Tbuses because of some innate prejudice, then that is your choice. We believe that the majority of travellers will make a different choice, as they have in other parts of the world.

..

Hybrid buses, which use both an internal combustion engine and electric motors, have been touted as the way forward for public transit by some authorities. Unfortunately, they have been causing headaches in places where they have been introduced. The more powerful ones have been using too much fuel and the less powerful ones have been running out of energy - as can be seen in the article below:


From Mass Transit News, August 8, 2006

Hybrid Buses Lose Steam in Elk Grove, California

Updated: August 8th, 2006 09:37 AM PDT


Loretta Kalb
The Sacramento Bee

When Elk Grove established its own transit system 19 months ago, it was hailed as another first for a city that prides itself on maverick moves.

A hybrid-powered commuter bus fleet -- the cleanest in the nation -- would be the heart of what's called the e-tran.

But now, Elk Grove's path to clean-air mass transit has taken a detour. Diesel buses, both chartered and purchased, currently make up nearly half of e-tran's 42-vehicle fleet and most of the daily commute buses to downtown Sacramento.

Instead of cruising into the nation's history books, the hybrid fleet has had trouble accelerating into the fast lanes of the freeways. Instead of comfortable rides, hybrid bus air conditioners have quit in triple-digit temperatures, leaving passengers sweating in ovenlike heat.

Now, only five of the city's 21 hybrids are used on freeways.

"In the quest to be leading edge, you have to take chances at times on new technology," Mayor Rick Soares said. "We took that chance."

No one is saying that the hybrid purchases, at a cost of $434,300 each, were a waste. The city, once served by Sacramento Regional Transit, has seen a huge growth in demand for rides within Elk Grove, and that's where most e-tran hybrids now operate.

But there is disappointment.

"Hybrid may not be the way to go for commuter service," said e-tran Transit Manager Carlos Tobar, who was hired to run e-tran more than a month after the start of the new service. "Live and learn."

So, what's the problem with the hybrids? They perform best during stop-and-go traffic, Tobar said. The hybrid's electric energy booster, an ultra capacitor, works in tandem with a 145-kilowatt generator. That booster is recharged every time a driver applies the brakes.

That's great for intercity transit, but is troublesome on freeways where brakes are less often applied.

"At highway speeds, many of the systems are stressed," Tobar said.

Among the stresses are air conditioners that switch off on ultra-hot days during freeway travel. To relieve passengers, Tobar either pulls buses from service or delivers bottled water in ice buckets to buses on afternoons hotter than 105 degrees.

Still, passengers have been howling. With sunlight beating into bus windows, the hybrids have been compared to rolling hot houses.

"Last night, you were sweating in there," Fred Burriell said of his commute home to Elk Grove during the latest heat wave. "You didn't need a sauna."

This isn't the first year the fledgling bus service has had these problems. Last year customers had similar complaints about air-conditioning breakdowns.

But the cooling problems haven't kept e-tran from building ridership. In January 2005, e-tran averaged 400 local rides a day and 800 commuter rides. By June of this year, daily rides numbered 3,600 -- two-thirds of them in town.

Last month, e-tran was named the fastest-growing transit system in the nation, with ridership up 78 percent in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, according to the industry trade weekly Passenger Transport.

And passengers seem to appreciate the city's attempt to use hybrid technology, one of the cleanest power sources available.

"Granted, I'm a supporter of hybrid technology. I wish it worked. I have my own (hybrid Toyota) Prius," said passenger Linda Beattie. "We've got to go with the next best alternative."

That next best alternative is buses fueled by compressed natural gas. On Wednesday, the Elk Grove City Council will be asked to approve the purchase of 10 such buses for a total of $3.85 million. The buses would arrive in the second half of 2007.

Tobar also is proposing the conversion to compressed natural gas of nine of 10 diesel buses purchased from the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transit District. The 10th diesel is being used for spare parts.

Compressed natural gas is the bus of choice for the Sacramento Regional Transit District, and Deputy General Manager Mike Wiley said the district has made a strategic commitment to the technology.

The hybrid power source is still in the early stages of development, he said.

For now, e-tran's mix of hybrid and diesel buses puts it on par, clean air-wise, with RT.

In terms of particulate matter and nitrous oxide emissions, "Their fleet average is equivalent to RT's," said Kristian Damkier, air quality engineer for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

That's little solace to passengers on problem buses. Elk Grove's hybrid buses also have had difficulty gaining enough speed to merge into the freeway diamond lane on Highway 99. On occasion, buses stall outright.

The sources of maintenance problems also aren't easy to detect, Tobar has said. Last month, he called in experts from both ISE Corp. of San Diego and Complete Coach Works of Riverside to solve the air-conditioning problems. ISE provided the hybrid system to Complete Coach, which remanufactured the buses for sale to Elk Grove.

"I still believe that Elk Grove made a visionary decision" in purchasing the hybrids, Complete Coach's Macy Neshati said Friday, noting the company believes the fleet will improve.

And Elk Grove is still committed to its goal for lower-emission buses.

"We really care about our riders," Tobar said. "We have had our challenges. But, like any champ that is knocked down, we get up and continue to fight."

It would seem that the only economical way to have efficient, clean, environmentally-friendly transport is through the introduction of electric trolleybuses.

There has been a proposal to link the Italian towns of Pescara and Porto Allegro with a leading-edge trolleybus line. The Dutch Phileas system (see below) has been chosen and there will initially be six single-articulated trolleybuses which will take between 145 and 155 passengers. The line will have traffic signal priority, platform stops and private rights of way on much of the route. The support structures for the overhead wires will have an award winning design and will also be used as supports for street lighting.

The projected journey time of 20 minutes will be half the current duration.

The system is planned to open in January 2009.

An image of the vehicle can be seen at:
http://tbusleeds.org.uk/phileas1.jpg

What's the word on these Super capacitor buses in China? Are they going to replace trolley buses? If they're going to have them in buses can't they have them in cars as well.

What's the word on these Super capacitor buses in China? Are they going to replace trolley buses? If they're going to have them in buses can't they have them in cars as well.
These buses are experimental and have been introduced on route 11 in Shanghai. The trolleybus wires have been kept in place, in case the experiment doesn't work out.

As the name suggests, they use a 'supercapacitor' instead of a battery, which is supposed to be quicker to charge and more resilient. Rather than running from overhead wires, they charge up at special charging stations (see photograph).
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/Super%20Capacitor%20Bus%20Recharging%20Station%20117.jpg

Whether the experiment will be a success or not remains to be seen. Even if they find that the supercapacitors are better than batteries, the vehicles are very expensive to buy and may incur additional heavy costs when the supercapacitors themselves need replacing.

Thanks for the info EC. Could be just another red herring but worth a try nevertheless eh?

Absolutely, CleanAir. It's always worth trying new ideas as long as people don't bank on them.

FYI: Update on the experimental Supercapacitor bus situation in Shanghai...
Super capacitor bus began running the clock wise circle of route 11 on August 28th, however five out of the seven super capacitor buses broke down within a week, and trolley-buses have to come to rescue. The reason that I've learnt was overheating of capacitor under Shanghai's scorching heat even though it was officially autumn since the beginning of August.
Zacki Jiang

I got a phone call from a member of the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority last night, regarding developments in Leeds. Apparently, he and some others went on a trip to Geneva recently, to check out the double-articulated trolleybuses there (the ones that take up to 200 passengers). They were all very impressed.

The guy in question stood right at the front of the bus looking backwards to monitor the behaviour of the back end of the vehicle. He reported that, to his delight, the rear of the bus faithfully followed the line of the overhead wires perfectly.

He also spoke at a convention there, where a number of modern trolleybus designs were on display.

Having also visited York recently, he agrees with me that the diesel 'ftr' buses are somewhat disappointing and that the ticketing system is just not working properly.

The WYPTA are currently waiting for the transport "professionals" to come up with proposals and costings for a Supertram replacement.

Well, it wont be any time soon whatever the next transport network proposal is anyway- 10 years before theres any sign of even a planning application (considering funding, new plans...) I reckon. Might be wrong. They shoud look at the tbus idea; I would like to see a high quality tbus- ie create seperate busways for it where possible, in similar suit to supertram.

ftr buses will be phased into Leeds from now until early next year. So expect to see them any time now.

They shoud look at the tbus idea; I would like to see a high quality tbus- ie create seperate busways for it where possible, in similar suit to supertram.I agree entirely. It's very important that they get it right first time and don't make any mistakes with the quality of the service, machines and infrastructure, otherwise it's just going to put people off (as with the 'ftr' in York).

They might as well make seperated busways, and really market it not as a bus at all. Not even using the word; like in London its marketed 'Transit' ie East London Transit.

While tbus is flexible, ie it can come off the wires, overtake traffic; it should be seperate to traffic when possible to completely avoid it and speed the system up and make it more reliable. No matter how flexible a bus is, they are still prone to traffic; it needs to be on segregated busways as much as it can; theres lots of disused bridges that could be used. The only place it really needs to come off the busways is in the centre. And where possible, use central reservations or special tbus roads for it; ie the public transport box could go as far to give tbus absolute priority, with no other traffic allowed on its route; most places on the box have enough room for an average road, and a tbus lane in each direction; particularly The Headrow and Vicar Lane.

Latest news about the troubled diesel 'ftr' bus, from today's York Evening Press...ftr woes see return of conductor
By Steve Carroll

IT IS the high-tech bus of the future - but good old conductors may be set to return to York's ftr super buses following problems with the ticket machines.

The move is being considered after Peter Edwards, commercial director of operator First, admitted: "Everyone knows the ticket machines have been the real Achilles heel."

Mr Edwards said the company may recruit a number of "customer service posts" to help out as thousands of new university students descended on York.

He said the jobs, likely to be only a temporary measure, were to give students unfamiliar with the ftr route a disruption-free journey.

But the move comes after continuing criticism of the ftr since it hit the city streets in May. The Press has received a series of letters from passengers frustrated with its ticketing arrangements.

Last month, we reported how Theresa Hope, of Foxwood, collected a ticket with the date 1980 printed on it - and was then grilled by an inspector.

The Press understands the new staff would operate in a similar way to those employed to help out after the launch of the ftr, which runs on the University of York to Acomb route, the city's fastest growing passenger service.

It would see staff on hand on buses to give advice and help with the ftr's on-board ticket machine.

"We may need to recruit some customer service posts," Mr Edwards said. "This is a busy time with the influx of new students who may be unfamiliar with the ftr arrangements.

"It is a measure to smooth their journey and make it disruption free. It is likely to be a temporary arrangement. Everyone knows the ticket machines have been the real Achilles heel. We are desperately trying to find ways to make these work more effectively."

"We are exploring a range of different options because it is taking longer to get a ticket than we anticipated when ftr was launched."

Mr Edwards said the company was continuing to work hard to try and solve the difficulties with the ticket machine.

Council leader Steve Galloway said earlier this month he had met with First directors to discuss issues over the ftr. He said he did not believe the existing ticket machine was "suitable for purpose" and believed that a fresh approach was required.

He said today: "I'm pleased that First have acted promptly following the meeting that I had with them. I highlighted that the ticketing arrangements on the ftr were the source of most criticisms.

"Employing conductors on the buses will go a long way towards reducing boarding times, which are the root cause of many of the service's bunching problems.

"It will also address the inability of the ticket machines to give change or take transport tokens.

"I understand that the company are modifying all the fleet to eliminate any remaining mechanical reliability weaknesses before the end of November.

"I'm confident that the changes will make the ftr the first choice transport for more residents."Just goes to show that when introducing any new system, whether it be bus, tram or tbus, you have to get all the details right first time - otherwise people will associate any shortcomings with the vehicle mode.

It is interesting to note the registration of the trolley bus on the website illustration, ZA 67 TFL, which by my reckoning makes it the 2nd half of 2017. Is this an indication of when we expect to see the system running?

It is interesting to note the registration of the trolley bus on the website illustration, ZA 67 TFL, which by my reckoning makes it the 2nd half of 2017. Is this an indication of when we expect to see the system running?No.

Latest news about the troubled diesel 'ftr' bus, from today's York Evening Press...Just goes to show that when introducing any new system, whether it be bus, tram or tbus, you have to get all the details right first time - otherwise people will associate any shortcomings with the vehicle mode.
OR... when introducing any new system, whether it be bus, tram or tbus, you have to test it out in York before introducing it to Leeds
:cheers2:
More seriously it seems we are quite lucky that York are one step 'ahead' with with this, as some of the problems should be resolved before we get it, and lessons learnt.

I understand that FTR will start on the Pudsey - Seacroft line very soon. 12 of these buses have been sourced for Leeds. They will be purple and the drivers are to be referred to as pilots and cannot talk to the public as will be isolated. Bus stops have been altered on the route so that the curbs are raised and meet the bus ramp. Apparently this route is picked as it has the least amount of spontaneous riders on it and the belief is that with regular commuters the new system of paying will be picked up much easier.

What stops people from driving in the T-Bus lane. Won't this just be the same as being on a normal bus stuck in traffic. Don't mean to be negative or anything but there are lots of arrogant drivers out there in their snazzy cars that dont care if they hold numerous amounts of people up just to get home to their trophy wives 5 minutes quicker.

Nothing, but if a tbus network were to be built, I would say it should be the same as the supertram; have 75% on segregated busways (that could later be upgraded to tramway). And really make it so it is another public transport network wherever possible, not just another type of bus using city streets.

and out of the door goes any percived cost saving.

What stops people from driving in the T-Bus lane. Won't this just be the same as being on a normal bus stuck in traffic. Don't mean to be negative or anything but there are lots of arrogant drivers out there in their snazzy cars that dont care if they hold numerous amounts of people up just to get home to their trophy wives 5 minutes quicker.You can stop people driving in the segregated sections by using rising bollards or with other, similar, methods. The buses (and emergency vehicles) then have a device which enables the driver to lower the bollards to gain entry.

For more details on this topic, see the "Your Leeds Transport Solution" thread, particularly page 17: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=277950&page=17

and out of the door goes any percived cost saving.In comparison with what?

FWIW - government are still spending money on trams - see Nottingham, they are getting £400m to build lines 2 and 3.

Bus - trams, I ain't posting for the 100th time on these forums where the percieved saving from buses is in reality a false economy.

As you try to get tram like quality, you get tram like costs, simple.

I'll start taking you, and your proposals seriously when I see proposed routes, with independent costings, until then, well sorry, you appear to be making undeliverable claims.

im sorry but both trams and tbus what the fuck are both shite as they just reduce the already crammed full road capacity by taking away lanes that shold be retained as car lanes the only solution the the traffic problems leeds and all othe rmajor citys are facing today is to go underground or up like a monorail or raised train lines,

in years gone bye we would seee a problem and give it the best solution possible not fanny about trying this and that, the govermant should be ashamed london gets all the money and the rest can go and whistle for it!

its about time we made are voices heard!¬!!!!!

im sorry but both trams and tbus what the fuck are both shite as they just reduce the already crammed full road capacity by taking away lanes that shold be retained as car lanes the only solution the the traffic problems leeds and all othe rmajor citys are facing today is to go underground or up like a monorail or raised train lines,

in years gone bye we would seee a problem and give it the best solution possible not fanny about trying this and that, the govermant should be ashamed london gets all the money and the rest can go and whistle for it!

its about time we made are voices heard!¬!!!!!

The trams were only going to take away 25% of lanes. The other 75% was to be on segregated tramway; down central reservations, verges, or through brownfield sites etc. And some of that 25% is in the public transport box anyway.

the govermant should be ashamed london gets all the money

and Manchester and Birmingham and Nottingham and Edinburgh and all other cities that put together good sensible transport projects.

FWIW - trams have a very high capacity - much higher than cars for a corrior, easily well over 3000 people per hour per direction (up to 10,000 in fact).

Done right, trams reduce dramatically the congestion on roads - look at Nottingham, roads that used to be full of cars are now tram only - with more people travelling along the route.

Hardly. How is putting a tram line right next to a rail line for nearly the whole route sensible.

Bus - trams, I ain't posting for the 100th time on these forums where the percieved saving from buses is in reality a false economy.

As you try to get tram like quality, you get tram like costs, simple.

I'll start taking you, and your proposals seriously when I see proposed routes, with independent costings, until then, well sorry, you appear to be making undeliverable claims.So, you meant "perceived cost saving" in comparison with trams then?

As I have said before on this and other threads, the main cost difference between tbuses (or any other kind of bus) and trams, is not related to the quality of the vehicle, or the ride. It comes from the fact that rail transport cannot tolerate services such as sewers and data cables being under the tracks. Otherwise the line would be blocked every time you needed to dig up the surface to do repairs or alterations. In order to install a tram system, you have to dig up the roads in advance to a depth of around 9ft or more and move all the services away from the tram route. This is very expensive - far more expensive than doing something simple, like road re-surfacing. Think about it.

The actual cost of the vehicles themselves is not the major one. Even if it was, luxury trolleybuses still only cost around half as much as equivalent-capacity trams.

If you install a segregated busway, you do not have to dig up and remove any services underneath, as you would with a tram system. This means that, even a high-quality tbus network, with platform stops, luxury vehicles, advanced passenger information and all the rest, is therefore much cheaper than a tram system.

These savings are not "perceived", they are just common sense. I don't see what is "undeliverable" about that. They manage it perfectly well in other countries, so why not here?

The most cost-effective tram lines have been the ones where existing rail corridors have been substantially re-used (such as Nottingham and the first phase in Manchester), thus cutting down on the amount of works needed. Other systems, where there has not been as much scope for this (such as Sheffield) have not fared so well. The proposed Leeds Supertram system did not envisage use of pre-existing rail lines, which is why the cost was anticipated to be relatively high.

Introduction of tram-trains would be cheaper than conventional trams, due to the reasons which I have outlined above but there are problems with safety and signalling regulations which would have to be addressed first, thus delaying their introduction. In addition, tram-trains could not serve the important North and North-East sectors of the city.

I'm not sure what you mean by "independent" costings. I have previously referred to the Atkins Report - if you don't regard that as being "independent", then I don't see how you can call any other reports by transport consultants "independent" either.

No1. - has the percentage of people travelling that corridor by public transport increased dramatically since NET was introduced?

Has regeneration along that route increased dramatically?

Have passenger figures on NET been significantly higher than expected?

Does the system make an operating profit? (£1.3m last year).

In no way shape of form could the NET be described as anything but a great success - it along with Metrolink have far far exceeded expectations and all projections.

Electric - I cannot be arsed reading your posts, you are living in cloud cookoo land.

oh - nearly forgot electric - didn't the Atkins report look at diesel buses?

Electric - I cannot be arsed reading your postsWell, 'Metrolink', you'll forgive me if I say I won't lose any sleep over that. If you cannot be 'arsed' to read my posts, then there is no wonder that you are so ill-informed.

I have answered every single one of the points that 'Metrolink' has brought up in response to my posts on the subject of Tbuses, to my knowledge. In return, 'Metrolink' has, in the main, given only vague assertions. He asks for detailed proposals, yet offers nothing of substance himself. Half the time it sounds like he is guessing or thinking up his arguments as he goes along. I can only assume that he has very little knowledge of the issue. He evidently has some information about trams - especially in Manchester - but Tbuses are obviously not his field.
you are living in cloud cookoo land.
If I am living in 'cloud cuckoo land', then so are countless transport officials, passengers and local government representatives in hundreds of cities and towns around the world, where electric trolleybuses are an efficient - and environmentally-sound - fact of daily life. So, too, must be the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority and transport officials in the West Midlands, who are considering the introduction of trolleybuses in their respective areas at this very moment.

oh - nearly forgot electric - didn't the Atkins report look at diesel buses?With regard to major roadworks (or lack of them) and segregated routes, the principles for diesel buses are exactly the same as for electric trolleybuses. The only difference between the system proposed by the Atkins report and one which would use Tbuses instead, would be the additional infrastructure required for electrification. As I have mentioned in previous posts (which I assume 'Metrolink' has not bothered to read), this would only cost around an extra £500,000 per km. For those who were not able to read previous posts, I include again a link to a file which contains a comparison of transport system costings in Leeds:
http://www.tbusleeds.org.uk/FinancialResultsJan2006.pdf

You are very ignorant.

If NET is succesful, that means that Supertram would be very succesful; it goes without saying that Leeds is much much larger and important than Nottingham, and the routes are going through areas with high congestion and through areas that currently don't have public transport.

ah - now I understand.

A diesel bus (about £100k) costs the same as an electric bus does it?

How about maintenance (over 40 years), how much does it cost to source spares for a relatively rare electric bus compared to a bus that there are millions of around the world?

How much will you have to pay you bus engineers? Traditional diesel bus engineers are ten a penny - what about electric bus engineers?

What is the life expectance of an electric bus engine? How does this compare to a diesel bus engine? How much more / less will it cost to maintain that engine during the 40 years of operation?

How much additional 'risk' (an absolutely HUGE part of cost in the UK) will be put on any consortium planning to build an electric bus network - totally untried in this country, with absolutely no idea of potential problems (costs) or pitfalls, compare that to diesel buses - very very common, with 'risk' being much much more predictable.

So, as I say again - what studies have been done into the cost - over the 40 year life cycle of the system - for ELECTRIC buses in Leeds, the additional wages required to maintain these things coupled to the additional risk could easily push the cost of such a project way off the scale, and until you show me otherwise then I'm afraid I'll continue to take such claims with a pinch of salt.


No1 - really???? I take it you can back that up with evidence???
If so, please provide the estimated passenger numbers for each proposed expansion of NET, along with the ones for Leeds.
Also, the cost of both projects to the tax payer over the next 40 years as well as the cost benifit ratios.
I'm sure from the figures you provide you will be able to prove that If NET is succesful, that means that Supertram would be very succesful
otherwise, you are doing your usual trick of making things up when you do not understand the situation - I've come to spot you don't have a clue what you're talking about from previous postings, remember the claim, just after Supertram was cancelled that trams will still be running in Leeds by 2010 because the council will put a new bid in and all the hard work had already been done - you my son are a genius.

So, you can be 'arsed' to read my posts then...

No, wait a minute - you can't be - otherwise you would never have made your last comments. After all, I did say: 'With regard to major roadworks (or lack of them) and segregated routes, the principles for diesel buses are exactly the same as for electric trolleybuses. The only difference between the system proposed by the Atkins report and one which would use Tbuses instead, would be the additional infrastructure required for electrification.'

Anyway, if you had bothered to read the 'Financial Analysis of Leeds Transit Options' properly (linked from my last post), you would see that the vehicle costs for the 'ftr' bus option (which was the one proposed in the Atkins report) are £12m, whereas the costs for the trolleybus option are £13m. Hardly a huge difference. This is because the trolleybuses in this case have a greater capacity than the 'ftr' vehicles and so less of them are needed.

For the record, the difference in price between an 'ftr' bus and a well-appointed trolleybus is only around £200,000. In a project which costs a total of around £200 million, this is not a significant amount. If you are going to quibble about small sums like this, then you really are painting yourself into a corner.

I have spoken before about the life-expectancy of an electric bus motor - they are much more reliable than diesel engines and can last (and have lasted) for thirty years or more.

How on earth can you say that trolleybuses are 'totally untried in this country'? (Note the word: 'totally') We used to have loads of them here at one time. The last ones ran in Bradford in 1972. As for trolleybus engineers, there are plenty of them in Europe (particularly in Eastern Europe). Ever heard of the EU? If you can have Polish plumbers here, then, by the same principle, you can have Polish trolleybus engineers.

Metrolink, I don't mind people engaging in a bit of healthy criticism but please take the time to read my posts properly before you do so. Otherwise you are wasting my time and everybody else's.

Don't bother posting, he doesn't read them...

You can stop people driving in the segregated sections by using rising bollards or with other, similar, methods. The buses (and emergency vehicles) then have a device which enables the driver to lower the bollards to gain entry.

Rome trolleybus on a reserved lane right of way.

I seeem to recall about a decade ago that whenever I visited Leeds there were major roadworks, which apprently were caused by building 3 laned roads everywhere.

Pity they did not take the opportunity to create dedicated lanes for public transport at that time.


Simon

http://citytransport.info/Digi/3019a.jpg

http://citytransport.info/Digi/3020a.jpg

Double articulated trolleybus in Geneva, Switzerland.

This was the prototype, now they have a fleet of them being used on a busy route.

http://citytransport.info/Digi/1595a.jpg

If buses such as these work in Geneva, which is not blessed with wide multilane roads, so hy not here in Britain? Especially on the busiest routes.

Simon

http://citytransport.info/Digi/1595a.jpg

Double articulated trolleybus in Geneva, Switzerland.

This is the prototype, (seen in 2003) now they have a fleet of them on a very busy route, plus having tested them other cities (eg: Zurich, & more) will be using them soon too.

If they work well in Geneva, which is not blessed with wide, multilane roads, then why not here in Britain?

Simon

that's maybe too long for a city road......sods law says if I wanted to cross a road in a rush and in the pouring rain the middle are of that bus would be parked right in front of me!..so I don't really like it.

that's maybe too long for a city road......sods law says if I wanted to cross a road in a rush and in the pouring rain the middle are of that bus would be parked right in front of me!..so I don't really like it.Hello, Molly. The tbus in the picture is only roughly the same length as the proposed Leeds Supertram, so it wouldn't cause any more of a blockage than that.

I agree with everything that you have said Electric City about the Tbus and think it would be a really good idea. the Leeds Supertram systom wuld have caused huge problems for shops and other Businesses Leeds, with the amount of work needed to dig up the road. this has happend in other cities like Sheffield and Manchester when building the lines. so i think we should forget about the Leeds Supertram and think of things like th Tbus which is cheaper and probably will be quicker to build and so we will get more routs out of it.

Does TBus involve resurfacing the existing road?

Does TBus involve resurfacing the existing road?Most likely, yes. Not absolutely essential on existing carriageways but probably a wise move anyway, to enhance ride quality. The Atkins Report (upon which our comparisons are based) assumes a 100% re-surfacing of the entire route, which is included in the costings (pages 4-4, 5-10, D-1 etc.). Road re-surfacing mostly just involves stripping off the top layers of the tarmac and replacing with new. There is no need to dig down any further.

Incidentally, I came across this recently:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/renewals.jpg

I assume that these expenses (£1.5m in this case) are included in the original benefit/cost ratios of new tram schemes?

Of course this would not be necessary with the Tbus, as it can simply overtake any roadworks or re-route on batteries.

I agree with everything that you have said Electric City about the Tbus and think it would be a really good idea. the Leeds Supertram systom wuld have caused huge problems for shops and other Businesses Leeds, with the amount of work needed to dig up the road. this has happend in other cities like Sheffield and Manchester when building the lines. so i think we should forget about the Leeds Supertram and think of things like th Tbus which is cheaper and probably will be quicker to build and so we will get more routs out of it.Yes, SimCity4, it would certainly be quicker to build, which is one of the main things that I am concerned with. The quicker we get a solution, the sooner we can move toward solving the pollution and congestion problems in Leeds.

For interest, here is a picture of a more recent model of the Geneva double-articulated trolleybus with the famous Geneva fountain in the background:

http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/LightramGenevaFountainSmall.jpg

electric - that Metrolink advert refers to the total replacement of 40year old track along about 12miles of line between Bury and Victoria - quite impressive batteries you've got there.

Out of interest, if a whole route is closed - say 10miles of it, I presume alternatives would be looked at similarly to Metrolink?

oh - and of course the cost of the bus replacement was included in the cost / benifit calculations, you'd know that since you are so up to speed on transport in this country though aren't you?

Oh.....

The bus contract may be worth £1.5m, but that isnt the cost to the scheme as they will be recouping much of that from the fares paid to travel on the replacement buses whilst the trams cannot run.

From the 'Your Leeds Transport Solution' Thread:
http://www.yorkshireposttoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=55&ArticleID=1858781
A network of high-quality public transport schemes linking Yorkshire's towns and cities is the key to solving the region's congestion problems, say transport chiefs. Lizzie Murphy reports.
AN early contender for a tram-train system which would use existing rail tracks but could also run through city centre streets would be the Harrogate line that links Leeds, Harrogate and York.
Transport chiefs say the system would be cheaper and more flexible than the current rail network and could link development areas such as the Aire Valley in Leeds, the regenerated five towns area around Wakefield and Leeds-Bradford Airport.
Such a modern system, which is in operation in parts of Germany, could also grow with the area, although it is unlikely to come to fruition until after 2013.
Other schemes include more electric trains, like the 16 currently used on the Airedale and Wharfedale lines, to link the region's key areas and provide long distance connections with London and other centres.
The director general of the West Yorkshire passenger transport organisation Metro, Kieran Preston, said: "With the tram-train network and existing electrified routes this would provide a core high-quality, high-capacity rail-based network.
"We are also preparing additional capacity and higher quality rolling stock on other rail routes across the region."
Electric-powered bus vehicles are also proposed. The trolley buses would take electric power from overhead wires or use a hybrid diesel-electric system which would follow some similar alignments as were planned for the axed Supertram.
Mr Preston added: "This is the next-best option to the Supertram scheme. It has everything the Supertram had apart from rails."
Alongside the Leeds electric bus network, there would be more priority bus lanes and new vehicles. Park and ride schemes would also be revised and improved.
The public transport network would be linked together by a single Smartcard ticket that could be used for all modes of transport for any journey.
A map along the lines of the London Tube map with Leeds at the centre would show the easiest ways of getting from one place to another .
At the same time, roads and motorways would be upgraded to tackle specific bottlenecks, including improvements around Bradford and Airedale as well as better access to Leeds-Bradford Airport.
Mr Preston said: "If we continue with current levels of investment, these current congestion hotspots will grow unchecked until they become congestion black spots far worse than we already experience."
He added: "We are proposing a 21st century transport network that is fit for purpose and will guarantee the sustainable growth and future prosperity of the Leeds city region."
n See Metro's vision in video online>>
lizzie.murphy@ypn.co.uk

The Yorkshire Post has been calling on the Government to offer a fair deal for Yorkshire and improve the region's transport. See our Road to Ruin campaign to sign our petition. Alternatively, have your say with Your Views>>
03 November 2006

electric - that Metrolink advert refers to the total replacement of 40year old track along about 12miles of line between Bury and Victoria - quite impressive batteries you've got there.

Out of interest, if a whole route is closed - say 10miles of it, I presume alternatives would be looked at similarly to Metrolink?Closing down an entire trolleybus route at the same time for roadworks would be extremely unlikely and, indeed, unnecessary. Instead, it is done a section at a time. As an example, the claimed range on batteries for the Rome trolleybuses is 10km - call it 5km to be on the safe side. Quite a useful distance, I would say. There is therefore no need to anticipate costs for large-scale (diesel)bus replacement schemes with a trolleybus network.

I'm sorry, no matter how much you try, you can't get away from the fact that trolleybuses can overtake and re-route whereas trams can't. This offers much more flexibility when planning any roadworks plus cheaper and quicker installation.

As I have said before, installing trams makes much more sense when there is the opportunity of using extensive pre-existing rail (or other) alignments which have no services underneath. If this is not an option, then you need to be able to guarantee a very high passenger throughput in order to justify the massive costs associated with exposing and moving the services underneath the existing highway. On the other hand, if neither of these scenarios is appropriate, then electric trolleybuses offer a much more cost-effective alternative.

AN early contender for a tram-train system which would use existing rail tracks but could also run through city centre streets would be the Harrogate line that links Leeds, Harrogate and York.
Transport chiefs say the system would be cheaper and more flexible than the current rail network and could link development areas such as the Aire Valley in Leeds, the regenerated five towns area around Wakefield and Leeds-Bradford Airport.
Such a modern system, which is in operation in parts of Germany, could also grow with the area, although it is unlikely to come to fruition until after 2013.Introducing tram-trains on certain lines would, as I have argued previously, be a cost-effective way of solving some of the problems of congestion and pollution in parts of Leeds (and, indeed, other nearby towns and cities). This is, of course, provided the WYPTA can surmount all the hurdles associated with the rules and regulations regarding heavy rail vs light rail transport. It is possible that the strengthening of the Leeds City Region concept may help in this respect. One thing is certain: they will need the full cooperation of the HSE and the government to make the process run smoothly.Electric-powered bus vehicles are also proposed. The trolley buses would take electric power from overhead wires or use a hybrid diesel-electric system which would follow some similar alignments as were planned for the axed SupertramI am rather concerned about this reference to hybrid buses though. I know that these machines are very much in vogue at the moment but I remain to be convinced as to their cost-effectiveness. They are expensive to begin with, plus there are potential hidden costs associated with the replacement of the (extremely)heavy-duty batteries that hybrids need. These are much more expensive than the auxiliary batteries that trolleybuses use and are subject to constant stresses and demands, meaning that they 'wear out' very quickly.

At best, hybrids are the transport equivalent of the low-tar cigarette.

In contrast, trolleybuses are true electric vehicles which produce no pollution on the street. I am therefore encouraged to have confirmation that their introduction is being proposed by the WYPTA, where appropriate.

Introducing tram-trains on certain lines would, as I have argued previously, be a cost-effective way of solving some of the problems of congestion and pollution in parts of Leeds (and, indeed, other nearby towns and cities).

My question about tram-trains if they are ever introduced are would they have the same performance as current trains as for example the Pacer trains which run on the Harrogate line have a top speed of 75mph. If they have a lower top speed surely it would be rather pointless to implement. Also what would be a passenger capacity of a tram train as opposed to a usual train?

Other than the Harrogate Line is there any other potential routes which i guess could include going from Leeds going along part of the Hallam / Pontefract Line to Rothwell and perhaps a cross city line through Bradford and using the former line through Cleckheaton, Heckmondwicke going on street at Dewsbury and then going back onto track towards Wakefield.

I'm not an expert on tram-trains but I do know that, for example, the Siemens Avanto has a capacity of around 240 (similar to the Sheffield Supertram) and a top speed of 100kph (about 62mph).

These vehicles are more expensive than an ordinary tram because they have to meet heavy rail requirements. They are more robust and have a dual-voltage system - 25,000 volts for the main line and 750 volts for the on-street system.

I am not sure of other lines. However, it's early days yet - according to the article, they're not expecting them to be installed before 2013.

Regarding earlier posts which talk about the reference to 'hybrid' buses in the press releases. I'm now fairly confident that this is just a crude way of describing trolleybuses which also have a back-up diesel engine to enable them to go for greater distances off-wire.

This is in contrast to the kind of hybrid buses which are being trialled in various cities throughout the world. These have a large diesel motor which feeds a heavy-duty battery, which in turn feeds the electric motors that drive the vehicle. This is a permanent arrangement and does not use overhead wires.

Trolleybuses offer much greater energy-efficiency by using mass-produced electricity from the National Grid.

I just want to pick up on Val verde's post of 3/11.

The Harrogate line is full of steep inclines and many intermediate stations. It is very rare that you see Pacers getting up to 75mph between Leeds and Horsforth, which is the core part of the route.

Tram-trains would have a major advantage of much faster acceleration and braking. I am sure that they would also operate at a much greater frequency than every 30 minutes, thus alleviating any capacity issues.

I personally would like to see the Leeds-Bradford Interchange line turned into a light rail system. The trackbed could be slewed at Holbeck to pass over the Harrogate/Shipley lines and onto the old Central viaduct, before dropping down into a new terminus where the station car park is at present.

Pacers only reach 75mph between Horsforth and Weeton and Weeton and Pannal; after that there is a tight corner and then theres lots of stations through Harrogate/Knaresborough before they can speed up again. I would say the core part of the route is not just to Horsforth but right through to Harrogate or even Knaresborough. In other words; any part that isn't Knaresborough-York, which is single-track, not heavily used...

Inside info suggests that the preferred option for the Leeds Tbus-based Supertram replacement will be a model built around the Geneva-style double-articulated trolleybuses, as illustrated on this thread last month. For those new to the thread, these vehicles have a capacity of up to 200 passengers (depending on seating configuration) and are manufactured by Hess/Kiepe.

Here's another shot of one:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/LighTram2.jpg

Here's a question for Electric... Should the T-Bus route suggested aboce prove popular- how easy is it to 'upgrade' to tram at a later date? It is just a case of putting the tracks in, or do you need to change all the wiring too?

Here's a question for Electric... Should the T-Bus route suggested aboce prove popular- how easy is it to 'upgrade' to tram at a later date? It is just a case of putting the tracks in, or do you need to change all the wiring too?It would involve a bit more than that, I'm afraid. You'd have to re-install the wiring (but probably not all of the poles/fittings holding them up) because trams use only one, thickish, wire, whereas tbuses use two, thinner, wires. Trams often need special double wiring at some junctions and stops, too - in order to compensate for the extra current required when pulling away. However, this is not a huge cost.

The main expense comes from the fact that you would have to dig up all of the roads where there are services (sewers, etc.) underneath and move them. Once you have done this and made good, you can then lay the track.

Changing the route for trams in this way is perfectly possible, of course, provided you can justify the additional expense. You would have to be certain that the line would have a very heavy passenger throughput which would need nothing less than very large trams (say, 300 capacity - unknown on British streets as yet). The current upper capacity limit for a trolleybus is 200 - although this may change in time.

In some places (such as Arnhem), they have done the necessary roadworks with the trolleybus line in advance, in case they wish to change the route to run trams in the future. However, if you do this, you are adding a huge initial cost to the installation of the tbus system, which takes away one of its main advantages.

It would be much cheaper to simply increase the frequency of the tbuses in order to cope with demand. This is much easier to do with trolleybuses, since the legendary acceleration and braking capabilities of these vehicles means they can much more readily cope with a tight headway. The only downside to this is that you would need more drivers. Although this is not a huge extra expense, it is still something that must be borne in mind when costing any proposed changes to a system.

Some more information coming through now from WYPTA about the proposed Supertram replacement. Apparently, they realise that the Tram-Train option could take time to legalise, so they are going for the Northern route after all. They regard this as being very important.

There is a truncated Southern route, an Eastern route and new ideas for a route into the Aire valley to cope with possible regeneration there.

There are three possible mode options, the preferred one being based on trolleybuses.

I should have more info later on tonight...

Ok, here we go...
The three options being put forward by the WYPTA DWG for the Supertram replacement are:

1) 'Preferred Option' £275m (advanced trolleybus)
2) 'Next Best' £225m (diesel-electric bus)
3) 'Lower Cost' £210m (ftr diesel)

Apparently, these don't take into account all the land acquisition costs though.

More to follow...

Here's the proposed Northern route:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/BRTNorth2006.jpg

...this is the proposed Southern Route:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/BRTSouth2006.jpg

...and this is the Eastern Route:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/BRTEast2006.jpg

I haven't had chance yet to check these against the original Supertram plans but the most obvious differences are with the Southern Route, as you can see.

There are also some ideas for the Aire Valley corridor, one of which is this:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/BRTAireOpt4.jpg

I'm only working with a hard copy here, so I'm having to type bits in but here's an interesting bit:
'Preferred Option:
* Full electric bus-tram option in view of quality, sustainability and environmental benefits. The vehicle would operate in ‘electric mode’ for most sections of the network other than when negotiating around highway obstacles, or when diverted from route. Such a system would avoid the need for significant costs to be incurred in relocating utilities.
Overhead power lines would be introduced for a significant proportion of the network. Indicative costs for this vehicle type are around £1.1m each.'The .pdf version should be available later on today (Wednesday).

Not sure why the vehicle cost is so high - maybe they're budgeting for a custom-made job? Or just erring on the side of caution.

I'm reasonably unimpressed to be honest... Lots of 'mixed with traffic' sections. Just seems like they're gonna paint a few red bus lanes on the roads, very short sections segregated. The Eastern route runs through suburban streets anyway so no traffic to be segregated from.

Does this mean tram-train isn't even proposed at present - it's just an idea for sometime in the future, maybe, possibly?

I'm reasonably unimpressed to be honest... Lots of 'mixed with traffic' sections. Just seems like they're gonna paint a few red bus lanes on the roads, very short sections segregated. The Eastern route runs through suburban streets anyway so no traffic to be segregated from.

Does this mean tram-train isn't even proposed at present - it's just an idea for sometime in the future, maybe, possibly?Yes, the level of physical segregation is less than it would have been with the Supertram but about the same (or maybe a bit less) than in the original BRT proposals. I'm not sure why this is (perhaps to keep the cost down?) but you're right, it does seem a little disappointing.

As far as I can tell, they definitely want Tram-trains but there are lots of legal battles ahead which will take time to iron out.

Anyway, the .pdf files are now available. The most interesting one is at:
http://www.wypta.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/897FE849-D9E0-4713-8DCB-DF4C6C10BAB2/0/DEWG2NOVEMBER2006ITEM5.pdf

A couple of paragraphs from the above:

section 2.40 - (Acrobat)page 7
'Scheme costs are still being refined, however in order to provide a ‘rule-ofthumb’
guide, the following costs are presented for information only (price
base 2006). These include the advised DfT 32% application of Optimism
Bias as well as indicative figures for Gaps & Risk and Promoter Budget.
Figures do not include, at this stage, full provision of land requirements:
Preferred Option £275m
"Next Best" £225m
Lower Cost £210m'

section 2.46 - (Acrobat)page 8
'As well as giving consideration to vehicle costs, consultants are currently
developing whole-life costs for each of the options. This work will also
include a commentary on the potential impact of future fuel price rises,
whereby there may be a growing differential between diesel and electric
power costs.'

this last one is quite encouraging. It's good to see local authorities now recognising that oil price rises in the future could seriously impact on conventional bus costs.

The rest of the .pdf files can be accessed via:
http://www.wypta.gov.uk/CommitteeMeetings/Development+and+Environment+Working+Group/061102.htm

The map files may be a little hefty for those concerned with bandwidth.

With so much street running, any idea if there are any plans to give these buses priority as they approach traffic signs?

If so, has this (rather expensive item) been included in the cost?

Yes, this is all included in the £275m.

tbh - looking at those routes, I doubt very much that trams would offer much more than trolley-buses, there is so much mixed traffic running I cannot see how the buses will be travelling faster than the cars given the requirements to stop and pick people up and travel in with the normal traffic.

What did you say the predicted passenger numbers was for this network?

I'd honestly be stunned if it gets much more (after the initial novelty factor wears off) than buses that run that route at the moment, I just cannot see people being attracted to leave their cars to travel on a slower bus.

I'd honestly be stunned if it gets much more (after the initial novelty factor wears off) than buses that run that route at the moment, I just cannot see people being attracted to leave their cars to travel on a slower bus.


Knowing this route only too well I have to agree. From The Merrion Centre to Lawnswood is virtually the same as it is now except with a different vehicle being used. There's a dedicated lane to Hyde Park Corner which is what we have now. A single lane mixed traffic section from Hyde Park Corner to just before the Original Oak which is what we have now. A new section running behind the Oak and The Arndale Centre before coming out at just before Shaw Lane Corner and then a mixed traffic section all the way to the Park and Ride.
The worst bit of this route at the moment is between Hyde Park Corner and Shaw Lane. Using this proposed route approximatley two thirds of this stretch of road will remain snarled up during rush hour. It's not enough and it will not persuade people to take public transport rather than the car - whether Tbus, Tram or Bus.

Having had a closer look at the maps, it would seem that the overall level of segregation is broadly similar to that for the proposed Supertram. It's just that in the BRT option, more use is made of bus-only lanes (in red) rather than pure physical segregation.

Any segregation at all should speed up travel to a certain extent, especially in the rush-hour. The original BRT plans suggested a travel time of 20-odd minutes from the edge of the system to the city centre, which, if accurate, is not too bad. Having said that, traffic will no doubt have increased since then, so a revision of the estimates may be required.

However, as it says in the report:
'The route proposals are still being refined before the Outline Business Case submission is finalised.'
...so there may be an opportunity for people to express opinions about this issue before things are set in stone, so to speak.

How long would it take to drive in a private car the length of that route?

How long would it take to drive in a private car the length of that route?

If you're talking about the "20-odd minutes from the edge of the system to the city centre" it probably takes about 20 odd minutes in a car!! From the Park and Ride in Lawnswood to the St John's Centre is less than four miles.

Again, the route incorporates a new stretch of dedicated "track" that's about half a mile long, it won't make much difference.

£275-210m is not that much cheaper than Super-Tram, yet the benefits will be only marginal.

The original BRT plans suggested a travel time of 20-odd minutes from the edge of the system to the city centre,

Add 20 minutes waiting time (on average, can be more), and the fact that you won't get to the point where you need to be, makes no alternative to a car.

If to go along the bus route, why not simply to imlplement the road improvements and stuck with current double-deckers, sure ftr is no better and diesel-electric is just a hype response to "climate change".

It looks like they've got a budget in mind (maybe some sort of arrangement with DfT) and now working towards it rather than developing a future-proof solution for Leeds.

Watched "Crash" yesterday (brillian film BTW) and a black guy suggests there that they make large windows in buses to humiliate people who rides on them. I think bus perception in the UK is not much different from this.

The benefits will be small; I don't see why they couldn't just put the busways on the proposed tram routes. 75% of that was segregated; and most the land is either clear, council owned ready and ready for supertram; ie if its ready for a supertram is must be ready for a guided busway.

£275-210m is not that much cheaper than Super-Tram, yet the benefits will be only marginal.

Add 20 minutes waiting time (on average, can be more), and the fact that you won't get to the point where you need to be, makes no alternative to a car.Well, according to current estimates at 2006 prices:'On a comparable basis, a tram option would cost around £550-600m'. This means that the Tbus BRT option is around half of that.

The waiting and travel times are roughly the same for both Supertram and BRT, so in this area there is little advantage to be gained from spending the extra £300m or so for a tram anyway.

In this instance, the main advantages lie with potentially pollution-free transport and a good quality image with perceived permanence of service (due to the presence of overhead wires).

If people believe that Climate Change is hype (and forgive me if that's not what you meant), then I'm afraid we shall just have to agree to disagree. I for one am very concerned about the issue and am just as concerned about the level of pollutants being breathed by our children in the urban environment.

Introducing trolleybuses would be one of the most cost-effective ways of addressing these issues.

Well, according to current estimates at 2006 prices:'On a comparable basis, a tram option would cost around £550-600m'. This means that the Tbus BRT option is around half of that.

The waiting and travel times are roughly the same for both Supertram and BRT, so in this area there is little advantage to be gained from spending the extra £300m or so for a tram anyway.

In this instance, the main advantages lie with potentially pollution-free transport and a good quality image with perceived permanence of service (due to the presence of overhead wires).

If people believe that Climate Change is hype (and forgive me if that's not what you meant), then I'm afraid we shall just have to agree to disagree. I for one am very concerned about the issue and am just as concerned about the level of pollutants being breathed by our children in the urban environment.

Introducing trolleybuses would be one of the most cost-effective ways of addressing these issues.

But no-one is going to use, or even consider, a service that is only slightly better than the current one. This doesn't go far enough. If you want this system to work then tough decisions need to be made. Using the Northern Route as an example why not add a toll for drivers on Otley Road within the Ring Road boundary? That would get people onto public transport which in turn would fly down Otley Road with a lot less disruption.

Got to be VERY careful with congestion charging - if you charge on one main road all that happens is people find rat runs and piss off the people who live on what used to be the quieter roads.

Got to be VERY careful with congestion charging - if you charge on one main road all that happens is people find rat runs and piss off the people who live on what used to be the quieter roads.


That's a fair point, living on a rat run myself I know how bad it can get.

Ok - another thought. The biggest drawback to this proposal seems to be that the T/bus will be sharing lanes with cars on a lot of the proposed routes, obviously these routes are rammed with traffic for most of the day. Why can't the T/bus overhead lines go down the middle of the road with cars and buses on the inside lanes only?

But no-one is going to use, or even consider, a service that is only slightly better than the current one. This doesn't go far enough. If you want this system to work then tough decisions need to be made. Using the Northern Route as an example why not add a toll for drivers on Otley Road within the Ring Road boundary? That would get people onto public transport which in turn would fly down Otley Road with a lot less disruption.Well this goes to the heart of the congestion charging debate, doesn't it? As we were discussing on another thread, there are those who believe that congestion charging should be introduced before new transit schemes, whereas others (like myself) think that it should be the other way round.

At any rate, I think that most of us can agree that the two should be used alongside eachother.

Although, as I have intimated, I am rather disappointed that there is not currently a greater level of segregation planned into the scheme (and I shall be lobbying for that, in my own small way), I still think that it has merit as it stands.

As someone who has been campaigning for the re-introduction of trolleybuses in this country, it does worry me though that any deficiencies which are specifically to do with routeing and segregation may in some way reflect on trolleybuses themselves. The mode of transport and the level of segregation are separate issues and should be regarded as such.

is it likely that there will be more than three routs because a western rout and a rout to the Harrogate road junction with the ring road going via roundhay park would be good. the rout of the Trolybus is shorter than that of the Supertram is this likely to change as things devellop

Well, according to current estimates at 2006 prices:'On a comparable basis, a tram option would cost around £550-600m'. This means that the Tbus BRT option is around half of that.


Point taken, but then the benefits (and I think DfT specifically cares about price/benefits ratio) would be less than 50% for the bus solution.


The waiting and travel times are roughly the same for both Supertram and BRT, so in this area there is little advantage to be gained from spending the extra £300m or so for a tram anyway.

With this I'll disagree, as trams tend to run on strict schedules, and buses arrive +/- 15 minutes from their scheduled time, if at all. This single fact makes me a big opponent to anything bus-based in the UK. The journey time is also much less, and predictable on a tram. It's hard to argue with that. Maybe Metrolink will correct me but I'd think a tram can cut a journey time by 50% easily.[/QUOTE]


In this instance, the main advantages lie with potentially pollution-free transport and a good quality image with perceived permanence of service (due to the presence of overhead wires).

If people believe that Climate Change is hype (and forgive me if that's not what you meant), then I'm afraid we shall just have to agree to disagree. I for one am very concerned about the issue and am just as concerned about the level of pollutants being breathed by our children in the urban environment.

Introducing trolleybuses would be one of the most cost-effective ways of addressing these issues.

As for the climate change and pollution, you did get me wrong. What I said is that diesel-electric buses are a hype, T-bus is the way forward from that point of view, but it will still carry all other bus disadvantages and will not help to tackle the congestion and reduce the use of cars, so not helping the environment and fighting climate change as would a supertram.

Thanks for the clarification, JOliver. I agree wholeheartedly that the diesel-electric (hybrid) option is a red herring.

As far as punctuality is concerned, trams are, after all, just another vehicle trying to make progress. If the tram has to mix with traffic, it will get delayed/stuck just as easily as any other vehicle (I've seen it many times when I lived in Sheffield!).

The key is not whether the vehicle is a tram or a bus, but whether it is segregated or unsegregated (and/or whether there are clever traffic priorities which favour the vehicle). There is no magic which enables the tram to keep to a strict schedule simply because it is a tram.

In the past, tram schemes have often involved a level of segregation and priority which has not been afforded to buses. However, if you give buses the same qualities, they can achieve the same levels of punctuality as trams (or with a trolleybus, in some cases better - because the trolleybus can accelerate and decelerate better than a tram or, for that matter, a diesel bus).

There is an overwhelming assumption in transport planning circles in this country (but not in other countries) that trams have some magic quality which is more likely to attract passengers than other modes of public transport. We would take issue with this because of positive experience with buses/trolleybuses in places like Brighton and Arnhem, and also because we realise that in the past, trams have been given high-status priviliges (platform stops, passenger information etc.) which buses have not. In most cases, like is not being compared with like.

Give trolleybuses similar advantages and you will attract similar amounts of passengers.

So is Tram-train finished before it's begun?

So is Tram-train finished before it's begun?Definitely not. As far as I can tell, the WYPTA are very serious about Tram-Trains. If they can surmount the legal issues and (crucially) get the funding, then they will go ahead with it. It will just take time.

You are right City.

As soon as you start giving buses more of the things that trams have, i.e. platforms, more segregration etc it will start to become more attractive to the average punter - however, it will also start pushing the cost up towards those of tram prices.

You cannot get away from the fact that the more you pay, the better the service you get.

Leeds_lad - as I posted several weeks ago when train - trams were first talked about there will be huge opposition from the HSE and Network Rail.

The Altrincham to Nantwich was considered for conversion a couple of years back over here - it go nowhere due to the strong fight put up by both the HSE and Network Rail, finance didn't appear to be an issue.

I am not sure the opinion of these organistions has changed much in the last few years either to be honest.

As soon as you start giving buses more of the things that trams have, i.e. platforms, more segregration etc it will start to become more attractive to the average punter - however, it will also start pushing the cost up towards those of tram prices....but by how much? A bog-standard trolleybus line only costs around £500,000 per km for the infrastructure and around £350,000 each for cheap and cheerful trolleybuses. Even with this basic option, you've already added good quality over and above the standard diesel bus by providing clean, quiet transport. If you then instead have luxury trolleybuses and add platform stops and segregation, of course you are spending more money but what you end up with still costs nowhere near as much as a tram line.

The only way you can get a trolleybus to cost anywhere near as much as a tram is if you opt for one of those exotic systems that they have in a few places in France, where they have guide-rails embedded in the road. This is totally unnecessary and, in my opinion, complete folly. To do this you would have to remove all of the utilities under the road (as you would with a tram), thus negating most of the cost advantages of the trolleybus option.

Take the latest Leeds BRT proposal as an example: £275m for the system (which includes segregation and platform stops) - call it £300m to be on the safe side. An equivalent tram system is estimated to cost up to £600m at 2006 prices - twice as much. Sure, the adding of luxuries that are normally given to trams has 'pushed the cost upwards' but only around half way towards the cost of a tram network. That's a huge difference.

Tell you what, why not wait to see when this opens (if it does which I seriously doubt) and we'll come back on here to discuss the failure / success of the scheme.

i hope that there will be more than the three routs. 5 would be good. North east rout and a western rout.

Tell you what, why not wait to see when this opens (if it does which I seriously doubt) and we'll come back on here to discuss the failure / success of the scheme.Fair enough. None of us has a crystal ball but at least no-one can now say that an electric trolleybus scheme for Leeds is "simply just one persons dream".

Well, I've given everyone a long enough rest from me badgering on about tbuses, so I thought it appropriate to update you all on the subject.

A new trolleybus system has opened recently in Merida, Venezuela. Below is a picture from the first day of operation:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/xmd1.jpg
Notice that, although they drive on the right in Venezuela, these lanes pass each other on the left - this is so they can have a single platform in the middle of the carriageway.

I'm a bit concerned about the high kerbs on either side. This will make it difficult to overtake, should a blockage occur. I think it would be better to have lower profile kerbs and less obstruction in the middle from vegetation and the like.

The bus shelter designs are quite radical and must have cost quite a bit extra. What do people think about this? Is it worth spending the extra money for new designs, or should we stick to the plain types?

I have passed on all of your thoughts about the proposed Leeds BRT routes on to members of the WYPTA and they are digesting them at the moment.

Speaking of digestion, do have a splendid Christmas Day. Here's wishing you all a Trolley Christmas and an Electrifying New Year!

Well, I've given everyone a long enough rest from me badgering on about tbuses, so I thought it appropriate to update you all on the subject.

A new trolleybus system has opened recently in Merida, Venezuela. Below is a picture from the first day of operation:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/xmd1.jpg
Notice that, although they drive on the right in Venezuela, these lanes pass each other on the left - this is so they can have a single platform in the middle of the carriageway.

I'm a bit concerned about the high kerbs on either side. This will make it difficult to overtake, should a blockage occur. I think it would be better to have lower profile kerbs and less obstruction in the middle from vegetation and the like.

The bus shelter designs are quite radical and must have cost quite a bit extra. What do people think about this? Is it worth spending the extra money for new designs, or should we stick to the plain types?

I have passed on all of your thoughts about the proposed Leeds BRT routes on to members of the WYPTA and they are digesting them at the moment.

Speaking of digestion, do have a splendid Christmas Day. Here's wishing you all a Trolley Christmas and an Electrifying New Year!this bus shelter design is pretty cool - i think we should have something similar in Leeds. turning up at a boring bus shelter on a rainy monday morning can be soul destroying - passengers deserve something better - a more pleasant environment.

Curitiba in Brazil has a tube-style bus network on busways. Leeds has superbusways, and surely better use can be made of them- and especially when more superbusways are being built. And if a tbus is installed, then it should try to use these too. But for bus stops; the most efficent use of the superbusways would be to have stops as stations; like Curitiba. Each stop should have ticket machines and a turnstile; so passengers are able to quickly board and depart from the bus. This would require the bus to line up with an entrance to the bus stop (such as that on a modern tube station where the glass panel doors line up with the trains doors). This really wouldnt be hard if the sensors that are used on the wheels are also used to allow the bus to line up with doors. If you dont get that; just wikipedia Curitba and its bus network. Curitiba is a 3rd world city; yet Leeds- with busways connecting some of the richest suburbs in any city in the UK to the wealthy centre in one of the richest countries on earth; its just stupid. Leeds should find it a doddle.

Almost stopped in Curitiba in 05!

Curitiba in Brazil has a tube-style bus network on busways. Leeds has superbusways, and surely better use can be made of them- and especially when more superbusways are being built. And if a tbus is installed, then it should try to use these too. But for bus stops; the most efficent use of the superbusways would be to have stops as stations; like Curitiba. Each stop should have ticket machines and a turnstile; so passengers are able to quickly board and depart from the bus. This would require the bus to line up with an entrance to the bus stop (such as that on a modern tube station where the glass panel doors line up with the trains doors). This really wouldnt be hard if the sensors that are used on the wheels are also used to allow the bus to line up with doors. If you dont get that; just wikipedia Curitba and its bus network. Curitiba is a 3rd world city; yet Leeds- with busways connecting some of the richest suburbs in any city in the UK to the wealthy centre in one of the richest countries on earth; its just stupid. Leeds should find it a doddle.Picture of the 'tube' style platforms at Curitiba, Brasil:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Bus_Stops_2_curitiba_brasil.jpg/800px-Bus_Stops_2_curitiba_brasil.jpg
Notice how the platform is for a high-floor vehicle. Any new trolleybuses introduced into this country (or anywhere in Western Europe) would be low-floor designs.

Picture of the 'tube' style platforms at Curitiba, Brasil:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Bus_Stops_2_curitiba_brasil.jpg/800px-Bus_Stops_2_curitiba_brasil.jpg
Notice how the platform is for a high-floor vehicle. Any new trolleybuses introduced into this country (or anywhere in Western Europe) would be low-floor designs.

Hardly looks like a third world city !

Notice how the platform is for a high-floor vehicle. Any new trolleybuses introduced into this country (or anywhere in Western Europe) would be low-floor designs.

Yeah but you can improvise; you can still have the same concept.

And it is a 3rd world country; its Brazil :) And alot of the reason why it doesnt look so 3rd world is because its got its act together, and is a green city where theres benefits all round. Look at what theyve done there; it works well and its confusing why all ledc cities dont try something similar! And if thats what a 3rd world city can do, imagine what Leeds could do.

..........And it is a 3rd world country; its Brazil :) And alot of the reason why it doesnt look so 3rd world is because its got its act together, and is a green city where theres benefits all round. Look at what theyve done there; it works well and its confusing why all ledc cities dont try something similar! And if thats what a 3rd world city can do, imagine what Leeds could do.

Just because you stick a smiley into your message doesn't make it any less offensive. And it is offensive to call a developed culture and economy "third world".

The fact that Brazil suffers from a relatively high level of poverty has quite a lot to do with the protectionist practices of wealthy nations, something you've had a lot to say about in messages you've posted to promote fair trade.

I wouldnt really call Brazil economically developed

Hey folks, let's not start such an off-topic flamewar!

Yeah but you can improvise; you can still have the same concept.I wasn't implying that you couldn't do the same thing here - I was just making an 'interesting' observation. I was also trying to circumvent any adverse comments about disabled access and the like. I'm sure that in this country they could be adapted for that too.

I wouldnt really call Brazil economically developedHey, have you ever seen the Rio Carnival? Some of those Brasilians are definitely well-developed ;)

Yeah but you can improvise; you can still have the same concept.

And it is a 3rd world country; its Brazil :) And alot of the reason why it doesnt look so 3rd world is because its got its act together, and is a green city where theres benefits all round. Look at what theyve done there; it works well and its confusing why all ledc cities dont try something similar! And if thats what a 3rd world city can do, imagine what Leeds could do.

Well, leave aside the question of whether Brazil is third world or not, the point is that that this city seems to have has got its 'act together' with its transport (and its buildings aren't that bad) - and no, I cannot imagine Leeds doing anything like this - my imagination does not stretch that far !

Picture of the 'tube' style platforms at Curitiba, Brasil:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Bus_Stops_2_curitiba_brasil.jpg/800px-Bus_Stops_2_curitiba_brasil.jpg
Notice how the platform is for a high-floor vehicle. Any new trolleybuses introduced into this country (or anywhere in Western Europe) would be low-floor designs.

Also the ticket barriers - so I won't have to fight with a driver who does not want to let me in with a tenner.

And it is a 3rd world country; its Brazil :)

For once, I agree with LS1. Only I would add "so-called" 3rd World. Venezuela and Brazil show something we can only dream. In a parallel thread there were pictures of Metro in Santiago... Why with the most expensive in the World tickets, gas prices etc we can't have a decent transport system over here?

OK. Well dont look at it as 3rd world if you dont want to. Just accept the point that the UK is far richer than nearly every country on this planet. Yet a less wealthy country can do this.

They don't seem that great to me - all they are is regular bus stops with controlled entry/exit. But surely the driver still has to check the tickets to make sure no-one jumped the barrier? What's the advantage of them?

Its much quicker; its the same efficency of a tube network. The buses run on busways for their full route; no traffic. Boarding is instant. Tickets arent checked- why would they be- you have to go through the barrier like on the tube. There are staff at alot of stops like there are at tube stations to issue tickets and patrol them. Cameras would survey barriers too. To be fair, theres just the same problem as at any other place on earth where there are ticket barriers.

The driver is segregated at the front, like on a train. On the bus there are multiple entrances; people get on and off like a train or tram. Ill post a picture.

http://www.promobrasil.it/Album/Curitiba/trasporti_jpg.jpg

You can see that they are bi-articulated, long, with lots of doors. Its all about efficency.

Different buses are different colours.
The orange routes are the high speed metro style buses that are express services- only stop at a few stops. They are red/orange buses.
http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/curitiba-bus-routes00.png

Other coloured buses that match the route colour stop more regularly like a normal bus, and then there are feeder buses from each high speed stop around that area. Each high frequency stop is a hub for the feeder routes. Its about integrated bus networks. There are then interdistrict orbital routes linking suburbs. There were plans for light rail but they were abandoned as the bus network was so efficent.

http://www.heureka.clara.net/gaia/curitiba-bus-routes00.png



Not much third world about that system !

However, Curitiba is a rapidly growing city and is the capital of the Brazilian state of Paraná. In 2005 its population was approximately 1,757,904 people. Its metropolitan area comprises 26 municipalities with a total population of 3.2 million (2005 census). So it is about four times the size of Leeds. Nevertheless it appears that a lot of money (and thought) has been invested in its transport system

In Curitiba, they were going to have guided trolleybuses on the busiest parts of the network but had the funding pulled at the last moment. Last year ('05), I used some photos of their designs to make up composites to send to the newspapers and for the website.
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/LeedsTbusFuraFila2.jpg
These were actual working prototypes (not just renders!) with the chassis made by Volvo and the bodywork done by a Brasilian firm called Marcopolo.

Im guessing the cables would need to be higher than that so that Double Decker buses wouldnt have a problem. Im sure they consider that though!

Im guessing the cables would need to be higher than that so that Double Decker buses wouldnt have a problem. Im sure they consider that though!Yes, the cables are always as high as they need to be. In this case, I just cut out and reversed the image from the original photo, got rid of the logos and used the height of the actual wires on the test track in Brasil (see below...)
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/FuraFilaOrigCrop.jpg
If I'd had more time, I could have altered the angle of the trolley poles and put the wires a bit further up.

In this country overhead wires need to be same whether single or double deckers used, to clear other vehicles. Although no legal limit on road vehicle height in this country, in practice limited by minimum bridge or other solid overhead structure soffit height (from road surface) of 5.1 metres (design standard for Trunk Roads, accepted guidance elsewhere).

Thanks Chris. I don't know whether the wires are lower than normal on the Brasilian test track or if maybe it's just an optical illusion instead. Anyway, I've done a quick alteration:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/LeedsTbusFuraFila2.jpg
There - does that look any better?

Looks plenty high to me.

are the doors on the wrong side of the bus because you reversed the image or are there doors on both sides?

are the doors on the wrong side of the bus because you reversed the image or are there doors on both sides?Yes, there are doors on both sides, so in this case, it doesn't really matter that I've reversed the bus image. Here's another shot, un-reversed:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/FURA-FILA-LADO-2.jpg
and here's one showing a tbus pulling up at a central platform:
http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/Fura-Fila-6.gif
In the above picture, it looks like it might be possible to get off the bus at both sides at the same time. As with the Curitiba buses that are currently in service, these are high-floor designs and therefore need a high platform. In Western Europe, regulations now demand low-floor access for buses, so any platforms would be correspondingly lower.

If it were to be 2 sided that can only be good; one side for boarding, one for alighting- greater efficency.

Anyone else spot the guided bus-way Brazillian style?? Metal girders bolted to the floor of a normal separated road - more cost effective and easy to adjust than the concrete ones over here?

May be OK with concrete road pavement, but I should imagine less satisfactory/ practicable with asphalt (aka 'flexible pavement' in trade jargon).

Its not that aesthitcally pleasing is it though!

No it's not, any more than the Leeds guided busways which have replaced former green and pleasant central reservations with concrete (though perhaps in some cases that green had itself replaced tramway segregated track?).

I wonder if many people know that there was a trolley bus service in Leeds as far back as 1911 ?

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q281/nosmo2/scan0001.jpg

I wonder if many people know that there was a trolley bus service in Leeds as far back as 1911 ?Yes, that's right Fred. As the article says, Leeds was the first place in Britain to have trolleybuses. Bradford was the second - I think later on in the same week.

As you'll no doubt know, Bradford was also the last place in the country to have trolleybuses in 1972. So there is a very strong link between trolleybuses and this part of the world.

Electric, since you like talking about Geneva so much tell me about the trolley bus route down Rue de la Servette in the city (it WAS one of the most popular routes in the city).

Electric, since you like talking about Geneva so much tell me about the trolley bus route down Rue de la Servette in the city (it WAS one of the most popular routes in the city).

Speaking about Geneva, they got rid of most Tram routes in the past - guess it was a world-wide pandemic - but now thinking of bringing them back, I think I remember them digging roads for this a couple of years ago.

Electric, since you like talking about Geneva so much tell me about the trolley bus route down Rue de la Servette in the city (it WAS one of the most popular routes in the city).The strategy involves the introduction of trolleybuses where appropriate. If the line subsequently becomes extremely popular and the passenger numbers justify the additional expense, they will then convert the line to a tram route, if funds allow. This is what has happened on the route that you mention. It would seem to be a very wise and effective scheme, ensuring that no money is wasted on new tram projects which then do not achieve the hoped-for passenger levels (as has happened several times in Britain).

The policy in Geneva is to use electric transport wherever possible. To quote an official:people enter a street, they see the overhead wires, and know that an effective public transport comes here...If only our own officials exhibited the same enthusiasm!

Having just returned from a weekend in London and the South-East, I couldn't help thinking how much more pleasant and healthy it would be if some of the bus and train routes that I travelled on were converted to electric propulsion. One can only hope that the powers-that-be will look to Switzerland and come to their senses.

this article was in todays yorkshire post
>>
Government gave millions to fund rival supertram
Two very similar schemes – but one is axed and the other goes ahead
Exclusive
William Green
Political Correspondent
A RIVAL scheme to the axed Leeds Supertram was given hundreds of millions of pounds of public cash despite both offering similar financial benefits, according to documents seen by the Yorkshire Post.
Ministers last summer provided £244m for the expansion of the Manchester Metrolink – on top of £200m already handed over – just months after scrapping the Leeds Supertram on cost grounds.
But the Yorkshire Post has learned that Department for Transport (DfT) officials classed both schemes as "high value for money" and decided there was little difference between the two.
For every £1 of public money spent, the Leeds tram scheme offered benefits of up to £2.40 – excluding advantages such as 140 new jobs – compared to £2.50 for the Metrolink expansion, the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show.
The DfT's guidelines say a scheme will generally be "high value for money" if the so-called benefit cost ratio is more than £2 and that "most, if not all" such schemes should normally be funded.
But the Government ruled Leeds should get a cheaper bus network instead, while Manchester would see its tram network expand.
The documents also confirm that then Transport Secretary Alistair Darling called for the Metrolink expansion to be abandoned in December 2004, but said that £520m was still on the table for transport improvements in Manchester that could include tram schemes.
The 2005 Labour general election manifesto then said the cash had been committed for Manchester's tram.
Supporters of the Leeds tram said the network could be built for £355m, with Leeds finding an extra £30m to cover increased costs.
Tory Shadow Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said: "Bearing in mind their clear commitment to expand tram schemes, it seems extraordinary they should have such different strategies for Leeds and Manchester – and you cannot help but suspect there are politics at play here."
Leeds North West Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland said the city had been given a "bum deal" by the Government despite Supertram representing good value and similar benefits to the Metrolink expansion.
He warned that the city needed transport investment to develop as a business and shopping centre. He has also written to the National Audit Office asking when its report into trams will be published amid fears of a delay.
He said buses would have to be the answer now, but claimed that the DfT had not clarified financial issues despite any scheme needing its support.
The DfT said draft guidance for councils promoting trams made clear that funding was unlikely if an alternate form of transport was considered a better solution.
A spokeswoman said: "Our prime concern is to achieve the best solution for the particular area, taking account of value for money.
"In Leeds, a top-of-the-range bus on the same corridor was a better value solution than a tram. It would deliver most of the benefits of the tram, at half its cost. In Manchester, extensions to the existing system were a better value-for-money solution than bus-based alternatives."
>>

this article was in todays yorkshire post
>>
Government gave millions to fund rival supertram
Two very similar schemes – but one is axed and the other goes ahead
Exclusive
William Green
Political Correspondent
A RIVAL scheme to the axed Leeds Supertram was given hundreds of millions of pounds of public cash despite both offering similar financial benefits, according to documents seen by the Yorkshire Post.
Ministers last summer provided £244m for the expansion of the Manchester Metrolink – on top of £200m already handed over – just months after scrapping the Leeds Supertram on cost grounds.
But the Yorkshire Post has learned that Department for Transport (DfT) officials classed both schemes as "high value for money" and decided there was little difference between the two.
For every £1 of public money spent, the Leeds tram scheme offered benefits of up to £2.40 – excluding advantages such as 140 new jobs – compared to £2.50 for the Metrolink expansion, the documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show.
The DfT's guidelines say a scheme will generally be "high value for money" if the so-called benefit cost ratio is more than £2 and that "most, if not all" such schemes should normally be funded.
But the Government ruled Leeds should get a cheaper bus network instead, while Manchester would see its tram network expand.
The documents also confirm that then Transport Secretary Alistair Darling called for the Metrolink expansion to be abandoned in December 2004, but said that £520m was still on the table for transport improvements in Manchester that could include tram schemes.
The 2005 Labour general election manifesto then said the cash had been committed for Manchester's tram.
Supporters of the Leeds tram said the network could be built for £355m, with Leeds finding an extra £30m to cover increased costs.
Tory Shadow Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said: "Bearing in mind their clear commitment to expand tram schemes, it seems extraordinary they should have such different strategies for Leeds and Manchester – and you cannot help but suspect there are politics at play here."
Leeds North West Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland said the city had been given a "bum deal" by the Government despite Supertram representing good value and similar benefits to the Metrolink expansion.
He warned that the city needed transport investment to develop as a business and shopping centre. He has also written to the National Audit Office asking when its report into trams will be published amid fears of a delay.
He said buses would have to be the answer now, but claimed that the DfT had not clarified financial issues despite any scheme needing its support.
The DfT said draft guidance for councils promoting trams made clear that funding was unlikely if an alternate form of transport was considered a better solution.
A spokeswoman said: "Our prime concern is to achieve the best solution for the particular area, taking account of value for money.
"In Leeds, a top-of-the-range bus on the same corridor was a better value solution than a tram. It would deliver most of the benefits of the tram, at half its cost. In Manchester, extensions to the existing system were a better value-for-money solution than bus-based alternatives."
>>
Its pretty obvious that the Leeds and Liverpool schemes were axed (although there seemed to be the possibility of Liverpool being revived) to pay for extensions in Manchester and Nottingham, plus transport links to the future Olympic Stadium in London. Maybe there could be a bit of politics in play here - like the number of seats under threat.

Leeds seats are under threat though; Leeds seats were once considered safe Labour seats; at the last election, Leeds North West became Lib Dem.

Leeds seats are under threat though; Leeds seats were once considered safe Labour seats; at the last election, Leeds North West became Lib Dem.
But in the Manchester and Nottingham areas, there are at least 3 times as many seats under threat from both Tories and Lib Dems. Ruth Kelly could become a casualty - majority less than 2100. And Labour lost Manchester Withington last time - an impregnable-looking seat which sent shock waves throughout the Labour Party as its majority had been 17,000.

what a load of shit.

The Leeds cost / benifit ratio being quoted is the one that the PTE came up with - the one that the DfT and bidding consortia did not agree with.

The Manchester one if the figure that the DfT came up with.

Comparing apples and pears there.

you are right about the lose of seats though - it was a HUGE deal over here, the public at large made it clear it was an important issue - which in a democracy the government reacted to.

As far as Leeds is concerned, which seats did Labour lose last election in Leeds that was down to the trams?

for what it's worth (from memory) the quote for the Manchester cost benifit (still higher than Leeds) was for the airport line prior to some modifications that made gave it a 3.3 rating.

The Rochdale line has a similar rating, and the Ashton line is just below 3.

The DfT are STILL refusing to fund the Ashton line - it's getting built now with local money, whilst the Trafford Centre and MediaCity lines will be built totally with private money.

Just out of interest how much (if any) of that lot's on-street? Certainly the huge middle swathe of south Manchester totally devoid of railways or former railway corridors, and with some of the country's highest bus and bus passenger flows, would seem to be natural territory for conversion to trolleybus in strong preference to on-street tram.

Then, with heavy rail additions in the form of the Castlefield Curve and a complementary mirror image on the east side of the city centre area, comprehensively linking the city's two heavy rail networks (and thereby making good the failure to get Picc-Vic, for which the original Metrolink tramway system was a cheap if partially effective substitute) we could see the beginnings of the sort of comprehensive horses-for-courses high quality integrated public transport system Manchester deserves.

you are right about the lose of seats though - it was a HUGE deal over here, the public at large made it clear it was an important issue - which in a democracy the government reacted to.

As far as Leeds is concerned, which seats did Labour lose last election in Leeds that was down to the trams?
The last General Election was fought BEFORE Leeds Supertram was cancelled, so it didn't cost any seats back then. But as for next time...

no it was not. On July 20 2004 Alistair Darling pulled Metrolink expansion, Portsmouth and Leeds. At this point the huge campaign started in Manchester - nothing happened over you part of the world - shown by the fact you are not even aware of when the project was cancelled.

Leeds had compulsary purchase orders on mnay properties that ran out in March 2006. As such, the scheme finally died in the autumn of 2005 as no matter what happened after that, even private money, the scheme was back to square one, i.e. public enquiries etc required.

This is when your paper picked up on it - 18months after the government had said no thanks, which was 10 months before the last general election.

Chris, Rochdale line is practically all on the existing segregated heavy rail route with some street running in Oldham and Rochdale town centres.

The Ashton line has significant street running, but segregated, towrds Ashton. There is a large central reservation in the road to be used.

Airport line is following old train tracks with some street running around Wythenshawe.

Trafford Centre would be segregated street running on the whole.

MediaCity is a small segregated spur off the Eccles line.

20th July 2004, 12:32

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-07-20.158.0&s=olympics+bill

There is a similar pattern in the Leeds and south Hampshire tram proposals. In Leeds, the present value of the public sector contribution was capped at £355 million, but is now estimated at £500 million, and in south Hampshire, the original £170 million present value is now £100 million more. In each case there is no certainty that costs will not rise further. The National Audit Office was right to raise concerns; indeed, looking back over the past 20 years, it has cost more to provide light rail in this country than elsewhere in Europe.

No Government could accept those schemes as they are on the basis of such cost escalations. We cannot, therefore, approve them. We need instead to look urgently at how light rail could be made affordable, including the best approach for procurement. We will work with local authorities on the development of schemes, building on the recent NAO recommendations.

The 21st July MEN was practically entirely dedicated to Metrolink, from memory the cancellation in Leeds didn't even make the front page.

While I don't claim that the outcry made Phase 3 happen, what I would suggest is that without the public reaction the government would have swept the scheme under the carpet, as happened in your part of the world.

It's been of the front of the YEP several times.

The 21st July MEN was practically entirely dedicated to Metrolink, from memory the cancellation in Leeds didn't even make the front page.

And why not, I think you deserve a paper dedicated to you!:) Only (poorly) joking.

You're absolutley right, the rejection of the Supertram didn't make front page news on the YEP. The YEP is a worthless rag IMO........

no it was not. On July 20 2004 Alistair Darling pulled Metrolink expansion, Portsmouth and Leeds. At this point the huge campaign started in Manchester - nothing happened over you part of the world - shown by the fact you are not even aware of when the project was cancelled.

Leeds had compulsary purchase orders on mnay properties that ran out in March 2006. As such, the scheme finally died in the autumn of 2005 as no matter what happened after that, even private money, the scheme was back to square one, i.e. public enquiries etc required.

This is when your paper picked up on it - 18months after the government had said no thanks, which was 10 months before the last general election.


You are wrong, Metrolink. The first indication of the dropping of Supertram was even earlier. On 8th October 2003 'The Times' transport reporter, Ben Webster (who is usually on the ball), gave an account of a meeting when the government openly displayed its disenchantment with trams and that those tram schemes currently under way (including Leeds) were to be stopped. I was so startled by this that I wrote asking for confirmation. I then contacted WYPTE (and the Yorkshire Evening Post) about it.
They claimed no knowledge of this volte face on the part of the government and even condemened the report as inaccurate. WTPTE appeared to me to be complacent and so convinced that Leeds would get the supertram that when I asked if they had a plan B available, if in fact 'The Times' report were true, I was made to feel like a small boy asking an unneccesarily stupid question.

I doubt either the WTYTE or the YEP tried to confirm the report as I did. If the YEP had been alert to the situation at that early stage it might have got a campaign going in support of Supertram. In fact the YEP is not what it once was. Unfortunately, it seems to me, that when it adopted tabloid form it also adopted tabloid type journalism. It should have surely spearheaded a local campaign to save the tram. It still might not have been successful, but at least it would have tried.

Indeed Fred, there were several reports (most importantly the National Audit Office) and ministers speaches between 2002 and Alistair Darlings announcement on 20th July 2004 that hinted that there was problems.

I was simply replying to ps60 - pointing out that government funding for Supertram was withdrawn back in 2004 - i.e. before the last general election.

It's been of the front of the YEP several times.

Well, if that is the case, and the people of Leeds are as up to speed as you say - and were at the last election, it only proves my point that it was not as much of an issue our side of the Pennines at the last election then - people had other priorities.

The evidence against internal combustion engines on the street seems to be building up. Here's a quote from yesterday's news on Yahoo:Traffic fumes from motorways can seriously impair the lung development of children, new research suggests.

A large-scale study in California found that 10-year-olds who lived within 500 metres of a motorway suffered a "substantial" loss of lung function by the age of 18.

The effect became less the further away a child lived from the road.

A similar impact was seen on both boys and girls, and there was little influence from social background, other pollution sources, or exposure to tobacco smoke.

Between the ages of 10 and 18, a period of rapid lung growth occurs. This can be assessed with tests which measure the amount of air a child can blow into a tube.

The scientists carried out annual lung function tests on 3,677 Californian children for eight years.

Those living at least 1,500 metres from a major road were used as a baseline. Compared with them, children living closer to motorways had less "puff" at the age of 18.

The researchers, led by Dr James Gauderman, from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, reported in The Lancet medical journal: "Pronounced deficits in attained lung function at age 18 years were recorded for those living within 500 metres of a freeway."

For one test, their average performance was 3% lower than that of the baseline children. Another test showed an almost 7% reduction, but individual children had deficits of up to 10%.

The scientists said their findings pointed to diesel pollution as being a prime culprit. Whilst I was online, someone put me on to a reference to this article on the BBC news website from a couple of years ago, which reports that tests on motorway toll booth operators suggest breathing in traffic fumes can cause DNA damage:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4368093.stm

From today's Yorkshire Post...http://www.insideyorks.co.uk/tbus/YPBusArticle290106.jpg

Great news, it would be great to see a trolly bus system in Leeds. I think if everything goes to plan and its populer which it should be, they should do a rout going towards Bradford and ending somwere around the new Odeon.

Great news, it would be great to see a trolly bus system in Leeds. I think if everything goes to plan and its populer which it should be, they should do a rout going towards Bradford and ending somwere around the new Odeon.Yes, it would be a good idea. From what they are saying, they seem to be open to the idea of future expansion, rather than just sticking with the proposed three routes.

Great news, it would be great to see a trolly bus system in Leeds. I think if everything goes to plan and its populer which it should be, they should do a rout going towards Bradford and ending somwere around the new Odeon.
Dead right they should - just mirroring the previously proposed 3 tramway routes benefits only part of the city and its people. With the much lower cost of trolleybus systems compared to equivalent tramways (particularly where street-running) there's the realistic prospect of eventually achieving a comprehensive electric local public transport network for the whole city using troleybuses. But in the first instance they're wise to get the foot in the door for the necessary govt funding by putting up these 3 routes for starters.

Hang on folks -don't be precipitate. They may only consider a trolley bus but amongst other and cheaper options.

Also it can't pssibly follow the proposed supertramn route completely.

For example, Hoagy's bar at the bottom of Eastgate was to be demolished to allow the tram track run behind the coach station. The CPO for that will have run out of time with all the others.

Tram-train seems by far a more effective means of mass transport, than this proposed scheme, which seems to have very little proper segregation, meaning it will be subject to rush hour delays.

.... which seems to have very little proper segregation, meaning it will be subject to rush hour delays.

Exactly. Will they build a special road behind the Arndale Centre in Headingley for instance - or by pass Beckett Street as was proposed for the tram scheme ?

Exactly. Will they build a special road behind the Arndale Centre in Headingley for instance - or by pass Beckett Street as was proposed for the tram scheme ?
Headingley yes, i think it says in the article, i'm not to sure if this is a good thing though, surely the buses should gop through the middle, and make the road divert around??

Re Headingley diversion etc, the fundamental difference between tram/ light rail, and the trolleybus alternative is that tbuses make the diversion behind Headingley shopping street, and demolition of property elsewhwere, an optional extra rather tha essential to the scheme.

This is because unlike trams tbuses CAN interwork with other traffic, steering round obstructions such as parked vehicles if necessary.

Re Headingley diversion etc, the fundamental difference between tram/ light rail, and the trolleybus alternative is that tbuses make the diversion behind Headingley shopping street, and demolition of property elsewhwere, an optional extra rather tha essential to the scheme.

This is because unlike trams tbuses CAN interwork with other traffic, steering round obstructions such as parked vehicles if necessary.

Maybe, but isn't the aim NOT to add to the current congestion on Otley Road and Beckett Street ?

I understand that a lot more money was spent on insulating the radiation equipment in the new Oncology Building to allow for the possible effect of passing trams. Is this extra money included in the total cash already wasted by the failed bid for trams ?

Maybe, but isn't the aim NOT to add to the current congestion on Otley Road and Beckett Street ?
Ideally yes, but the fundamental aims to provide clean, quiet, comfortable modern public transport as cost-effectively - as well as effectively - as possible, to make live more bearable for those who have to use it while attracting those who have a choice.

All I'm saying is that saving initial cost and implementation timescale by not having the likes of the Headingley bypass in the first instance would be far less of an operational problem with trolleybuses than with trams - and with trolleys we get the benefits much earlier, possibly several years earlier than the implementation time for a tramway.

Ideally yes, but the fundamental aims to provide clean, quiet, comfortable modern public transport as cost-effectively - as well as effectively - as possible, to make live more bearable for those who have to use it while attracting those who have a choice.

All I'm saying is that saving initial cost and implementation timescale by not having the likes of the Headingley bypass in the first instance would be far less of an operational problem with trolleybuses than with trams - and with trolleys we get the benefits much earlier, possibly several years earlier than the implementation time for a tramway.

All very well and good Chris, but how long until a bypass would be built? The bottleneck outside of the Arndale Centre is appalling, and causes traffic to be virtually halted all the way back to The Library pub, Hyde Park (when leaving Leeds). In no way would this scheme alleviate congestion. Therefore, there would be no additional motivation to use the service - until people can see the benefits (in terms of commuting times) of using public transport, they will continue driving their cars. The traffic is so bad that buses have no possibility of keeping to a schedule, something that is of upmost importance when trying to convince the average driver to leave their car behind.

All very well and good Chris, but how long until a bypass would be built? The bottleneck outside of the Arndale Centre is appalling, and causes traffic to be virtually halted all the way back to The Library pub, Hyde Park (when leaving Leeds). In no way would this scheme alleviate congestion. Therefore, there would be no additional motivation to use the service - until people can see the benefits (in terms of commuting times) of using public transport, they will continue driving their cars. The traffic is so bad that buses have no possibility of keeping to a schedule, something that is of upmost importance when trying to convince the average driver to leave their car behind.

Absolutely spot on, Liam !

All very well and good Chris, but how long until a bypass would be built? The bottleneck outside of the Arndale Centre is appalling, and causes traffic to be virtually halted all the way back to The Library pub, Hyde Park (when leaving Leeds). In no way would this scheme alleviate congestion. Therefore, there would be no additional motivation to use the service - until people can see the benefits (in terms of commuting times) of using public transport, they will continue driving their cars. The traffic is so bad that buses have no possibility of keeping to a schedule, something that is of upmost importance when trying to convince the average driver to leave their car behind.
An on-street trolleybus system having to interwork with other traffic would still be far, far better for passenger comfort and the external environment than the bog-standard diesel buses we're stuck with now. Not of course as good in pure operational terms as a fully segregated trolleybus route - but do you really want the sort of townscape and environment in the wider sense which would result from such full segregation? - IMHO certainly not in the heart of Headingley (which BTW I've known well since the 1960s).

But if a bypass is really essential in the likes of Headingley, why should it be the trolleybus passengers who are dumped round the backside of the shoping centre, rather than being transported into the main street - shouldn't it be all those polluting motorists, including the through traffic (the majority in such a case) who are pushed off the main shopping street onto the bypass (provided of course it's a bypass which fully insulates the hinterland and its residents from the resultant traffic envronmental impact, and doesn't sever the shopping centre from its hinterland that side?)

An on-street trolleybus system having to interwork with other traffic would still be far, far better for passenger comfort and the external environment than the bog-standard diesel buses we're stuck with now. Not of course as good in pure operational terms as a fully segregated trolleybus route - but do you really want the sort of townscape and environment in the wider sense which would result from such full segregation? - IMHO certainly not in the heart of Headingley (which BTW I've known well since the 1960s).

But if a bypass is really essential in the likes of Headingley, why should it be the trolleybus passengers who are dumped round the backside of the shoping centre, rather than being transported into the main street - shouldn't it be all those polluting motorists, including the through traffic (the majority in such a case) who are pushed off the main shopping street onto the bypass (provided of course it's a bypass which fully insulates the hinterland and its residents from the resultant traffic envronmental impact, and doesn't sever the shopping centre from its hinterland that side?)


I presume the relatively short bypasses intended for the trams at Headingley and Beckett Street would not be wide enough for normal two way vehicular traffic.

If they're wide enough for trams they'd be wide enough for other traffic - and if not could be slightly widened to make them so. Tram vehicles can in fact be wider than the maximum legal for road vehicles. FYI normal basic standard carriageway width for new construction is 7.3m (24 ft in real money); max width for road vehicles (excluding wing mirrors) is 2.55m (or 2.65 for double-walled refrigerated trucks).

An on-street trolleybus system having to interwork with other traffic would still be far, far better for passenger comfort and the external environment than the bog-standard diesel buses we're stuck with now. Not of course as good in pure operational terms as a fully segregated trolleybus route - but do you really want the sort of townscape and environment in the wider sense which would result from such full segregation? - IMHO certainly not in the heart of Headingley (which BTW I've known well since the 1960s).

But if a bypass is really essential in the likes of Headingley, why should it be the trolleybus passengers who are dumped round the backside of the shoping centre, rather than being transported into the main street - shouldn't it be all those polluting motorists, including the through traffic (the majority in such a case) who are pushed off the main shopping street onto the bypass (provided of course it's a bypass which fully insulates the hinterland and its residents from the resultant traffic envronmental impact, and doesn't sever the shopping centre from its hinterland that side?)

Can't say I agree. In what way would the trolley bus be far, far better? If it has to integrate with rush hour traffic it would be a temporarily cleaner bus, stuck in traffic, as they are now. The only beef anyone has with buses (at least as far as I see it) is the fact that the waiting times are intolerable, the sporadic time keeping of the service, and the fact that it takes much, much longer to get to your destination than it would in private transport. All of the aforementioned problems would be solved by traffic segregation.....surely?

Can't say I agree. In what way would the trolley bus be far, far better? If it has to integrate with rush hour traffic it would be a temporarily cleaner bus, stuck in traffic, as they are now. The only beef anyone has with buses (at least as far as I see it) is the fact that the waiting times are intolerable, the sporadic time keeping of the service, and the fact that it takes much, much longer to get to your destination than it would in private transport. All of the aforementioned problems would be solved by traffic segregation.....surely?
Sorry, no. Any local public transport service with frequently spaced enough stops to make it accessible enough inevitably has to spend a large proportion of its journey time at rest picking up and setting down passengers, in additon to the stationary periods intraffic queues where it can't be segregated for other traffic.

A stationary diesel bus idling at stops or in traffic is a particularly unpleasant place to be inside (or near to) owing to the noise, vibration and fumes. A stationary trolleybus is free of all that, and you can take it from me for that reason alone it's a far more civilised and comfortable way to travel than motorbuses - trust me, I grew up with trolleybuses as staple public transport (in Hull) though we also had plenty of motorbuses to compare them with.

So it's journey quality, not just journey time that matters - and remember you don't have to find a parking place for the public transport vehicle, it's done for you.

But Chris that isn't what stops people from catching a bus (noise, vibration and fumes). It is the factors that I have previously mentioned ie. Long waiting times, sporadic sevice and commute time. I recognise that yes, a tbus is a more pleasant ride, but no better. The deficiencies remain.
Stopping for passengers is by no means the biggest hold up when travelling on a bus.....the traffic is!

"a more pleasant ride, but no better" ?!? - 'shome mishtake there surely?', as they say.

Re source of delay, depends on the route and time of day/ traffic conditions, but even without pay-as-you enter cash fare collection and change given, stop time is usually a significant proportion of total journey time on a typical bus route. Traffic congestion delay is of course important, but that also affects motortists as much - or should be much more if proper bus priority measures in place.

Yes but delays for motorists are not what we're discussing. Bus delays are traffic related -trust me, I commute by bus and leave my car at home every day. I even stay in town for a couple of drinks midweek just to avoid the stagnation on the way home. It is the miserable experience of being caught in traffic on a bus that puts people off, or at least a major contribution. Trying to simply speed up the boarding of passengers seems to be pure folly.

Remember though that with these routes there is almost as much segregation as there was for the proposed Supertram. Any segregation at all is going to speed up the journey time into town. Although there will be some mixing with traffic (as there was with Supertram), there is enough segregation to make a significant difference.

By the way, I would be interested to know what peoples' experience is of driving into town from, say, Bodington during the rush hour. How long does it normally take? I have asked friends who are from Leeds and they have given answers like "40 minutes-ish" and "45, maybe 50 minutes sometimes". However, I don't really know how accurate these statements are. I have asked for some official drive-time figures from council officials but they haven't been forthcoming yet.

Can anybody help?

Your friends statements are accurate. At the very best, 40 minutes.

Your friends statements are accurate. At the very best, 40 minutes.Thanks Liam.

If people remember from this thread during the autumn, when they released the proposed routes, I remarked that the expected journey time on the BRT line from Bodington to the city centre was 21 minutes (cf. 19 minutes for Supertram). If that's accurate, then this means that the commute time will be halved during the rush hour.

Of course, this doesn't take into account waiting time. However, with a planned service frequency of every 12 minutes, this shouldn't amount to too much. It should still be well worth the while for people to choose the new service.

Twelve minutes frequency. As busses go from town - Headingley every minute or two wouldn't that make such a scheme which is a bus with overhead wires that only arrive every twelve minutes rather pointless and a negative to what is there at present? Also surely another negative point about busses which may sound a bit nasty is the perception of it being a poor mans form of transport. How would an electric bus change this?

I'd say that's right. It takes 15-20 minutes when the route is traffic free ie. Midnight onwards!

Thanks Liam.

If people remember from this thread during the autumn, when they released the proposed routes, I remarked that the expected journey time on the BRT line from Bodington to the city centre was 21 minutes (cf. 19 minutes for Supertram). If that's accurate, then this means that the commute time will be halved during the rush hour.

Of course, this doesn't take into account waiting time. However, with a planned service frequency of every 12 minutes, this shouldn't amount to too much. It should still be well worth the while for people to choose the new service.

It won't be worth the wait at all. I've said it earlier in this thread Otley Road will prove to be too much for this transport system if the road layout isn't completely changed. There needs to be a dedicated lane from Lawnswood roundabout right the way to town (and vice versa), with the buses getting right of way at any left turns off the road. That's the only way to get an uninterrupted, quick journey. Currenty, around the Arndale, the Oak, Hyde Park corner, The Eldon, Woodhouse multi storey, Morrisons and The St John Centre is virtual grid lock in rush hour because the buses and the cars are forced to use the same lanes.

I think this proposed mode of transport sounds great but it needs a platform to work on. Otley Road is not that platform. If it was me facing a forty minute journey I'd be driving down Meanwood or Scott Hall Road which get me there in 10.

Twelve minutes frequency. As busses go from town - Headingley every minute or two wouldn't that make such a scheme which is a bus with overhead wires that only arrive every twelve minutes rather pointless and a negative to what is there at present?I beg your pardon everyone, the 12 minutes frequency I quoted is actually from another scheme (oops). The frequencies for the Leeds Supertram (and therefore any similar-capacity trolleybus) would actually be every 10 minutes on the outer sections and every 6 minutes on the inner sections.

Smaller trolleybuses would run more frequently (since there would be more of them).

The excerpt below is from the Atkins report. For 'tram', read 'large trolleybus' and for 'BRT', read 'smaller trolleybus':Wait Times

2.29 The wait times for a public transport system can be derived from the service frequency. For public transport services running at these levels of frequency, a uniform passenger arrival pattern is usually assumed. Thus, for tram, an average wait time is assumed to be 5 minutes for stops on the outer sections of the lines, and 3 minutes for stops on the inner sections. For BRT, the average wait time would be 2.5 minutes on the outer sections of the lines and 1.5 minutes on the inner sections.If conventional buses are running more frequently than that and one arrives which is going your way, then there is nothing to stop you using that service instead of the trolleybus, if you want. If the trolleybus comes first, then get the trolleybus.

If it was me facing a forty minute journey I'd be driving down Meanwood or Scott Hall Road which get me there in 10.Well, if there's a way of getting into the city centre in 10 minutes during the rush hour, I'm surprised that more people don't do it.

Of course, there is also the consideration of how long it would take to find a parking space, too. If there is plenty of free parking where you work, then it makes a little more sense to drive. If not, then you have to include that in your calculations as well.

Well, if there's a way of getting into the city centre in 10 minutes during the rush hour, I'm surprised that more people don't do it.

Of course, there is also the consideration of how long it would take to find a parking space, too. If there is plenty of free parking where you work, then it makes a little more sense to drive. If not, then you have to include that in your calculations as well.

That's a fair point. I do want to see this scheme succeed, I'm just hoping that we won't get the great new buses powered by the fantastically green power source but stuck in the same traffic jams as the current buses. And nothing I've read on here has eased my fear. Can you shed any light on this E_C?

P.S. Chapel Allerton to Beeston - 22 minutes in rush hour by car going on Scott Hall Road, Inner Ring Road and Elland Road. Number 3 bus, Harrogate Road to Beeston, 45 minutes, constantly in traffic jams. £3.30 per day on bus, probably the same by car.

http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/DFD28C7A-03FA-432B-A6D9-61FBEDCA31BD/0/Directions5.pdf

Its a bit old now, but it shows the tbus proposals. Similar to supertram.

http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/DFD28C7A-03FA-432B-A6D9-61FBEDCA31BD/0/Directions5.pdf

Its a bit old now, but it shows the tbus proposals. Similar to supertram.Thanks for turning that up, No.1 - it lays things out a little more succinctly than the WYPTA minutes did.

There was due to be a meeting of the WYPTA Development and Environment Working Group today. Some of the items on the agenda include the Leeds Bus Rapid Transit progress report:
http://www.wypta.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A1B61049-E077-4A5D-8A3D-B04B0EC43E96/0/DEWG16MAY2007ITEM5.pdf

..and there is also a report on the proposed A65 Quality Bus Corridor - Kirkstall Road:
http://www.wypta.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FF9DE6C6-F52A-4D2D-83D1-71A5059A02E6/0/DEWG16MAY2007ITEM6.pdf

Apparently, the deadline for BRT tenders is this Friday.

Feedback from the DfT on the Initial Business Case for the BRT scheme is expected to be received some time this month.

The Regional Transport Board received the BRT submission from the WYPTA in mid-April and will consider their response to the proposal at their meeting in June.

There is also talk of introducing a Bus-based Park and Ride at Stourton before the full implementation of the BRT system itself.

Update of the business top-up tax idea from today's Yorkshire Post...

Extra tax on city business urged to end road chaos

By Rob Preece
A BUSINESS top-up tax of 2p should be considered for Leeds and other cities to fund much-needed transport improvements, according to an influential think-tank.

Researchers say introducing a supplementary business rate would help cities deliver major schemes to keep people on the move.

The Connecting Cities report, published today, suggests the 2p "top up" in Leeds would fund almost 40 per cent of the cost of the city's planned "bus rapid transit" network.

Across the Leeds City Council area it would generate around £14m a year, which could then be used to secure a £107m loan.

The city has been working on the bus proposals since the Government pulled the plug on the Supertram in November 2005, but it could be 2011 before it is in place.

Similar top-ups in Manchester and Birmingham would raise £40.6m and £15.4m respectively.

The recommendations, made by the Institute for Public Policy Research's Centre for Cities unit, echo those proposed by Sir Michael Lyons in his review of local government which suggested a 4p supplement in Leeds to raise £26.4m a year.

But they are opposed by local businesses, who fear the extra cash would disappear into council coffers with no guarantee of local transport improvements...

Full article here:
http://www.ypn.co.uk/news?articleid=2891876

Feature:
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/features/Bright-sparks-solve-our-transport.5117195.jp

Bright sparks solve our transport woes
27 March 2009

Is a "state of the art bus system" a contradiction in terms? Leeds' transport supremo Kieran Preston insists not. He met Rod McPhee to mull over new plans which could really give the city something close to our loved and lost Supertram.

IT'S been billed as the Son of Supertram but for most Loiners men-tion of the word 'buses' merely infers a poor cousin.

But the trolleybus system currently being devised will be very similar to supertram in several ways. It will effectively follow the three main routes from the city centre to the north, east and south and run on overhead cables, mostly in dedicated lanes devoid of any other traffic.

Except while the trams would have run on tracks, these will run freely on good old-fashioned wheels. But they'll still boast key benefits of running on electricity – they're quieter, faster, greener, smoother – but, above all else, installing over-head cables offers an intangible effect most of us wouldn't even consider.

Kieran Preston, chief executive of Metro, the organisation with responsibility for maintaining West Yorkshire's transport network, is more than aware of it however. He's the man heading up a team currently drawing up the system of NGT – New Generation Transport.

He said: "We call it the sparks effect." The what effect? "Well, it's hard to pin down but you see it in other cities where they have transport systems of this kind.

"When you install these overhead cables you install a sense of permanency, some sense of a reliable and unchanging system that's in place with clarity about where they run from and to.

"And the overhead cables just add a sense of a big city feel to the place, it's something you can't quite quantify but it works.

"With conventional buses you have the grinding of gears, the revving of the engine, the smell of diesel, with this it's such a smooth, quiet but speedy ride and it's been shown that people love that.

"Just look at the Airedale and Wharfedale train lines – where we put electric trains in it was an amazing transformation. We started with something like two million journeys a year, increasing by about 10 per cent a year up to something like six million journeys a year."

Supertram – which gained provisional approval in 2001 but was later axed by the Government due to escalating costs – was a far better scheme than the trolleybus. Preston openly admits this.

The tram would have removed an estimated 4.5m car journeys from the city's road every year and created something like 6-7,000 jobs, the trolleybus system will only remove around 3m car journeys and create around 4,000 jobs. But Preston is convinced those benefits are still worth pursuing.

"We're talking about those people who may well find they live very close to one of these lines," he said. "A couple, say, who both work and commute who may, because of the trolleybus, reconsider getting a second car or even think twice about having any kind of car.

"But it's not just about cutting congestion. Remember a lot of our transport network runs into and through developments in the city centre and you don't necessarily want noisy, smelly, ungreen vehicles coming through; you want something sleek and quiet."

A positive difference is cost. While Supertram, according to the Department of Transport, could have cost anything up to £1 billion this has a price tag of a comparatively small £270m – about £250m of which, Preston insists, is virtually in the bag.

This time the scheme has already been allocated funding before they submit their plans to the Department for Transport, which is expected to be in five months time. Work could start in 2012 with the system up and running by 2015.

But there are other hoops to jump through. If the case isn't convincing enough we may have to settle for non-electric buses simply running on semi-dedicated lanes around the city.

For Preston and other civic leaders this would be a huge disappointment. They're now going for broke on the trolleybus scheme and, rather than build in two stages as they have previously suggested, are now planning to construct the entire scheme in one section.

"We got over the hurt of Supertram," said Preston. "They challenged us to come up with the next best thing and we accepted it. We're saying, 'Let's go for it.'

"And if they turn this scheme down? I don't think we could contemplate it. It would just send a message that Leeds isn't going to get the invest-ment that's necessary. In our minds the Government just didn't have the money to pay for Supertram, this time round they do and this scheme is much more affordable.

"It's also an amazing investment. For an initial cost of £270million we've worked out that it will bring in something like £850m."

Preston and other Metro team members who visited a string of European cities like Amsterdam and Lyons to sample their trolleybus services.

Fundamental to the look will be the low level of the vehicles – all high-spec and contemporary with alighting stations which are similarly plush and modern.

They will look and feel almost like a tram, with bodywork that makes the wheels – the only real difference – virtually impossible to see.

But, most importantly, Metro have factored in costs which will mean they can secure the necessary smooth road covering which offers as gentle a ride as if the vehicles were running on rails.

The 20-mile network would require the construction of a south Leeds route between the city centre and a 1,500-space park-and-ride site near Stourton. Also a city centre loop and an eastern link to St James's Hospital and, finally, a third line to Lawnswood.

Preston and Metro want to make a step change in the transport infrastructure, rather than merely tinker round the edges.

This has proved crucial in trying to sell the NGT plan B to key players in Leeds and he now hopes he can win over the public.

"What happened with Supertram being turned down was that it took away people's confidence in the council and Metro," he said. "After that how do you go back to the drawing board and say, 'Ah well, never mind, we'll do something else'?

"How do you tell business leaders and investors and the people of Leeds that once supertram was the answer and now this new scheme is the answer. I understand the reaction from people. They're going to say 'Why should we have any more confidence in you now'?

"But what people also have to understand is just how good a scheme NGT is, that it will form part of a rolling, flexible programme which means that we can continue to build lines to different parts of the city.

"It means it is easier and cheaper to maintain and improve and maybe, years down the line it may even lead the way towards replacing it with some of the original plans we had for Supertram."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8106848.stm
Trolleybus comeback plans on show

Plans for Leeds to become the first city in the UK to reintroduce electric trolleybuses have gone on display.

Public transport provider Metro wants to build an electric bus network in Leeds city centre to replace the city's failed supertram scheme.

Bradford, the last UK city to operate trolleybuses, shut its system in 1972.

An exhibition of the plans, with maps of the proposed routes, will be on display at a series of events across the city over the next month.

Visitors will be able to ask questions of the team behind the plans and give their views in a questionnaire.

Exhibition dates and locations

Metro said the scheme, which is similar to the one in Lyon, France, would help tackle congestion and reduce pollution in the city centre.

The trolleybuses would initially travel along three routes into and around the city centre, linking major businesses, the two universities, the main hospitals and shopping areas.

It is hoped the scheme will be completed by 2015.

Almost £40m was spent on the Leeds supertram plans before they were rejected for being too costly by the Department of Transport in November 2005.

There's a questionnaire on the website http://www.ngtmetro.com/Survey
I urge you all to fill it in. Allows quite a lot of comment too...
To make any impact, may I suggest we repeat each others ideas in the survey. That way they are each mentioned more than once.
Some points I made (please put into your response if you agree):

Segregation is key - if buses run in normal traffic, no more people will use them than currently do

Overhead wires must not be ugly, especially in city centre (maybe even 'designer' posts in the centre)

The Eastern route should be extended at least to Harehills Lane, as it is a large, poor residential area.

Overhead wires should be made with conversion to Tram Train in mind.

I did that survey a few days ago and made most of those points. I didn't mention about overhead wire posts, but I said that the buses must be powered by overhead wires to be distinct from an average bus. They give a sense of permanency.

The Eastern route should be extended at least to Harehills Lane, as it is a large, poor residential area..

Maybe the right idea, but for totally the wrong reason. Maybe it should be extended to Harehills Lane as that will be a traffic generator, but to extend it there because it's a large poor area is completely the wrong thinking. It's a transport scheme, not a regeneration project.

^^

the point is, is that harehills is a low income transient area.. lots of people renting, many people new to the country, of the type of demographic who rely most on public transport.



Just one other point If people could make too...

The southern route ends in a park and ride in stourton. The problem is, is that it is so close to ring road middleton, yet there appears to be no provision for the large swaithes of new build private residential housing there to access the tram. This is bad because the new private housing developments on either side of this road have high car patronage aswell as a hi proportion commuting into the city centre to work.

Just so you can see on a map, my mum for example lives in LS10 4UP. The buses here are just one hourly. Most in this development, as well as the developments on the other side of Ring Road Middleton drive into the city centre to work. The tram is coming so close to this area, but no provision appears to have been given for this area to access the tram. Even if they dont want to extend the track just 1 mile to cater for this catchment, then at least some provision of a walkway so that residents in this area can walk to the Park and Ride - right now they would have to climb over fences and walk through the fields.

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/parkandride.jpg

It would be a good thing to make the NGT available to the houses in Stourton Grange, though buses from there to the city are in fact every 20 minutes and many of these houses are nearer to the buses every 5 minutes along Belle Isle Road than the P&R. So I wonder how many people would actually walk down to the P&R.

I dunno about that, the buses are very limited down this road, and at least twice a week one doesnt turn up, so my mum is stood standing for over an hour, then eventually has to get a cab. Bad when your paying £50 quid a month or whatever for a weekly bus pass.

With regards to your point about some of the houses being close to Belle Ilse Rd, the problem again is access.. it means walking through ginnels and back estates towards belle isle which is a bit of a dodgy area. It is also further than you think.. you have to come out of your enclosed estate all the way onto ring road middleton to get to the ginnel to then walk all the way through past the estate again.

My mum, and her bus-ladies (who all catch the bus on the morning into the city centre) have said they'd walk 10 minutes towards the park and ride to get onto a tram. Theyve never considered walking the 10-15 minutes to get to belle isle road though.

I think it's very fair to say that transport is a huge part of regeneration. You don't put a new bus link in for the sake of it, you do it in the knowledge or hope that it is going to make lives easier.

The Aire Valley is a huge planned mixed use regeneration zone, and if it's going to succeed then it's going to need good links to other parts of the city and the city centre. Regeneration embodies everything.

It depends why you're building the trolleybus. If you're trying to get people to switch from cars to public transport you won't get much of a modal shift from areas where few people have a car.

It's true that transport is a big part of regeneration, but I don't think the opposite is true.

Good point about intentions. With the original plans (both for the Supertram and the Trolleybus), I think the Northern and Southern lines were mainly (although not exclusively) intended to be 'modal shift'-type routes, whereas the Eastern line was mainly intended to be a 'regeneration'-type route.

Now that the Eastern route has been severely cut back, it's clear that, at least at present, the main intention is towards modal shift, rather than regeneration. This is one reason why they are plugging Trolleybuses, since there is plenty of evidence from abroad that people prefer electric transit.