Tbus

[this_city]

Originally Posted by cmj

I wonder how much 'cost saving' the DfT is demanding of Crossrail...

probably nothing given the arrogance of the south. seems most in London/ the South East think the country ends at the north edge of the M25... one of the reasons i moved up here!

[Suburban Knight]

To be fair to Crossrail, Boris has added supplementary business rates to all buildings within a certain distance of the route, and slapped huge contribution fees on all developers building in the area to make up some of the funding, I believe. If you tried doing that anywhere outside of London people would just pack up and move elsewhere.

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by Wirlie G

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ort.6686189.jp
40% local contribution required.

DfT really testing local authorities desire to see these progress.

Well, the idea of the 40 per cent contribution isn't anything new, is it? In fact they used the figure in the article you quoted from the Evening Post last month, which described it as as the 'magic 40 per cent mark'.

Kieron Preston keeps claiming that this is the figure that has been indicated to him by government officials but other local transport gurus say they haven't been given anything concrete. Here's an article from late December's Transport Xtra:

Promoters propose up to 40% local funding for major schemes

Local Authorities in England will submit major scheme funding proposals to the DfT this month with some outlining options for as much as 40% of funding to be raised locally.

Departmental policy until now has been to require authorities to provide a local contribution of just 10% to schemes – or 25% for light rail schemes. But some councils will put forward options for raising significantly more in their expressions of interest to the DfT this month.

Metro director general Kieran Preston told councillors on West Yorkshire’s Integrated Transport Authority last week: “The DfT has indicated that, for schemes in the development pool to progress further, a local funding contribution in the order of 40% should be sought.”

Metro will present ministers with options for a local contribution in the range of 15-40% for the £250m Leeds trolleybus scheme and 30-40% for a £20m rail package featuring two new stations. They are two of the 22 schemes contained in the DfT’s development pool (LTT 29 Oct). Funding sources could include Tax Increment Financing and the sale of rolling stock (see page 12).

Dave Haskins, Metro’s project director for NGT, told LTT the 40% figure had been a “consistent message” in meetings with the DfT.

But East Sussex County Council, whose Bexhill-Hastings link road is another scheme in the development pool, this week said it had received no target figure from the Department.

“Nobody has given us a figure as such,” said Andy Robertson, East Sussex County Council’s assistant director for transport and environment. “It’s a bit of a ‘bids in sealed envelopes job’.”

Robertson said the council had previously proposed a local contribution of £15m to the £95m scheme but it was now examining if more could be raised locally: “Councils haven’t really got spare sums of money so we’re looking for external funding,” he said.

A DfT spokeswoman told LTT: “There is no across the board target figure for the percentage of local contribution that is being sought. The DfT expects all reasonable efforts to be made to minimise the DfT contribution. It is up to promoters to make the most competitive proposal they can.” ...

Lots of potential here for another stitch-up, if you ask me.

There's also a curious bit in the last paragraph of the article:

... The DfT says over £600m should be available for schemes in the development pool. The pressure on the budget will be somewhat eased by news that one of the costliest schemes – the £250m Leeds trolleybus – cannot begin until after the current spending review period. It will not therefore make a call on the £600m funding.

To be honest, I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for the project.

[LeedsLad]

Hmm well I've given up hope on this one I'm sad to say.

If, and a big if, we go through all these rejections, and one day end up with an on street running tram train system, I think we'd have (eventually) ended up with the right scheme.

What really interests me at the moment, is the mention of possible tunnelling into Leeds city centre for the HS2 line. Imagine if they could be convinced to continue this tunnel just as far as the existing line by Headingley stadium (for local trains to use).

[oyster]

Surely this represents the beginning of the end of the Leeds Trolleybus...

Leeds trolleybus 'poor value for money'

The £235m Leeds trolleybus scheme has suffered another major blow after it emerged government officials believe it represents poor value for money.

Documents released yesterday by the Department for Transport (DfT) revealed how the trolleybus project has the second lowest "benefit cost ratio" out of a list of 22 schemes which have been competing for £630m of funding since October.

Transport bosses at Metro - the West Yorkshire transport authority - insist that while they need to be given the greenlight this year, they will not require any cash from central government until after 2015.

But a government source today questioned that approach, saying: "that's not really the way we work."

The DfT yesterday allowed another 23 projects to compete for funding from its so called "Development Pool".

That brought the total number of schemes under consideration to 55.
But it announced that it will not provide any cash for the £14.3m Castleford Interchange during the next four years.

The long-awaited project would create a modern transport hub, linking the town's bus and rail services.

Metro has instead applied for funding from the government's £1.4bn Regional Growth Fund.

Despite the blows to the Castleford Interchange and the trolleybus scheme, the DfT did agree to make £12.4m available for the £14.4m scheme to build a new southern entrance at Leeds rail station.

Officials also continue to examine plans for two new commuter train stations in West Yorkshire.

The plans will see one at Kirkstall Forge in west Leeds and one in Apperley Bridge in Bradford.

That scheme has been awarded a benefit-cost score of 3.6 - the seventh highest of the original 22 schemes examined by the government.

In contrast, the trolley bus scheme was given a score of just 2.2.

A DfT spokesman insisted that the benefit cost ratio is only one of a number of factors looked at by officials when deciding which schemes to back.

And a Metro spokesman contested the BCR figures and said the costs for the project are being reduced.

"We are currently re-engineering the bid," he said.

Metro Chairman Coun Chris Greaves welcomed the approval of funding for Leeds station, saying: "This announcement that our revised bid for the scheme has been approved will be extremely good news for the thousands of rail passengers for whom the new entrance will mean quicker and more convenient daily access to train services."

Leeds West MP Rachel Reeves said: "Although I welcome the southern entrance at Leeds railway station going ahead, losing trolleybus will be a blow for the city."

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...for.6711986.jp

Quite incredible that the trolleybus appears to represent such bad value for money - surely Leeds would benefit hugely in the long term from increased investment stemming from a decent transport network? Still, just how "decent" the trolleybus option is is something that continues to divide us all - I stlll don't think it's the right idea, but then again, I really don't know what is.

[Electric_City]

I don't see how there's anything particularly new here. We've known for ages roughly what the Benefit/Cost Ratio has been for this and various other projects. Besides which, a BCR of 2.2 to 1 is still good value for money anyway, Oyster. In addition, as it says in the article: "A DfT spokesman insisted that the benefit cost ratio is only one of a number of factors looked at by officials when deciding which schemes to back."

I also don't see why the NGT is still being compared to schemes which are bidding for the £630m pool, since the money wouldn't be needed for a few years yet anyway - so surely should be in the next round of funding (see post #1223).

[Closetmonkey]

I think unfortunately leeds needs all these projects to really move forward... in some ways its been a victim of its own sucess over the past decade.

[El Cid]

Originally Posted by oyster

but then again, I really don't know what is.

So the Trolley Bus must be the best option then; unless we want more and more cars jamming up the roads around Leeds. Cycle accidents are already on the increase. And I guess Climate change and clean air have taken a back seat, just like it did in Australia, lol

[Harpal]

I cant believe the government won't support Leeds in getting a proper tram system. The trolleybus looks a bit pointless. Nottingham's getting money to expand their tram system to more routes despite cuts being made everywhere. Maybe if Leeds and Bradford made a joint transit system plan. 2 cities might have more power, has this been looked into before?

[Aaronj09]

^

I think there were plans for a West Yorkshire tram system instead of just Leeds, I'm not sure if there still is, but if all the councils of West Yorkshire joined together for a tram system for the whole county, maybe the government won't see it as bad value for money?

[oyster]

Makes a lot of sense, such a densely populated and interconnected county deserves an integrated transport network. It's that kind of joined up thinking that eludes these parts.

[Skychaser 2005]

Its impossible to get your head round the total incompetance of Metro/LCC in not getting their act together over nearly 15 years whilst most major cities in the UK have been developing rapid transit systems.

Somebody please answer this question: How on earth did Nottingham have the forsight and ability to get its tramline, and how have they securred more funding for new lines?

Whatever they did, why did our numpties at metro/LCC not learn from their success?

You have to blame Metro who to me, have no idea how to give the government a proposal which would be foolproof.

If Notts, Croydon, Wolverhampton, Sheffield, Man, Newcastle, now Edinburgh can do it, you got to ask why Leeds has been so inept at getting our proposal right.

[Leeds No.1]

While it's possibly to lay an element of direct blame on Metro and local authorities, the ultimate blame has to be on the government for failing to take transport seriously, failing to allocate transport a meaningful budget and failing to set out long term, strong transport policies.

The problem with 'value for money' and 'cost-benefit ratios' is that they are fundamentally flawed in that they put the value of money/economy above that of quality/standard of life. Economic gains will not last forever; improvements to quality of life will last much longer. Most of the UK are still (just about) benefitting from the expansion of the Victorian rail network, but the economic nature of the areas it runs through has changed several times.

[Mikeyp]

http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/MonoVs.html

[Wirlie G]

Worth considering that between about 1920 (when the last generation of tram lines were starting to be built) and today, only between about 1989 and 2002 did the local authorities and the governmant of the day consider conditions to be right for the construction of a light rail network in a new city.

All other works outside of that small window have been to existing systems.

The reasons for that observation probably go a long way to explaining the current plight in Leeds.

[FreddyFresher]

So without getting into the tedious debate of Leeds vs Manchester transport funding (which I fear is about to rear its ugly head) do we know why Leeds didn't pursue a tram system in the 1990s?

[Loiner's Girders]

Originally Posted by FreddyFresher

So without getting into the tedious debate of Leeds vs Manchester transport funding (which I fear is about to rear its ugly head) do we know why Leeds didn't pursue a tram system in the 1990s?

But Leeds was pursuing it. Plans were being discussed very actively while I was a student (1985-1989), but this had apparently been going on since the 70s. The first UDP was issued with maps proposing the routes in the mid-90s (although the UDP wasn't approved for many years) and I have stacks of literature from this period abouty the scheme. By 2002, the government had committed funding.

Then it all went wrong.

[Wirlie G]

Not quite true.

Check out www.lrta.org and click on the Leeds link.

The orignal plans in the 90s (during the 'approval period') were scrapper by Leeds City Council.

They only resurected the idea of trams in the early 2000s, by which time we had entered the 'denial period'.

I cannot think of a sinlg e city that went for tram funding in the 90s that didn't get it in fact.

[FreddyFresher]

That is what I had heard - do we know why the 1990s proposals were not supported other than the choice of route perhaps?

Wirlie G - as you seem to know a lot about this - in principle could a local authority fund a mass transit system with little or no help from central government? I was thinking through tax increment financing for example?

[Wirlie G]

I don't know as much as you suggest, I havesimply observed the industry for 2decades and watched what has worked, why it worked, what failed and why it failed.
The solution is Whitehall providing better regs under which light rail is constructed and operated, reducing cost and risk.
Great (much greater) local autonomy for local areas to raise funds, then spend them how they wish, and finally a commitment from Whitehall to help thoseauthorities and be consistent in what they require so developers know where they stand and don't spend a fortune on schemes that will never proceed.