Tbus

[Electric_City]

Good point. It also has to be said that the Benefit to Cost Ratio figures provided by various bodies are very malleable. They can be manipulated to 'prove' almost anything you like.

[Wirlie G]

The government are apparently moving away from CBR maths and towards a calculation relating to how much more tax will be raised due to higher land and property taxes. This supposedy came into play when GM decided which schemes to promote in the TF. The DfT agreed this was the best approach.

Also, as has been discussed in the GM CA thread the government is also planning on allowing local authorities to keep business rates. If they also let them adjust the rate it MAY be a way of funding transport schemes that will improve the local economy.

[cmj]

Originally Posted by Wirlie G

The government are apparently moving away from CBR maths and towards a calculation relating to how much more tax will be raised due to higher land and property taxes. This supposedy came into play when GM decided which schemes to promote in the TF. The DfT agreed this was the best approach.

Also, as has been discussed in the GM CA thread the government is also planning on allowing local authorities to keep business rates. If they also let them adjust the rate it MAY be a way of funding transport schemes that will improve the local economy.

Do they also take into account the amount of tax income lost from petrol duty due to people not driving if they are using the transport scheme?

[Wirlie G]

Until quite recently yes fuel duty losses were considered but the later years of the Labour government changed this I believe.

[blackdog]

Originally Posted by Electric_City

...and the point of the NGT system is to provide a lot of segregation on the routes so that the buses don't mix with other traffic so much.

Don't forget that trams mix with traffic too. Plus, if they get stuck behind a stationary vehicle, they can't overtake.

Which is why often tram lanes are in the centre of roads rather than at the sides like bus lanes.

Another point that has to be taken into account with bus lanes is enforcement. There are now bus lanes on Chapeltown Road for the morning rush hour but every morning there are vehicles parked in it, with seemingly no attempt to enforce it.

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by blackdog

Another point that has to be taken into account with bus lanes is enforcement. There are now bus lanes on Chapeltown Road for the morning rush hour but every morning there are vehicles parked in it, with seemingly no attempt to enforce it.

Similar to this, perhaps ..?


..or this ..?


..and the resulting tram jam:



..or this one at Croydon ..?

Originally Posted by blackdog

Which is why often tram lanes are in the centre of roads rather than at the sides like bus lanes.

Like this ..?


The NGT project was planned to have roughly the same segregation as the Supertram and so the Supertram would have had the same likelihood of getting stuck in traffic.



PS. Apologies to long-standing forumers for having to go over this for the umpteenth time

[Leeds No.1]

Although to be fair, parts of the segregated NGT routes are through bus lanes at the edge of the road (such as across Woodhouse Moor) when they could be in the middle (as proposed near the ring road).

[Electric_City]

True, but the Supertram would have used the same technique...

[Cherguevara]

Originally Posted by Electric_City

True, but the Supertram would have used the same technique...

Don't trams fit in narrower central reservations than buses because they run on rails and so have less lateral movement?

EC - you seem quite informed about all this. Do you know if there's a published study comparing the running costs of NGT vs. diesel buses on these routes/more generally? I'm just interested as to whether electric power is cheaper to operate than normal buses would be.

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

Don't trams fit in narrower central reservations than buses because they run on rails and so have less lateral movement?

Yes, that's right. If there's a space restriction, then potentially a tram can have an advantage, although offhand I can't think of any locations on the Leeds routes where that would apply.

One of the reasons why transport boffins first came up with the guided bus idea was to get around this problem but, as I've said many times on here over the years, I believe that the need for guidance is overstated.

Originally Posted by Cherguevara

EC - you seem quite informed about all this. Do you know if there's a published study comparing the running costs of NGT vs. diesel buses on these routes/more generally? I'm just interested as to whether electric power is cheaper to operate than normal buses would be.

I'll get back to you on that. Got to dash now

[Leeds No.1]

Well I think tracks could be advantageous on Headingley Hill where space restrictions mean segregation can only happen in one direction. Two may be possible if it were a tram?

[cmj]

Originally Posted by Leeds No.1

Well I think tracks could be advantageous on Headingley Hill where space restrictions mean segregation can only happen in one direction. Two may be possible if it were a tram?

Can the tbus be setup to allow the segregation to be used in either direction? (so they could use it going into town in the mornings and out of town in the evenings)

[Leeds No.1]

I suppose if it went down the centre of the road it could, but as it doesn't here..

[blackdog]

Originally Posted by Electric_City

The NGT project was planned to have roughly the same segregation as the Supertram and so the Supertram would have had the same likelihood of getting stuck in traffic.



PS. Apologies to long-standing forumers for having to go over this for the umpteenth time

A few people recently brought up the topic of using electric buses, hence my comments were on trams versus buses, rather than NGT versus trams, apologies for the misunderstanding.

From personal experience every morning of the week I see cars in the bus lane on Chapeltown Road but in 4 years of living in Sheffield in the lates 90s I never once experienced a tram delayed due to a vehicle parked or broken down on a tram track. Maybe I was just lucky.

As long as sufficient thought is applied to NGT routes this can work too, but I fear with the emphasis on cost engineering we could end up with something not far off a set of electric buses which would IMO be no great improvement.

[Electric_City]

Hello Cherguevara. Sorry about the interruption.

I don't know of any data for the Leeds routes, however, I've managed to get hold of some figures that were published in 2005 for the Seattle area, where they use a variety of transit modes, including trains, light rail, trolleybuses and diesel buses.

Unfortunately, they didn't include any figures for the kind of large trolleybuses that you would get in Europe (since they weren't operating these kind of vehicles). However, you could use the figure for 'Electric light rail vehicle, seated and standing' as a guideline there, since the passenger capacity is similar for both.



As you can see, there's a significant difference in energy consumption between electric and diesel buses.

[Cherguevara]

Thanks EC, it's interesting that even those smaller trolleybuses are twice as energy efficient as diesel buses; so presumably they're cheaper to run by a similar margin (ignoring oil and electricity price fluctuation of course). It's a shame that they're so difficult to build with our deregulated bus market.

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by Leeds No.1

Well I think tracks could be advantageous on Headingley Hill where space restrictions mean segregation can only happen in one direction. Two may be possible if it were a tram?

Better get out your tape measure - it's the only way to be sure

[Electric_City]

Originally Posted by blackdog

A few people recently brought up the topic of using electric buses, hence my comments were on trams versus buses, rather than NGT versus trams, apologies for the misunderstanding.

From personal experience every morning of the week I see cars in the bus lane on Chapeltown Road but in 4 years of living in Sheffield in the lates 90s I never once experienced a tram delayed due to a vehicle parked or broken down on a tram track. Maybe I was just lucky.

As long as sufficient thought is applied to NGT routes this can work too, but I fear with the emphasis on cost engineering we could end up with something not far off a set of electric buses which would IMO be no great improvement.

Maybe you *were* lucky . I lived in Sheffield in the early '90s and occasionally saw the tram route blocked - mainly by inconsiderate parking. Strict enforcement is the key. As I recall, a couple of problem spots were outside the Yorkshire Bank on Middlewood Road and the HSBC on Leppings Lane, where people would park 'just for a second' whilst they leapt out to get cash. In fact I think they may have got rid of the cash machine outside the HSBC in order to alleviate the problem.

There are lots more examples of blockage on the Croydon lines:











Your point about 'cost engineering' is a good one. As Keiran Preston himself said: the one thing that could ruin the system would be a 'death by a thousand cuts'. However, I still beleive that a bog-standard trolleybus system would be worth it, since I am very concerned with the issue of on-street pollution.

As far as bus lane enforcement is concerned, it may be wrong of me, but I never tire of seeing the following clips:

[Electric_City]

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond was shown around part of the proposed NGT route recently:

Transport secretary shown Leeds trolleybus route

Leeds transport bosses lobby Philip Hammond over stalled NGT trolleybus project


The fight to save Leeds' Trolleybus scheme is well and truly on

Leeds transport bosses have taken transport secretary Philip Hammond on a tour of part of the route for the proposed Leeds NGT trolleybus network.
Transport secretary Philip Hammond The transport secretary, Philip Hammond. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

The ambitious multi-million pound scheme was put on hold by the government following the comprehensive spending review. It's been placed on a list of other schemes from across the country which will compete for a slice of government funding.

Work is currently ongoing to prepare a 'Best and Final Funding Offer' (BAFFO) which focuses on detailed exploration of alternative funding improving the scheme's economic case.

The DfT has indicated an early decision on NGT may be possible as the project does not require significant funding within the current comprehensive spending review period. It is therefore intended to submit a BAFFO shortly to increase the potential for an early Department for Transport decision prior to the summer parliamentary recess.

After the meeting, Metro chairman Chris Greaves said:

"Today was a welcome opportunity to ensure the Secretary of State was properly informed about the trolleybus network scheme directly by the people involved in developing it, and for him to see, first-hand, some of the route that it would serve.

"Mr Hammond seemed impressed when we re-iterated to him that NGT is forecast to increase the annual GDP of Leeds city centre by £176m or almost three per cent, and create 4,000 additional city centre jobs plus a further 250 operating and maintaining the network. And he acknowledged that NGT would represent a transformational improvement in the quality of public transport in Leeds.

"During the meeting we also had the chance to remind Mr Hammond that the NGT scheme had emerged from Leeds being advised by the Department for Transport to develop a bus-based rapid transit system when Leeds Supertram was axed in 2005, with the clear understanding that if the scheme delivered a Benefit:Cost ratio of at least two to one, it would be given the go-ahead.

"The government's own figures, published as part of the comprehensive spending review process, have shown that NGT exceeds this target, which is why we are now urging Mr Hammond and his colleagues to make good on the DfT's commitment and let us get on with the scheme.

"In addition to these positive discussions on NGT, we took the opportunity to re-state our firm support for the Government's proposed high-speed rail route through Yorkshire as well as highlighting the importance of plans for new stations at Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge, the need for more carriages to relieve peak time overcrowding on the local network and the short, medium and long-term future of the East Coast Main Line."

The trolleybus network would link two new park-and-ride sites to the north and south of Leeds with the city centre. The previous Labour government had pledged to contribute £235m towards the scheme, with the remaining funding coming from the council and Metro.

A Metro spokesman said discussions continue with the rail industry and the developer of the Kirkstall Forge site to reduce the scheme cost and increase the local funding contribution.

A range of possible options include alternative procurement approaches and increased contributions from the developer CEG, which has already earmarked £4m towards the scheme and Metro with a BAFFO ready for submission in summer 2011.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/leeds/2011/mar/30/blogpost1

[Skychaser 2005]

Sounds more positive. Lets hope that Metro put a good case forward to the transport secretary, because I believe today was the best and last chance the city has to get the gov to see the benefits and give the project the go ahead