SkyscraperCity banner

41 - 60 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,834 Posts
NGT involved the widening of Headingley Lane on the south side at great expense as well as removing the former garage and shops at Hyde Park Corner, the single storey ones. That aspect of the scheme made a lot of sense and would have been a game changer. The problem we now face is that WYCA/Metro or whatever it calls itself this week ( an attempt to call it "Leeds City Region Transport Authority" was shot down by Bradford) has not got the nerve to do bold public transport! Rapid Transit has been shunted into a siding and we are left with a crackpot station at the Airport and a dubious promise First will transform our bus network.
Was it widened all the way down from the Oak? I can't imagine you could get two extra lanes in though, so going the other way you will be fighting it with the rest of the traffic.

As to First - they have have had years to 'transform the bus network' - why would they do so now?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,028 Posts
Canary Wharf went bankrupt, the entire place went to the wall in 1992. The Jubilee Line saved the place.


Olympia and Yorke went under in 1992 and Canary Wharf was placed in administration. It came out of administration the following year, by which time seven thousand people were working there.

Two years later, the working population had more than doubled to 15000 after Barclays announced that BZW, their investment banking arm, was moving there with 1700 staff. More than 70% of the office space was let to tenants such as Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley.

The arrival, four years later, of the Jubilee Line certainly improved the attractiveness of Canary Wharf as a business destination. But to imply that the place was a failure until then is not true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
The arrival, four years later, of the Jubilee Line certainly improved the attractiveness of Canary Wharf as a business destination. But to imply that the place was a failure until then is not true.
Given Jubilee line construction started in 1993, companies would have made decisions to move there knowing it was coming. And the DLR was there to take the initial levels of commuting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Was it widened all the way down from the Oak? I can't imagine you could get two extra lanes in though, so going the other way you will be fighting it with the rest of the traffic.

As to First - they have have had years to 'transform the bus network' - why would they do so now?
It was planned to be one-way outbound bus lane from Hyde Park to Headingley Hill, then two-lane NGT-only alignment round the back of Headingley from Headingley Hill to Shaw Lane. This would have provided segregation through the main points of congestion (the existing Bus lane from Lawnswood to Shaw Lane doing the job for the morning inbound peak).

I think it would be good to progress the Hyde Park - Headingley Hill section as a conventional bus lane. It could be done pretty much as planned. But perhaps LCC aren't feeling it's worth their trouble given the local reaction to the NGT scheme.
 

·
Carl Shutt ruined my life
Joined
·
829 Posts
After NGT was scrapped I spoke to Richard Lewis about it (I think I posted the email) and the attitude seemed to be very much that trying to do anything with Otley road wasn't worth the hassle given the wave of opposition they get.
 

·
Carl Shutt ruined my life
Joined
·
829 Posts
In fact one of the oppositions to NGT was that it was a highways scheme (Otley Road bypass) dressed up as a public transport scheme.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,834 Posts
After NGT was scrapped I spoke to Richard Lewis about it (I think I posted the email) and the attitude seemed to be very much that trying to do anything with Otley road wasn't worth the hassle given the wave of opposition they get.
This is the Richard Lewis who claimed we don't have a traffic problem?
 

·
Back home
Joined
·
4,027 Posts
One of the government's principles for rejecting NGT was that such routes should serve more needy areas, so it's pointless to even think about planning a route up Otley Road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,834 Posts
One of the government's principles for rejecting NGT was that such routes should serve more needy areas, so it's pointless to even think about planning a route up Otley Road.
Which is quite frankly a bloody stupid reason. You need rapid transport where there are lots of people to move, not where the disadvantaged live. Now if the two overlap then fine, it may help them get ahead, but the reason for transport systems is to move people.

I wonder what would happen if they built atram line toa disadvantaged area. Would it just cause gentrification as the more wealthy would start to move there to benefit from the tram?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
One of the government's principles for rejecting NGT was that such routes should serve more needy areas, so it's pointless to even think about planning a route up Otley Road.
It was the public inquiry inspector who rejected NGT, with lack of regeneration being one of the key criticisms. Ironically, it was actually the government (DfT) who insisted that the line to east Leeds which was in the initial plan and whose prime purpose was regeneration, was dropped to save money.

IMO the DfT should stand much of the blame for the NGT debacle. They insisted Leeds must have a bus-based solution and micro-managed decisions about the route. Key issues raised in the inquiry inspector's report were the lack of consideration of other vehicle options, and that the routes were too limited and didn't include areas of regeneration, which were flat out repudiations of DfT decisions. Perhaps the DfT agreeing that Leeds would still get the promised funding was a tacit admission that they had messed up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
Might have shared this before but this is what I'd do:

Start off by running Harrogate line trains on road from Kirkstall Viaduct, down the very wide Kirkstall Road and then running through the city centre to rejoin the railway at Hunslet - to carry on to Castleford / Pontefract, with a few new stations thrown in - so at least 6 trains tph from Cas to Leeds to Horsforth.

Then I'd look at Bradford and have some tram-trains going from Interchange to Forster Square to connect Halifax, Calder Valley and South Bradford to Shipley and the Aire-Wharfe lines, with a few new stations thrown in - so at least 6 tph from Halifax to Bradford to Shipley.

Then I'd add a spur to LBA and create then tram lines to Gipton / Seacroft and a cross-Wakefield link

Beyond that in many decades there'd be scope for Spen Valley, routes to West and East Bradford, North Leeds, Pudsey... and beyond!

This would all be done in conjunction with Bradford - Leeds - East Leeds Parkway (?) having a regular fast train linking them, with Bradford acting as more of a rail hub taking pressure off Leeds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,834 Posts
Might have shared this before but this is what I'd do:

Start off by running Harrogate line trains on road from Kirkstall Viaduct, down the very wide Kirkstall Road and then running through the city centre to rejoin the railway at Hunslet - to carry on to Castleford / Pontefract, with a few new stations thrown in - so at least 6 trains tph from Cas to Leeds to Horsforth.
I have seen this idea several times, but I can't see the advantage for passengers in running on-road for the busy congested city centre section, or for that matter running from Horsfoth to Castleford. Both these seem to be for operational convience rather than actually being useful for pax.

Horsforth to City station is 15 minutes by train. I can't see people being overly happy about adding 10 minutes to that becuase you're now stuck in the city centre traffic.

I realise that there are some serious capacity issues at City station, and doing this may help that, but it doesn't seem to be an improvment for users of the line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
It's one way of reducing capacity at Leeds station, which is needed.

I don't traffic would be that much of an issue as Kirkstall Road has enough space for a separate track between the viaduct and towards Wellington Street.

I think journey times from both ends would be slightly slower but this would be balanced against a high frequency and high capacity service. It would also allow for north-south journeys to be made across Leeds, albeit initially in a narrow corridor, a rail based park and ride at Stourton and support development around Holbeck and Hunslet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,834 Posts
I think Leeds needs a proper underground (sub surface, and city centre only) service.
Premetro. Underground in the city, more tram-linke out into the suburbs. Sadly this is Leeds, so the nearest we will get before I'm dead is a hybrid bus in the IRR tunnel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
That might be another map to make!

I am getting skeptical that tram-trains will happen given the delays and costs of the South Yorkshire trial... but to me it does seem like the most realistic way of joining up the two Bradford stations and to allow higher frequencies from lines such as Harrogate line into Leeds without increasing pressure on the city station
 
41 - 60 of 70 Posts
Top