£2.5bn Leeds Tram plan delayed after government review

[thenorthern]

There was something in the I paper last week about it potentially being cancelled. I can't post it as it's behind a paywall.

Labour have to be careful with this as spades in the ground by 2028 was a signature policy of Tracy Brabin in 2024.

 

[grdc]

There was something in the I paper last week about it potentially being cancelled. I can't post it as it's behind a paywall.

Labour have to be careful with this as spades in the ground by 2028 was a signature policy of Tracy Brabin in 2024.

Here's a <a href="https://archive.ph/mKueo">non-paywall link</a> for those of you interested.

I think it's patently obvious that this thing is never going to be built, and that Tracy Brabin has been well and truly thrown under the bus (insert joke here) by her superiors at head office.

What can she do? WYCA were given the 200m (apologies if I've remembered this amount incorrectly) to spend on consultations and what have you, which cannot be spent on anything else... Yet she gets criticised for spending money on consultations.

She could and probably should have resigned on principal, but I'm sure the 99% anti-labour media would have had a field day with that, "Labour in crisis" etc...

If Keir Starmer (attended the University of Leeds) or Rachel Reeves (MP for Pudsey) really gave a fig about the North they'd get something or anything at all started, so that it would be very difficult to put a stop to it by a new incoming "believe in nothing" government.

But guess what, our tram, Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2>Manchester (whatever its now called) all just vapourware, mere hollow promises of jam tomorrow.

There seems to be plenty of money for the lower Thames crossing, though, and East-West Rail.

For context, and for what it's worth, I have voted Labour in every election.

 

[Magdalia]

But guess what, our tram, Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2>Manchester (whatever its now called) all just vapourware, mere hollow promises of jam tomorrow.

There seems to be plenty of money for the lower Thames crossing, though, and East-West Rail.

The 2025 Spending Review was only a few months ago, what short memories some people have. Here is what it said about transport.

Transport 4.14 Transport is critical to the delivery of the growth mission. Over Phase 2 of the SR, the government will increase transport capital investment to give people across the country greater access to jobs, education, training and public services. 4.15 The government is investing in transport in city regions across England, pivoting new investment towards the country’s cities and surrounding towns and addressing historic underinvestment in the North and Midlands, while giving local areas more control over how this investment is spent. This includes: a. Providing £15.6 billion in total by 2031-32 for the elected mayors of some of England's largest city regions via the Transport for City Regions (TCR) settlements, supporting them to invest in their local transport priorities, including zero emission buses, trams and local rail. This will more than double real terms city region transport spending per year by 2029-30, compared to 2024-25; b. Investing £2.3 billion in the Local Transport Grant over Phase 2 for local transport improvements including bus lanes, cycleways and congestion improvement measures in places outside of those areas receiving TCR settlements. This will deliver a fourfold increase in funding in 2029-30 compared to 2024-25; and, c. Providing the largest multi-year settlement for London in over a decade, with £2.2 billion of funding between 2026-27 and 2029-30 for Transport for London's capital renewals programme. 4.16 Furthermore, through this SR, the government will fund key, growth-driving major projects that will improve connectivity between cities and towns, including: a. The Transpennine Route Upgrade, for which the government will provide £3.5 billion. This will reduce the journey time for commuters travelling between Manchester and Leeds by a quarter; and, b. Allocating £2.5 billion to progress the delivery of East West Rail, supporting housing developments and unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Note that there is £15.6 billion for the elected mayors of England's largest city regions, nearly all of which are in the north.

It is for Tracey Brabin, as Mayor of West Yorkshire, to come up with a proposal for a share of that pot.

Note also that there is £3.5 billion for the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade, compared with £2.5 billion for East West Rail.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is a typical example of a British regulation advocate who imagine a degree of 'non duplication' that's not actually practiced in mainland Europe. In Hamburg bus route 5 runs from Burgwedel to the city centre at high frequencies with big buses despite crossing multiple radial U-bahn lines. The U-bahn lines do not depend on enforced interchange of route 5 passengers onto them.

The 5 isn't such a good example as the route operates out of Hamburg along roads which don't have a U-Bahn or S-Bahn serving them. My experience of riding it from end-to-end (aiming to tick off the AKN service) was that not many rode it end-to-end, with a big turnover of passengers at Niendorf.

The problem with Leeds is that the routes you'd use for a tram are also the main roads into Leeds, and these roads aren't that wide. If you were to build a street-running tram line you'd ideally build it straight up Woodhouse Lane to the University and then Headingley, terminating at Leeds Beckett Uni. But there isn't the room for a segregated tram line on that road. If a tram is just going to sit in the same traffic jams as a bus, then why go to the expense of building a tram line?

It's annoying that the tram through Pudsey is unlikely to ever get built, as that wouldn't have the same issues as it would largely run on old railway lines. The proposed route might even have helped the rather forgotten people of Tyersal. Tyersal is in the City of Leeds council area but, because of the road network, is effectively an exclave.

 

[Chester1]

The 2025 Spending Review was only a few months ago, what short memories some people have. Here is what it said about transport.



Note that there is £15.6 billion for the elected mayors of England's largest city regions, nearly all of which are in the north.

It is for Tracey Brabin, as Mayor of West Yorkshire, to come up with a proposal for a share of that pot.

Note also that there is £3.5 billion for the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade, compared with £2.5 billion for East West Rail.

West Yorkshire is the primary beneficiary of the current TRU work. It will effectively create a metro for Leeds -Huddersfield area. It is not like the area is being abandoned by the government. £3.5 billion is a colossal investment.

 

[Tetchytyke]

West Yorkshire is the primary beneficiary of the current TRU work. It will effectively create a metro for Leeds -Huddersfield area. It is not like the area is being abandoned by the government. £3.5 billion is a colossal investment.

Nah, the primary beneficiaries of the TRU work are people travelling longer-distance between the north west and Yorkshire and the north east. That's not to say TRU isn't long overdue and very welcome, but the improvements for local trains between Huddersfield and Leeds are rather modest.

 

[ainsworth74]

Nah, the primary beneficiaries of the TRU work are people travelling longer-distance between the north west and Yorkshire and the north east. That's not to say TRU isn't long overdue and very welcome, but the improvements for local trains between Huddersfield and Leeds are rather modest.

This surely just the reality of decades of under investment? As highlighted £3.5bn is a colossal amount of money and both extremely welcome and necessary. But there is so much investment required to bring transport in West Yorkshire and elsewhere into modern state that it feels like it isn't enough. Yes the £3.5bn spend in TRU is brilliant and a sign of some attention being paid. But "delaying" (we all know they mean cancelling) yet another project to give, in particular Leeds, better urban transport in the area just isn't good enough. We need TRU and investment in local transport infrastructure.

Instead we've got people justifying the cancellation of the most recent attempt at Leeds gaining a tram system by pointing to the TRU investment. It's nonsense. Both are needed. Just as better transport investment is needed all over the North (and Midlands, South West and parts of the South East). This country is being held back, in part, because getting people and stuff around it is harder than it should be. Of course London and the core South East outperforms the rest of England (and indeed quite a lot of the rest of the UK!). People can actually get around it!

We've got a string of cities in the North stretching from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds to York and Newcastle which if they were properly connected together and had strong internal transport links to their own surrounding areas might actually have a hope in hell of triggering the economic growth we are desperate for. But no, we'll continue to invest in the occasional totemic project and claim that because we've got that totemic transport investment is good enough and why are you complaining anyway we're spending £3.5bn on TRU what else could you possibly need?

For instance we'll not worry about the cancelled HS2 branches to Manchester and Leeds which would have been transformative for those cities and their surroundings, and would have freed up vast amount of capacity on the ECML, MML and WCML to enable other connections to operate along those corridors (and whose cancellations were in part supposed to be softened by investment in transport in those same effected places some of which is now being cancelled).

As I said at the beginning of this thread the leadership of this country is going to ensure that the death spiral continues and eventually we'll be left wondering why nothing works anymore as our infrastructure crumbles around us because the infrastructure we need to sustain the economic activity that we require was all cancelled because it wasn't seen to be "value for money" to actually build it.

 

[thenorthern]

Here's a <a href="https://archive.ph/mKueo">non-paywall link</a> for those of you interested.

I think it's patently obvious that this thing is never going to be built, and that Tracy Brabin has been well and truly thrown under the bus (insert joke here) by her superiors at head office.

What can she do? WYCA were given the 200m (apologies if I've remembered this amount incorrectly) to spend on consultations and what have you, which cannot be spent on anything else... Yet she gets criticised for spending money on consultations.

She could and probably should have resigned on principal, but I'm sure the 99% anti-labour media would have had a field day with that, "Labour in crisis" etc...

If Keir Starmer (attended the University of Leeds) or Rachel Reeves (MP for Pudsey) really gave a fig about the North they'd get something or anything at all started, so that it would be very difficult to put a stop to it by a new incoming "believe in nothing" government.

But guess what, our tram, Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2>Manchester (whatever its now called) all just vapourware, mere hollow promises of jam tomorrow.

There seems to be plenty of money for the lower Thames crossing, though, and East-West Rail.

For context, and for what it's worth, I have voted Labour in every election.

At the next mayor election in 2028 given shovels won't be in the ground Labour will effectively handing votes over to other parties. As many voters in Leeds will have memories of the Leeds Supertram being cancelled by Labour in 2005. Also given that a lot of this was promises of funding after HS2 services to Leeds were cancelled, I think Labour are going to struggle badly in 2028. After a while voters lose paitence with transport promises. Given both Labour and the Conservatives are to blame for this I can see the whole fiasco leading to Reform UK gaining the West Yorkshire Mayoralty.

 

[Chester1]

This surely just the reality of decades of under investment? As highlighted £3.5bn is a colossal amount of money and both extremely welcome and necessary. But there is so much investment required to bring transport in West Yorkshire and elsewhere into modern state that it feels like it isn't enough. Yes the £3.5bn spend in TRU is brilliant and a sign of some attention being paid. But "delaying" (we all know they mean cancelling) yet another project to give, in particular Leeds, better urban transport in the area just isn't good enough. We need TRU and investment in local transport infrastructure.

Instead we've got people justifying the cancellation of the most recent attempt at Leeds gaining a tram system by pointing to the TRU investment. It's nonsense. Both are needed. Just as better transport investment is needed all over the North (and Midlands, South West and parts of the South East). This country is being held back, in part, because getting people and stuff around it is harder than it should be. Of course London and the core South East outperforms the rest of England (and indeed quite a lot of the rest of the UK!). People can actually get around it!

We've got a string of cities in the North stretching from Liverpool to Manchester to Leeds to York and Newcastle which if they were properly connected together and had strong internal transport links to their own surrounding areas might actually have a hope in hell of triggering the economic growth we are desperate for. But no, we'll continue to invest in the occasional totemic project and claim that because we've got that totemic transport investment is good enough and why are you complaining anyway we're spending £3.5bn on TRU what else could you possibly need?

For instance we'll not worry about the cancelled HS2 branches to Manchester and Leeds which would have been transformative for those cities and their surroundings, and would have freed up vast amount of capacity on the ECML, MML and WCML to enable other connections to operate along those corridors (and whose cancellations were in part supposed to be softened by investment in transport in those same effected places some of which is now being cancelled).

As I said at the beginning of this thread the leadership of this country is going to ensure that the death spiral continues and eventually we'll be left wondering why nothing works anymore as our infrastructure crumbles around us because the infrastructure we need to sustain the economic activity that we require was all cancelled because it wasn't seen to be "value for money" to actually build it.

We aren't in an economic death spiral. Our economy has grown at almost identical rate to France and faster than Germany since 2016. Europe and developed nations (excluding the US) are in relative decline because we no longer dominate control of the worlds resources and other countries are catching up. We then made the stagnation worse with brexit but lets not get things out of proportion. Doing a proper business case is essential to ensuring a project will actually deliver the economic benefits that we need. A Combined Authority can't cobble together poor routes based on local politics and expect to get it funded because it think they are owed billions of investment.

 

[Grimsby town]

We aren't in an economic death spiral. Our economy has grown at almost identical rate to France and faster than Germany since 2016. Europe and developed nations (excluding the US) are in relative decline because we no longer dominate control of the worlds resources and other countries are catching up. We then made the stagnation worse with brexit but lets not get things out of proportion. Doing a proper business case is essential to ensuring a project will actually deliver the economic benefits that we need. A Combined Authority can't cobble together poor routes based on local politics and expect to get it funded because it think they are owed billions of investment.

I'm pretty sure that I read that Tracy Brabin has said that the same two line are still going to be further developed, so the business case isn't looking to change those routes. There was a sifting process employed to get to those two lines so they've not just been cobbled together. A business case was always going to be developed anyway, its just going to take longer to suit the risk adverse nature of DfT and the treasury.

 

[thejuggler]

Leeds full Council meeting was online today. Quite embarrassing, there was the release of a new report which highlights lots of the benefits of the Leeds tram.

Open season for opposition now it has been kicked down the road by a Labour government with a Labour Chancellor whose constituency is crossed by most of the route, in a Labour controlled combined authorty, being promoted by West Yorkshire Labour controlled councils.

 

[nikos]

Real shame that it is basically being mothballed. I think the route from St James Hospital to White Rose Centre is sound. I don't think the Leeds - Bradford route is either necessary, cost effective or value for money given the two suburban rail lines already operating. They should have stuck with the original Supertram route from Lawnswood down Woodhouse Lane through Headingley to City Centre as the second route.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Real shame that it is basically being mothballed. I think the route from St James Hospital to White Rose Centre is sound. I don't think the Leeds - Bradford route is either necessary, cost effective or value for money given the two suburban rail lines already operating. They should have stuck with the original Supertram route from Lawnswood down Woodhouse Lane through Headingley to City Centre as the second route.

There's a lot of suburban areas which are distant from stations on the 2 rail lines though, that's why there's still 3 different frequent bus routes between Leeds and Bradford.
Rail Leeds to Bradford Interchange has some scope for minor improvements (e.g. new stations), but without Skipton to Colne reopening, it will still be quite busy with interregional services.

I agree that the initial Leeds route between the hospital and the White Rose centre should be prioritised, but the Lawnswood/Headingley route alone isn't feasible at the moment with the level of opposition it would receive. You need to connect it to a major regional traffic source like LBA to make it viable.

 

[nikos]

There's a lot of suburban areas which are distant from stations on the 2 rail lines though, that's why there's still 3 different frequent bus routes between Leeds and Bradford.
Rail Leeds to Bradford Interchange has some scope for minor improvements (e.g. new stations), but without Skipton to Colne reopening, it will still be quite busy with interregional services.

I agree that the initial Leeds route between the hospital and the White Rose centre should be prioritised, but the Lawnswood/Headingley route alone isn't feasible at the moment with the level of opposition it would receive. You need to connect it to a major regional traffic source like LBA to make it viable.

LBA is in completely the wrong location. It should actually be in Barwick in Elmet/ Parlington parallel to the A1 (M). That's the problem with the UK, there was no forward post war planning. One of the only things I agreed with BoJo about was that Heathrow is in completely the wrong location - it should actually be in the Thames Estuary or in Oxfordshire. If you were planning transport from scratch you wouldn't put an international hub airport in suburban west London. Similarly Yeadon is a poor location for LBA.

I don't think there is that much opposition to the Lawnswood/Headingly route tbh, yeah there were some nutters tying themselves to trees but most opposition came from people who never wanted the trolleybus - it was seen, quite rightly as second rate boondoggle and money pit and people were angry about that. If you polled the area now I think they'd be overwhelmingly on board. The [train-tram] spur from Horsforth to LBA I think is a seperate thing.

 

[may032]

There's a lot of suburban areas which are distant from stations on the 2 rail lines though, that's why there's still 3 different frequent bus routes between Leeds and Bradford.
Rail Leeds to Bradford Interchange has some scope for minor improvements (e.g. new stations), but without Skipton to Colne reopening, it will still be quite busy with interregional services.

I agree that the initial Leeds route between the hospital and the White Rose centre should be prioritised, but the Lawnswood/Headingley route alone isn't feasible at the moment with the level of opposition it would receive. You need to connect it to a major regional traffic source like LBA to make it viable.

I’m not au fait with the local politics here but was the Woodhouse Lane route heavily disputed in previous schemes? My memories of that road as a former Leeds student was pretty consistent peak-hours gridlock and pain for anyone needing to travel between Headingly and the town centre. It would seem to be an ideal route choice to me.

 

[nikos]

I’m not au fait with the local politics here but was the Woodhouse Lane route heavily disputed in previous schemes? My memories of that road as a former Leeds student was pretty consistent peak-hours gridlock and pain for anyone needing to travel between Headingly and the town centre. It would seem to be an ideal route choice to me.

There was some opposition to 'ancient'??? trees potentially being cut down where Woodhouse Lane runs along Woodhouse Moor and possibly further up in the Weetwood/Lawnswood area and maybe about more potential gridlock because of the construction disruption. It wasn't massive - just people with nothing else to do and tut tut about.

When it got downgraded to a single line trolleybus people saw red. The idea of the trolleybus was seen as cheap and tacky compared to the tram so suddenly the trees and construction disruption was a big issue and another excuse not to have it. Then the trolleybus got scrapped as not value for money by an ombudsman and people went back to wanting the tram.

 

[Grimsby town]

There was some opposition to 'ancient'??? trees potentially being cut down where Woodhouse Lane runs along Woodhouse Moor and possibly further up in the Weetwood/Lawnswood area and maybe about more potential gridlock because of the construction disruption. It wasn't massive - just people with nothing else to do and tut tut about.

When it got downgraded to a single line trolleybus people saw red. The idea of the trolleybus was seen as cheap and tacky compared to the tram so suddenly the trees and construction disruption was a big issue and another excuse not to have it. Then the trolleybus got scrapped as not value for money by an ombudsman and people went back to wanting the tram.

One of the criteria for latest iteration of the tram was that the line should be low disruption. That rules out Headingley straight away and the fact it would mainly be street running compounds that. I can see the merits of tram on that corridor at some point but I think it's sensible to avoid in the initial lines. Too many potential cost overruns and too much opposition. Once the tram is up and running and people can see the benefits, it will be easier to justify a Headingly Line. A sensible first stage would be to Woodhouse Moor/Hyde Park.

 

[anothertyke]

I live in the area. I would say there was little opposition to a tram up to the University. There was a lot of opposition to an on street tram up the hill from Hyde Park to Headingley which is the pm peak queue along the lines of 'what's the point?'. There was separate opposition to taking the old by pass line of route round the back of the Arndale Centre on environmental grounds. Then there was opposition from people further out living on for example the 23, 27 and 28 routes who feared they would be required to change to the tram in order to go into town. It's very difficult to justify a tram on the basis of the flows on Headingley Lane/Otley Road itself especially now the student population has largely migrated southward.

I think WYCA made a decision after the failures of the tram and trolleybus schemes that it was not going back where there would be serious local opposition and also that places like Thorpe Park and Pudsey would be better growth poles for the long term than Headingley ever would.

I also think LBIA is completely irrelevant to this. Do the maths on the market share of the airport buses. The only show in town there is the station on the Harrogate line and even that will struggle.

 

[nikos]

One of the criteria for latest iteration of the tram was that the line should be low disruption. That rules out Headingley straight away and the fact it would mainly be street running compounds that. I can see the merits of tram on that corridor at some point but I think it's sensible to avoid in the initial lines. Too many potential cost overruns and too much opposition. Once the tram is up and running and people can see the benefits, it will be easier to justify a Headingly Line. A sensible first stage would be to Woodhouse Moor/Hyde Park.

I agree in theory it's a good idea that a sensible first stage would be Woodhouse Moor/Hyde Park, but in practice - that would still entail disruption on Woodhouse Lane - worse - two sets of disruption if you were going to further extend up to Headingley at some later point. That would really pee people off more.

But you would end up with a situation like in Sheffield - where the blue Halfway/Malin Bridge line doesn't actually go a bit further up the hill on Glossop Road to serve Hallamshire Hospital or the up A57 Brook Hill to serve both the Hallamshire hosp, children's hosp and main university buildings. People would find it annoying to have to change for the bus halfway for a journey because there's no logical endpoint.

Also, one set of massive disruption is better than two.

 

[Grimsby town]

I agree in theory it's a good idea that a sensible first stage would be Woodhouse Moor/Hyde Park, but in practice - that would still entail disruption on Woodhouse Lane - worse - two sets of dispruption if you were going to further extend up to Headingley at some later point. That would really pee people off more. But you would end up with a situation like in Sheffield - where the blue Halfway/Malin Bridge line doesn't actually go a bit further up the hill on Glossop Road to serve Hallamshire Hospital or the up A57 Brook Hill to serve both the Hallamshire hosp, children's hosp and main university buildings. People would find it annoying to have to change for the bus halfway for a journey because there's no logical endpoint.

Also one set of massive disruption is better than two.

The uni is a pretty big generator of trips though and having spent a year walking from the station to Hyde Park, it's a fair distance. Buses would still continue to the city centre but it'd be a good place for interchanging to the tram for destinations outside of the city centre. Disruption up to Hyde Park would be less of an issue as there's mainly 2 traffic lanes in each direction and alternative roads.

 

[NCT]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A city's first tram line needs to fulfil 2 conditions:
A) high population density providing plentiful foot passengers
B) cheap-to-implement high levels of segregation

The Headingley route succeeds on A) but fails spectacularly on B.

It doesn't matter how much you overachieves one necessary condition as long as you fail the other.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I’m not au fait with the local politics here but was the Woodhouse Lane route heavily disputed in previous schemes? My memories of that road as a former Leeds student was pretty consistent peak-hours gridlock and pain for anyone needing to travel between Headingly and the town centre. It would seem to be an ideal route choice to me.

The road isn't wide enough to take the tram really, which is partly what led to the later complaints, and, yes, the road may be gridlocked, but population isn't really that high on just that section of the corridor.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A city's first tram line needs to fulfil 2 conditions:
A) high population density providing plentiful foot passengers
B) cheap-to-implement high levels of segregation

The Headingley route succeeds on A) but fails spectacularly on B.

It doesn't matter how much you overachieves one necessary condition as long as you fail the other.

Exactly. That's why I'd send any LBA route up the A65 through Kirkstall and Rawdon, where there is dual carriageway with space for reserved tram tracks or at least a wide single carriageway with intermittent bus lanes for a large chunk of the route. This makes segregation much easier.

LBA is in completely the wrong location. It should actually be in Barwick in Elmet/ Parlington parallel to the A1 (M). That's the problem with the UK, there was no forward post war planning. One of the only things I agreed with BoJo about was that Heathrow is in completely the wrong location - it should actually be in the Thames Estuary or in Oxfordshire. If you were planning transport from scratch you wouldn't put an international hub airport in suburban west London. Similarly Yeadon is a poor location for LBA.

I don't think there is that much opposition to the Lawnswood/Headingly route tbh, yeah there were some nutters tying themselves to trees but most opposition came from people who never wanted the trolleybus - it was seen, quite rightly as second rate boondoggle and money pit and people were angry about that. If you polled the area now I think they'd be overwhelmingly on board. The [train-tram] spur from Horsforth to LBA I think is a seperate thing.

LBA is in the wrong location, I completely agree, but it's undergoing a significant expansion and is going nowhere sadly.
Therefore, we may as well serve it with a scheme that supports new housing in underdeveloped parts of western Leeds and reconnects several communities that have been cut off from mass transit for decades.
The tram-train from Horsforth to LBA is functionally dead IMHO, the gradients would be exceptionally steep and the parkway station idea is in the completely wrong place for traffic too.
Unfortunately, you cannot guarantee that locals will not massively oppose a Headingley route again, and anothertyke sums it up here below better than I ever could

I think WYCA made a decision after the failures of the tram and trolleybus schemes that it was not going back where there would be serious local opposition and also that places like Thorpe Park and Pudsey would be better growth poles for the long term than Headingley ever would.

I also think LBIA is completely irrelevant to this. Do the maths on the market share of the airport buses. The only show in town there is the station on the Harrogate line and even that will struggle.

Although I disagree with you on this - there's potential for a lot of housing on the A65 corridor, the infrastructure is suitable, and a tram will have much better market share than a bus (especially if there's a park and ride near where the A65 crosses the ring road).
The LBA Parkway station is sadly in the wrong place -
if the line didn't dive into a tunnel to pass under Bramhope and passed further west on the surface up a hill, you would probably be close enough to LBA for shuttle buses and the link road from the local road network for a decent sized car park would be smaller.
As it is, LBA isn't big enough for a Luton-style dedicated people mover solution without other traffic (commuting/leisure into Leeds) to make it viable.
I can't see tram train ever working with capacity issues at Leeds, and the need to maintain a decent service level to Harrogate and Knaresborough.

 

[johncrossley]

We aren't in an economic death spiral. Our economy has grown at almost identical rate to France and faster than Germany since 2016. Europe and developed nations (excluding the US) are in relative decline because we no longer dominate control of the worlds resources and other countries are catching up. We then made the stagnation worse with brexit but lets not get things out of proportion. Doing a proper business case is essential to ensuring a project will actually deliver the economic benefits that we need. A Combined Authority can't cobble together poor routes based on local politics and expect to get it funded because it think they are owed billions of investment.

I suspect transport has less effect on the economy now compared to the past. Once you have a basic level of accessibility then it might not matter that much. For example, compare northern England with somewhere in the US with strong economic growth in recent years such as California. California public transport is mostly weak compared to northern England. Large towns often have no train service or only a few trains a day. By contrast, most towns in northern England have a frequent local train service and if not there will be a regular bus connecting to the nearest railway station. Northern England is also well served by motorways and even has little used stretches of motorway such as the M58. So it is reasonable to say that northern England is better off transport wise but obviously there is a vast gulf in their economic performance. Getting people out of cars by improving public transport, such as a new tram system for West Yorkshire, might be a good thing on many levels, but it might not make much, if any, difference economically.

 

[nikos]

I suspect transport has less effect on the economy now compared to the past. Once you have a basic level of accessibility then it might not matter that much. For example, compare northern England with somewhere in the US with strong economic growth in recent years such as California. California public transport is mostly weak compared to northern England. Large towns often have no train service or only a few trains a day. By contrast, most towns in northern England have a frequent local train service and if not there will be a regular bus connecting to the nearest railway station. Northern England is also well served by motorways and even has little used stretches of motorway such as the M58. So it is reasonable to say that northern England is better off transport wise but obviously there is a vast gulf in their economic performance. Getting people out of cars by improving public transport, such as a new tram system for West Yorkshire, might be a good thing on many levels, but it might not make much, if any, difference economically.

Silicon Valley is a relatively small area in California that is responsible for nearly all the economic growth, though. It is the result of a decades long national economic strategy to cluster technology for semiconductor supremacy. It's hardly like for like.

Ohio is a more reasonable comparison, and in both there and in northern England - good transport infrastructure would make a lot of difference. Western Germany - Cologne/Bonn - Frankfurt are the kind of productivity gains northern England should be realising.

And California LA is famously gridlocked. The California HSR is planning disaster mainly because as usual, corners have been cut, funding slashed, various lobbies appeased and compromises made. Again, poor planning.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

I long since gave up believing that any of the West Yorkshire trams/trolleybuses etc. would be built.
I have a facsimile of a newspaper article from 1988 where Metro stated they were confident of receiving funding for both a tram network in Leeds and a trolleybus route in Bradford "imminently".
The basic problem has always been the transport planners in West Yorkshire itself. Without exception their plans have been too complicated and therefore too expensive...and so they fail to get funding.
I saw the plans for one of the previous Supertram networks (c.2000s). It was so heavily engineered that, given a connection to the heavy rail, you could have driven a class 91 onto it and run straight from St James' Hospital to King's Cross! There were emergency crossovers literally everywhere, each one increasingly the complexity and cost.
As for the trolleybus, in the late 80s WYPTA balked at the cost of the vehicles. Instead of asking a manufacturer who already produced trolleybuses to manufacture a batch, they tendered for a bespoke vehicle for West Yorkshire. So the manufacturers had to dump their design and development costs across a small batch of unique vehicles.
In the 2010s they did exactly the same with the NGT proposal.
You can't fault Tracy Brabin's enthusiasm, but unless the team she leads can come up with sensible plans which cost a reasonable amount of money (i.e. an amount the government might feel able to stump up) there never will be "spades in the ground".

 

[johncrossley]

Silicon Valley is a relatively small area in California that is responsible for nearly all of the economic growth though. It is the result of a decades long national economic strategy to cluster technology for semiconductor supremacy.

Tech companies are not just in Silicon Valley. There is a lot in the Bay Area as well, plus various other areas in the country. Public transport is better in the Bay Area than in southern California but it is hardly world class.

 

[Grimsby town]

Tech companies are not just in Silicon Valley. There is a lot in the Bay Area as well, plus various other areas in the country. Public transport is better in the Bay Area than in southern California but it is hardly world class.

Going off topic but the road infrastructure significantly better in the US than the UK. A grid system is far more efficient and they have huge highways but also space for parking which the UK simply doesn't have the space for. The motorway network in England is terrible compared to most other developed countries but improving it will just lead to gridlock in the city centres unless decent public transport alternatives are provided.

 

[johncrossley]

The motorway network in England is terrible compared to most other developed countries

But it is better in northern England compared to the south, yet the south (even far from London) has a stronger economy. Merseyside in particular is saturated with motorways and has a half decent urban rail network yet it is one of the poorest areas of Europe. Travelling around Cambridge is very difficult but has a very strong economy. There seems to be not much correlation between transport and economy.

 

[nikos]

I long since gave up believing that any of the West Yorkshire trams/trolleybuses etc. would be built.
I have a facsimile of a newspaper article from 1988 where Metro stated they were confident of receiving funding for both a tram network in Leeds and a trolleybus route in Bradford "imminently".
The basic problem has always been the transport planners in West Yorkshire itself. Without exception their plans have been too complicated and therefore too expensive...and so they fail to get funding.
I saw the plans for one of the previous Supertram networks (c.2000s). It was so heavily engineered that, given a connection to the heavy rail, you could have driven a class 91 onto it and run straight from St James' Hospital to King's Cross! There were emergency crossovers literally everywhere, each one increasingly the complexity and cost.
As for the trolleybus, in the late 80s WYPTA balked at the cost of the vehicles. Instead of asking a manufacturer who already produced trolleybuses to manufacture a batch, they tendered for a bespoke vehicle for West Yorkshire. So the manufacturers had to dump their design and development costs across a small batch of unique vehicles.
In the 2010s they did exactly the same with the NGT proposal.
You can't fault Tracy Brabin's enthusiasm, but unless the team she leads can come up with sensible plans which cost a reasonable amount of money (i.e. an amount the government might feel able to stump up) there never will be "spades in the ground".

Agreed. Especially now that trams are battery powered and don't require an overhead catenary system. In theory it should make it, if not less expensive, than somewhat simpler.

 

[NCT]

It’s utility diversions that are the cost killer.