£2.5bn Leeds Tram plan delayed after government review

[nikos]

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.

It's true that there isn't a direct correlation between technology clusters like Silicon Valley, and it's overspill, the Oxford-Cambridge biosciences technology parks to transport infrastructure.

Silicon Valley was mostly desert, they built it out of nothing. But these are national economic strategies that have taken decades and cost trillions of dollars in real terms and are concentrated around certain educational institutes and labs - Caltech, Stanford, University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Here, Oxford and Cambridge.

There are also heavily concentrated into relatively small areas. There is no equivalent national strategy for Northern England, so it's comparing apples and oranges, so it ends up being misleading.

The new 'technology' economy is more mixed in northern England, but is still centered on engineering, both at the university level and in industry. In that economy, people still need to commute fair distances.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

It’s utility diversions that are the cost killer.

Ironically they already did those in the City Square and Park Row area in preparation for one of the previous schemes!

 

[NCT]

Gdansk is a good model for what sort of corridors Leeds should prioritise for its first tram routes - wide boulevards with trams running in central reservations.

 

[btdrawer]

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.

I find this graph from the FT quite convincing; American cities generally have good roads, European cities have good public transport, British cities (aside from London) have neither. It seems like one of the better theories we have for why regional British cities have unusually poor productivity.

You're right that Silicon Valley may be a notable exception. At the same time, if you're Leeds or Manchester and you're trying to figure out how to get richer, "let's do the same stuff that similar-sized but more successful cities in Europe did" seems like a good bet.

It’s utility diversions that are the cost killer.

But if so, why is this a particular problem in Britain?

 

[NCT]

If a tram is the solution, what is the problem?

Capacity relief to Leeds City station and approaches?
Lower cost substitute for heavy rail (Bury type case)?
Accessibility to very high value locations (Canary Wharf type case)?
Significant quality upgrade and congestion relief on high density bus corridor?
Re-create the city region as a series of nodes on an E/W axis?

Not convinced the scheme will wash its face under any of these headings. I agree with the comment that there needs to be a credible business case but before that is there really a coherent vision statement setting out what we are trying to do/enabling?

Coming back to this - indeed what is the problem?

The problem is that the middle class knowledge worker demographic is too small. In Leeds there's 'old money' middle class in north Leeds. They are on the Harrogate, Airedale and Wharfdale lines which are operating at far lower than London Underground load factors (4 standees to the square metre with longitudinal seating). Then there's Roundhay and Chapel Allerton which have some of the highest bus use shares (these areas basically 'behave' like Edinburgh suburbs). There's healthy growth of the yuppie demographic with the number of city centre flats propping up along Kirkstall Road etc, but the 'walking and cycling radius' developable land is far from exhausted. The middle class is nowhere near outgrowing existing established transport corridors.

It's not transport constraining middle class growth. If it were just transport then Middleton would be as rich as Roundhay (they are just opposite ends of the 2, 3, 12 and 13 bus routes). Successive governments have pursued various levels of populist policies that run counter to creating the next generation of knowledge workers in an increasingly automated world, especially since 2016. The urban middle class are persona non grata in both main political parties and narratives around economic agglomeration might as well be taboo.

 

[btdrawer]

Coming back to this - indeed what is the problem?

The problem is that the middle class knowledge worker demographic is too small. In Leeds there's 'old money' middle class in north Leeds. They are on the Harrogate, Airedale and Wharfdale lines which are operating at far lower than London Underground load factors (4 standees to the square metre with longitudinal seating). Then there's Roundhay and Chapel Allerton which have some of the highest bus use shares (these areas basically 'behave' like Edinburgh suburbs). There's healthy growth of the yuppie demographic with the number of city centre flats propping up along Kirkstall Road etc, but the 'walking and cycling radius' developable land is far from exhausted. The middle class is nowhere near outgrowing existing established transport corridors.

It's not transport constraining middle class growth. If it were just transport then Middleton would be as rich as Roundhay (they are just opposite ends of the 2, 3, 12 and 13 bus routes). Successive governments have pursued various levels of populist policies that run counter to creating the next generation of knowledge workers in an increasingly automated world, especially since 2016. The urban middle class are persona non grata in both main political parties and narratives around economic agglomeration might as well be taboo.

With this new delay the tram likely won't be operational this side of 2040 - will there still be enough inner-city land for development by then?

 

[anothertyke]

With this new delay the tram likely won't be operational this side of 2040 - will there still be enough inner-city land for development by then?

I'd be interested to know what other views are but mine are

If you draw a circle 15 mins walk from the station, there is ample vacant or low grade use land in the arc from Wellington Street to Water Lane to the Tetley Brewery site.

I'm not sure what the prospects are for commercial property development. Is the agglomeration argument as strong as it used to be?

 

[daveid]

I guarantee this scheme never happens. Endless delay is cancellation by stealth. In any case by the 2030s this country will be broke and broken beyond all hope.

 

[Chester1]

With this new delay the tram likely won't be operational this side of 2040 - will there still be enough inner-city land for development by then?

This is the huge variable between the provincial cities. Manchester & Salford will over take Birmingham and be clearly the UK second city within a generation if currrent growth rates continue. The former simply has much more land to redevelop. Liverpool has a tremendous amount of ex industrial land too. Leeds doesn't have anywhere near as much. I agree with you that if the can is kicked down the road too far there won't be much land left. The focus would have to switch to Bradford.

 

[btdrawer]

Potentially interesting new development:

There's a new Lords amendment that will give Mayors the power to approve new underground or tram projects instead of waiting 3+ years to get the Transport Secretary to sign off.

That means Tracy Brabin could approve the Leeds tram or Sadiq Khan could approve the Bakerloo Line Extension.

 

[NCT]

Where do they get their money from? Approval without controlling purse strings is just virtual signalling.

You know what, London can probably raise its own money. If the amendment comes with greater fiscal devolution powers (keeping a greater share of what you raise) then there's less money London has to transfer to central coffers and the north finds itself with no money. From my sedentary position in London - fine by me.

 

[wanderingriver]

In a new BBC article, Kier Starmer seems keen to speed up the trams actually happening. Who knows if he’ll actually do anything though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w2gwvd3dyo

Speaking on a visit to York, he said: "The mayor of West Yorkshire is absolutely passionate about this. She wants a tram and I think that's right, so let's just get on with it now."
Brabin said: "It is always good to have the prime minister on your side by saying 'tram' rather than 'mass transit'."
"That is how you unlock growth, by improving transport. You know mass transit has been under way for a number of years but we are now committed, working with government to deliver that tram network," she said.

 

[Farigiraf]

Brabin said: "It is always good to have the prime minister on your side by saying 'tram' rather than 'mass transit'."

While this is a great quote, I can't help but thinking that the word that the mayor of WY, encompassing Leeds (a city of just under 1 million people) and numerous other cities cities with 100k+ people, should be hearing, is 'metro' instead. Trams are a great first step but they're likely to be highly busy from day one, leaving little room for growth. On the continent trams are meant for secondary but still busy urban flows, while metros carry the brunt of traffic along the major corridors.

 

[urbophile]

It seems all that Starmer wants to let her have is 'a' tram. Leeds used to have hundreds of trams and many radial and circular routes. Why does every generation in this country seem to be patching up in a makeshift way the mistakes of previous generations?

 

[wanderingriver]

It seems all that Starmer wants to let her have is 'a' tram.

Hate to say it but it’ll be better that Leeds gets a tram than no tram. Hoping that whenever they finish this business case “this summer”. We get some news on other Leeds proposals like Leeds Bradford Airport Parkway station.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

While this is a great quote, I can't help but thinking that the word that the mayor of WY, encompassing Leeds (a city of just under 1 million people) and numerous other cities cities with 100k+ people, should be hearing, is 'metro' instead. Trams are a great first step but they're likely to be highly busy from day one, leaving little room for growth. On the continent trams are meant for secondary but still busy urban flows, while metros carry the brunt of traffic along the major corridors.

That's all well and good, but a "true" Metro for Leeds simply isn't feasible. You'd need to find existing suburban/regional rail routes to convert, and Leeds simply doesn't have any suitable ones apart from Ilkley, maybe Harrogate at a stretch but that operates beyond the WY Mayoralty and would mean an end to the through London services. Everything else involves far too much shared trackage with freight or long-distance services, and there's a huge quadrant of the city which lacks any suburban rail routes to convert. It's been a struggle even to get this far, so to complain that it isn't a gold-plated full-fat S-Bahn system seems a bit much.

Not to mention that Ms Brabin has just made a big fuss about the Weaver Network branding, which is replacing the word "Metro" on stations and bus stops. For transport nerds "metro" means a specific thing, but for local politicians and the "man on the Cleckheaton omnibus" it's a more vague, wishy-washy term. Manchester's trams are called Metrolink and I've heard locals shorten it to "Met" or "Metro". The fact that it doesn't fit the favoured definition of the online urbanist community is neither here nor there. I suspect that the higher-ups at the Combined Authority simply view the word "Metro" as dated, hence their rush to erase it.

 

[Farigiraf]

That's all well and good, but a "true" Metro for Leeds simply isn't feasible. You'd need to find existing suburban/regional rail routes to convert, and Leeds simply doesn't have any suitable ones apart from Ilkley, maybe Harrogate at a stretch but that operates beyond the WY Mayoralty and would mean an end to the through London services. Everything else involves far too much shared trackage with freight or long-distance services, and there's a huge quadrant of the city which lacks any suburban rail routes to convert. It's been a struggle even to get this far, so to complain that it isn't a gold-plated full-fat S-Bahn system seems a bit much.

Think you're confusing a commuter rail 'Metro' (as in the south wales Metro or the Tyne & Wear metro) and an actual metro (as in the Paris metro or London Underground). A true grade-separated metro that isn't just a gold-plated S-bahn would be closer to the London Underground, meaning high capacities to absorb the busy commuter flows (most of whom currently drive or take the bus) and tunneled running wherever it makes sense. Nuremberg (pop. 500-700k), Palma (pop. 400k) and Rennes (pop. 200-300k) manage it.

Wouldn't have to run to Ilkley or Bradford, just the outer suburbs. Higher upfront cost, but then again you could say the same about the Tube (or newer similar systems, such as the Copenhagen Metro or the extensive expansion of the Paris metro) - but if these lines had been built as light rail lines instead, they would face serious capacity problems today.

Not to mention that Ms Brabin has just made a big fuss about the Weaver Network branding, which is replacing the word "Metro" on stations and bus stops. For transport nerds "metro" means a specific thing, but for local politicians and the "man on the Cleckheaton omnibus" it's a more vague, wishy-washy term. Manchester's trams are called Metrolink and I've heard locals shorten it to "Met" or "Metro". The fact that it doesn't fit the favoured definition of the online urbanist community is neither here nor there. I suspect that the higher-ups at the Combined Authority simply view the word "Metro" as dated, hence their rush to erase it.

That's just semantics. You could call it the Leeds Metro, the Leeds Underground, the Leeds Subway, the Leeds Underground Electric Automated Metropolitan Railway, or just 'Weaver Network line M1/M2/M3' and it would serve the same purpose.

 

[Geogregor]

Think you're confusing a commuter rail 'Metro' (as in the south wales Metro or the Tyne & Wear metro) and an actual metro (as in the Paris metro or London Underground). A true grade-separated metro that isn't just a gold-plated S-bahn would be closer to the London Underground, meaning high capacities to absorb the busy commuter flows (most of whom currently drive or take the bus) and tunneled running wherever it makes sense. Nuremberg (pop. 500-700k), Palma (pop. 400k) and Rennes (pop. 200-300k) manage it.

Wouldn't have to run to Ilkley or Bradford, just the outer suburbs. Higher upfront cost, but then again you could say the same about the Tube (or newer similar systems, such as the Copenhagen Metro or the extensive expansion of the Paris metro) - but if these lines had been built as light rail lines instead, they would face serious capacity problems today.

And where would money come from for such underground metro? Especially considering absurd costs of building infrastructure (or anything really) in the UK .

 

[Howardh]

This is the huge variable between the provincial cities. Manchester & Salford will over take Birmingham and be clearly the UK second city within a generation if currrent growth rates continue. The former simply has much more land to redevelop. Liverpool has a tremendous amount of ex industrial land too. Leeds doesn't have anywhere near as much. I agree with you that if the can is kicked down the road too far there won't be much land left. The focus would have to switch to Bradford.

What effect will HS2 have on Birmingham? Could it grow - if possible - as Manchester has (sky scrapers etc) simply as a suburb of London, and a cheaper one too even allowing for the cost of commuting to London every day? And an improvement in local recourses including transport to cater?

When Birmingham gets linked to London and Manchester is left in the cold, I can't see how Manchester can then justify being England's "second city" - and I live here!! More like England's Cinderella City? Leeds (a lovely city) is Cinderella right now with the lack of a metro system and the bus station being some distance from the rail station. Northern Powerhouse? Northern Power Cut.

 

[The Ham]

And where would money come from for such underground metro? Especially considering absurd costs of building infrastructure (or anything really) in the UK .

Tunnelling actual could be a fairly reliable cost.

A lot of the issues with building infrastructure is mitigation - mostly people who own property.

If you're underground, it's only when you need people to travel between the surface and the platforms where that's the case.

However, someone who owns land near a metro station is going to see that value increase and so the mitigation needed is limited.

TBM's are well known things these days and are fairly easy to engineer for the next project rather than being a use once and scrap thing.

If you make the tunnels large enough, you can:
- build platforms within the tunnel (so no costly station box)
- add a third track to store trains when not needed and/or to get past a blockage on another track and/or turn services around (obviously these would need to fit between stations)
- create a utilities tunnel (not gas as three user is that is on its way out - it's almost effectively but something for any new developments) which runs above the trains (ideally in their own segment which someone can walk along) there's less need to dig up roads to maintain utilities - it could even be that there's a public walkway with the utilities accessed from the side of it

I'm sure there's others, however, the point is that it's probably less risky than building at the surface and could create a multi use corridor brining many benefits.

 

[yorksrob]

It seems all that Starmer wants to let her have is 'a' tram. Leeds used to have hundreds of trams and many radial and circular routes. Why does every generation in this country seem to be patching up in a makeshift way the mistakes of previous generations?

Ditto Beeching.

 

[Chester1]

What effect will HS2 have on Birmingham? Could it grow - if possible - as Manchester has (sky scrapers etc) simply as a suburb of London, and a cheaper one too even allowing for the cost of commuting to London every day? And an improvement in local recourses including transport to cater?

When Birmingham gets linked to London and Manchester is left in the cold, I can't see how Manchester can then justify being England's "second city" - and I live here!! More like England's Cinderella City? Leeds (a lovely city) is Cinderella right now with the lack of a metro system and the bus station being some distance from the rail station. Northern Powerhouse? Northern Power Cut.

Where are those skyscrapers in Birmingham going to be built? Have a look at the spatial plans for both city regions. Birmingham will run out of easy sites to redevelop in next 10 years or so and will end up on a London style situation where almost any large development is contentious. Greater Manchester's current spatial plan runs until 2034 and leaves significant sections of land in or around Eithad stadium, Salford Quays and Trafford Park under developed. Its construction boom could last for another 20 years or longer. HS2 will increase demand for property in Birmingham but not supply. Leeds is much closer to Birmingham's development situation than Manchester or Liverpool. It makes tram construction urgent before getting a line to the station becomes an expensive nightmare.

 

[HSTEd]

It’s utility diversions that are the cost killer.

Which I think should probably takes us back to the question of whether street level trams are ever going to be particularly attractive.

 

[The Ham]

Where are those skyscrapers in Birmingham going to be built? Have a look at the spatial plans for both city regions. Birmingham will run out of easy sites to redevelop in next 10 years or so and will end up on a London style situation where almost any large development is contentious. Greater Manchester's current spatial plan runs until 2034 and leaves significant sections of land in or around Eithad stadium, Salford Quays and Trafford Park under developed. Its construction boom could last for another 20 years or longer. HS2 will increase demand for property in Birmingham but not supply. Leeds is much closer to Birmingham's development situation than Manchester or Liverpool. It makes tram construction urgent before getting a line to the station becomes an expensive nightmare.

It's also why the growth modeling for London Birmingham was assumed to be lower than the other corridors, it's part of the reason it really needs to deliver capacity improvements beyond London - Birmingham.

That said, to date London - West Midlands has seen growth keep pace with the HS2 growth model (i.e. comparing 2009 to 2025) even though:
- it wasn't assumed to
- we've had Covid
- more working from home is happening

 

[Iskra]

Which I think should probably takes us back to the question of whether street level trams are ever going to be particularly attractive.

I personally don't think they are the right solution at all for the crowded, congested streets of Leeds. However, I feel that the unwavering political clamour for trams, means that someone will eventually build a token, imperfect, entirely unintegrated tram line, just to tick the box of being the political party that achieved it.

I think a better solution for Leeds would be some kind of monorail/light rail/metro rail type thing raised above street level; like the Chicago L or Wuppertal Schwebebahn.

 

[Geogregor]

Tunnelling actual could be a fairly reliable cost.

A lot of the issues with building infrastructure is mitigation - mostly people who own property.

If you're underground, it's only when you need people to travel between the surface and the platforms where that's the case.

However, someone who owns land near a metro station is going to see that value increase and so the mitigation needed is limited.

TBM's are well known things these days and are fairly easy to engineer for the next project rather than being a use once and scrap thing.

If you make the tunnels large enough, you can:
- build platforms within the tunnel (so no costly station box)
- add a third track to store trains when not needed and/or to get past a blockage on another track and/or turn services around (obviously these would need to fit between stations)
- create a utilities tunnel (not gas as three user is that is on its way out - it's almost effectively but something for any new developments) which runs above the trains (ideally in their own segment which someone can walk along) there's less need to dig up roads to maintain utilities - it could even be that there's a public walkway with the utilities accessed from the side of it

I'm sure there's others, however, the point is that it's probably less risky than building at the surface and could create a multi use corridor brining many benefits.

The largher the tunnel the higher the cost. Idea of building oversized tunnels to put third track there is simply daft.

In principle I have nothing against underground metro, in fact I wish Britain had more of them.

But let's get real. Tunneling is multiple times more expensive than any above the ground solution. I just don't see money for such system ever coming to Leeds. And with all the respect for the city, there isn't enough money generated locally to ever pay for it.

 

[urbophile]

The largher the tunnel the higher the cost. Idea of building oversized tunnels to put third track there is simply daft.

In principle I have nothing against underground metro, in fact I wish Britain had more of them.

But let's get real. Tunneling is multiple times more expensive than any above the ground solution. I just don't see money for such system ever coming to Leeds. And with all the respect for the city, there isn't enough money generated locally to ever pay for it.

Newcasrle did it. With half the population and economically deprived compared to Leeds. Liverpool managed to get two inner-city tunnels built plus several new underground stations. Yes that was in the 70s and 80s but surely we are not poorer now?

 

[The exile]

Newcasrle did it. With half the population and economically deprived compared to Leeds. Liverpool managed to get two inner-city tunnels built plus several new underground stations. Yes that was in the 70s and 80s but surely we are not poorer now?

Newcastle just got the go-ahead before the oil crisis changed economics almost for ever (and what was done there needs to have set against it what would have had to have been spent anyway to keep the old network going - a similar story to Liverpool). Not sure what the relative economic state of Tyneside and Leeds was in the early 70s, to be honest.

 

[quantinghome]

Newcasrle did it. With half the population and economically deprived compared to Leeds. Liverpool managed to get two inner-city tunnels built plus several new underground stations. Yes that was in the 70s and 80s but surely we are not poorer now?

Both Newcastle and Liverpool had extensive commuter railways which could be fairly easily connected up in the city centres by limited extents of new tunnel. That wouldn't work in Leeds as it's doesn't a have that sort of local commuter network that could be repurposed with a bit of tunnelling the centre.

Costs do come into it as well, but it's not just the UK that has seen similar issues. France started with metro systems in the 1970s but has since has largely gone for tram networks in its cities (Toulouse and Rennes being the exceptions).

All that said I don't a surface level tram in Leeds being particularly problematic. The planned alignments all look to be pretty much entirely separate from general traffic so they won't get stuck. And surface platforms are obviously far easier to access than an underground system.

 

[Djgr]

Not sure what the relative economic state of Tyneside and Leeds was in the early 70s, to be honest.

The OP purely displays Yorkshire bravado methinks.