£2.5bn Leeds Tram plan delayed after government review

[geoffk]

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).

France is well ahead of the UK in building light rail systems, some of which are in relatively small cities such as Besançon, pop.120,000. It would be good know what factors make light rail affordable in France but not in the UK. Other than political will (or lack of it), devolved funding including a payroll tax (the Versement Mobilité) and higher density development, are there technical aspects which we could do better (are UK schemes "gold plated")? Diversion of underground utilities is a big cost and these presumably apply also in France.

 

[quantinghome]

France is well ahead of the UK in building light rail systems, some of which are in relatively small cities such as Besançon, pop.120,000. It would be good know what factors make light rail affordable in France but not in the UK. Other than political will (or lack of it), devolved funding including a payroll tax (the Versement Mobilité) and higher density development, are there technical aspects which we could do better (are UK schemes "gold plated")? Diversion of underground utilities is a big cost and these presumably apply also in France.

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head. A few other points and clarifications:

- French local authorities have always retained control over public transport. So they use trams to upgrade the main bus routes, knowing they have a guaranteed revenue stream rather than have their new tram system having to compete against buses.
- France has presumably achieved better economies of scale with the civil works and rolling stock. In the UK we maybe have 1 or 2 cities building new lines or extensions at any one time. France must be building around half a dozen. So it's bread and butter work for contractors rather than something unusual.
- Apparently French tram schemes move utilities only if necessary, not by default.
- UK track beds are significantly deeper, and probably don't need to be.

 

[The Ham]

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.

The third track isn't the reason, it's a side effect, the reason four the larger tunnel size is so you don't have to build expensive station boxes, the third track just utilises this space between stations.

Per km the Crossrail stations were around 4 times (slightly more or slightly less depending on how you allocate various things, for example the actual track, is that a tunnel cost or a separate element?) the cost of the tunnels.

Although even with a tram sized station (roughly 1/4 the length) the costs are likely to be higher still, potentially only 1/2 the cost (so the per km cost is 8 times that is the tunnel costs).

A larger tunnel (13m vs 7m) is likely to be somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 times the cost, even allowing for up to 2 times the spoil and double the ring wall thickness and the like.

Therefore it's a case of the ratio between platform length and station spacing which will be key.

Att the 8 times factor for a station box a 60m tram station you'd be looking at a station every 840m (the ideal is 800m) to match the 1.5 times costs of the enlarged tunnel size.

France is well ahead of the UK in building light rail systems, some of which are in relatively small cities such as Besançon, pop.120,000. It would be good know what factors make light rail affordable in France but not in the UK. Other than political will (or lack of it), devolved funding including a payroll tax (the Versement Mobilité) and higher density development, are there technical aspects which we could do better (are UK schemes "gold plated")? Diversion of underground utilities is a big cost and these presumably apply also in France.

Indeed, and so nothing significant other than the political will.

The issue is likely down to the perception by some that if public transport is improving "they" are going to take my car away.

The reality is that often an improvement in picnic transport provision results it lower congestion (and so improves journey times for those with cars).

Although, due to the time taken to driver many projects in the UK by the time they have been built traffic growth has offset those who've moved to public transport - especially when the uplift is limited (say, going from 2bph to 3bph, when if that were to be 4bph the shift would have been much bigger).

 

[NorthernSpirit]

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.

The reason the Leeds Supertram system wasn't built was because it never really went anywhere, had it been planned to go from lets say Birstall to Otley via Headingley and Birstall to Wetherby via Roundhay then it would have been green lit and built purely because its giving Birstall, Otley and Wetherby a rail link, light rail of course, but a rail link at least.

I still think that a twelve station automated people mover system should be built in the city centre connecting the likes of the university to the South Bank and the railway station to the arena, not only it'd make Leeds look futuristic it'd complement the tram system if built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2026 ==

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.

I present to you the Miami Metromover:

Image shows a Bombardier CX-100 Innovia Automated People Mover

Here's the interesting thing, the Miami Metromover was built in the 1980's with only the city centre loop, the Brickell and Omni loops were built in 1994 and yet they're looking at extending the system to Miami Beach. Meanwhile in West Yorkshire there's a half built railway station at White Rose with zero signs of Elland being built and a tram system that's now on the back burner.

 

[Ballyheigue]

The reason the Leeds Supertram system wasn't built was because it never really went anywhere, had it been planned to go from lets say Birstall to Otley via Headingley and Birstall to Wetherby via Roundhay then it would have been green lit and built purely because its giving Birstall, Otley and Wetherby a rail link, light rail of course, but a rail link at least.

I still think that a twelve station automated people mover system should be built in the city centre connecting the likes of the university to the South Bank and the railway station to the arena, not only it'd make Leeds look futuristic it'd complement the tram system if built.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jun 2026 ==


I present to you the Miami Metromover:

Image shows a Bombardier CX-100 Innovia Automated People Mover

Here's the interesting thing, the Miami Metromover was built in the 1980's with only the city centre loop, the Brickell and Omni loops were built in 1994 and yet they're looking at extending the system to Miami Beach. Meanwhile in West Yorkshire there's a half built railway station at White Rose with zero signs of Elland being built and a tram system that's now on the back burner.

I disagree that it never went anywhere as the plans linked places that aren't currently linked without an extensive change. The Leeds to Bradford line was to link the likes of Wortley/Farnley with Bradford and parts of Laisterdyke with Leeds that aren't currently linked without either a long walk or change of bus in Leeds/Bradford. People stupidly bleated on that Leeds and Bradford are well connected without having looked at the actual route to be taken, the aim wasn't to connect the 2 city centres, it was to connect surrounding suburbs with each other, or Leeds/Bradford that aren't currently directly connected.

Now, I will agree that the St James's to White Rose line should have been better routed, it should have turned up from Lowfields Road right through Beeston to Dewsbury Road, then down to White Rose. You then connect East and Central Beeston with nearby employment areas on Geldard Road, as well as provide Beeston with a direct link to the hospital. the middle bit of Old Lane surrounding roads are very poorly served by bus with a high number of cars owned in that area, some roads are on a steep hill as well. Having a tram go up that way would persuade some car owners to switch.

 

[nikos]

I disagree that it never went anywhere as the plans linked places that aren't currently linked without an extensive change. The Leeds to Bradford line was to link the likes of Wortley/Farnley with Bradford and parts of Laisterdyke with Leeds that aren't currently linked without either a long walk or change of bus in Leeds/Bradford. People stupidly bleated on that Leeds and Bradford are well connected without having looked at the actual route to be taken, the aim wasn't to connect the 2 city centres, it was to connect surrounding suburbs with each other, or Leeds/Bradford that aren't currently directly connected.

Now, I will agree that the St James's to White Rose line should have been better routed, it should have turned up from Lowfields Road right through Beeston to Dewsbury Road, then down to White Rose. You then connect East and Central Beeston with nearby employment areas on Geldard Road, as well as provide Beeston with a direct link to the hospital. the middle bit of Old Lane surrounding roads are very poorly served by bus with a high number of cars owned in that area, some roads are on a steep hill as well. Having a tram go up that way would persuade some car owners to switch.

Disagree on the first part. We now know that a Leeds - Bradford connection, any Leeds - Bradford connection, was a pre-condition of the scheme getting initial approval and was pushed from Westminster 'make the scheme West Yorkshire'. WYmetro was hostile to the idea. It makes little sense when you could upgrade existing rail lines/bus routes with a higher frequency. It's also massively expensive.

Agree on the second part. The basic Leeds route St James-Arena-Uni/LGI -Leeds Stn- Eland Road- White Rose is sound enough. In fact the prohibitive cost of the Leeds-Bradford line, plus journey time considerations is probably the reason why the second route doesn't go through suburbs.

 

[rapmastaj]

If anything the Leeds - Bradford route looks the more useful of the two so far. There is virtually continuous built-up land between Leeds and Bradford, and the route will be very useful for journeys like Armley to Leeds City centre, or Laisterdyke to Bradford City centre. It goes through far more residential areas than the proposed line to White Rose.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

Evidence from HS2 and other projects has been, as I understand it, that for tunnels dug with a boring machine, cost scales by approximately by diameter.

This means that they scale by the square root of cross section - quadrupling the cross section only doubles the cost.
If you replace two small single track tunnels with one large tunnel you can get double the total cross section for the same cost, which makes the tunnel large enough that you can fit platforms inside the bore. It also means there is lots of volume between stations that can be used for anything you like. As noted above one of the lines in Barcelona has stabling sidings in the tunnel, because why not?

The Barcelona Metro lines that use this method have a single tunnel for both tracks and then a large (18-25m diameter) access shaft containing lifts/escalators. This represents the vast majority of the station, with no complex station boxes or painstakingly excavated underground ticket halls- just the running tunnel and vertical shaft. They also tend to have very modest above ground buildings primarily placed inside the shaft footprint. This is much less disruptive to the urban environment than a conventional station, and disruption is very expensive.

It's also been proposed for the Silicon Valley BART extension where they've decided to buy even larger tunnel boring machines so that they can put the tracks side by side with island platforms, instead of double decked side platforms.

Once you are buying a tunnel boring machine, its not that much more to buy and run the largest diameter one you can get.

 

[ainsworth74]

Once you are buying a tunnel boring machine, its not that much more to buy and run the largest diameter one you can get.

My god man but what about value engineering!?! If we don't save 50p now so that we can spend £50bn later what on earth is even the point?!

 

[Geogregor]

Evidence from HS2 and other projects has been, as I understand it, that for tunnels dug with a boring machine, cost scales by approximately by diameter.

This means that they scale by the square root of cross section - quadrupling the cross section only doubles the cost.
If you replace two small single track tunnels with one large tunnel you can get double the total cross section for the same cost, which makes the tunnel large enough that you can fit platforms inside the bore. It also means there is lots of volume between stations that can be used for anything you like. As noted above one of the lines in Barcelona has stabling sidings in the tunnel, because why not?

The Barcelona Metro lines that use this method have a single tunnel for both tracks and then a large (18-25m diameter) access shaft containing lifts/escalators. This represents the vast majority of the station, with no complex station boxes or painstakingly excavated underground ticket halls- just the running tunnel and vertical shaft. They also tend to have very modest above ground buildings primarily placed inside the shaft footprint. This is much less disruptive to the urban environment than a conventional station, and disruption is very expensive.

It's also been proposed for the Silicon Valley BART extension where they've decided to buy even larger tunnel boring machines so that they can put the tracks side by side with island platforms, instead of double decked side platforms.

Once you are buying a tunnel boring machine, its not that much more to buy and run the largest diameter one you can get.

Good luck in building those amazing large scale tunnels in Leeds. looking forward to riding the system, maybe when I'm on my retirement, in 20 years or so

Let's get real, there is battle ongoing to secure funding for trams and here I see lecturing about 20m diameter tunneling...