STOP THE TROLLEYBUS !

Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin (photo courtesy of Coventry Telegraph)

On the 12th May 2016, the Department for Transport announced that Secretary of State Patrick McLoughlin, had decided to accept the recommendation of Inspector Martin Whitehead and reject the application by Leeds City Council and Metro to build a trolleybus system. Here is a summary of Mr McLoughlin’s decision:

• The scheme would improve public transport in a comparatively small area of Leeds and could result in worse public transport elsewhere in the city.
• There is only slight evidence that the scheme would serve the most disadvantaged areas of Leeds.
• The scheme would damage the natural and built environment as a result of the introduction of overhead cables, more street clutter, and the loss of green spaces and trees.
• The scheme would not appreciably improve access to employment because of the relatively small number of trolleybus stops, the limited places it would serve and the comparatively meagre integration with other public transport.
• Because the trolley vehicles would share significant segments of the route with other traffic, they could be susceptible to congestion and other delays making journey times less dependable than predicted by the promoters.
• The high percentage of people who would have to stand in peak periods would be off-putting for passengers.
• Polls indicate a strong preference for new double-decker buses as against bendy buses or trolleybuses.
• The scheme would do little to make it a more attractive route for cyclists and there would not be enough enhancements to pedestrian safety and facilities to encourage walking.
• Because the trolleybuses would not use the same stops as buses and would not go anywhere near the bus station, the scheme would not be fully integrated with other forms of public transport.
• By taking patronage from existing buses, the scheme would jeopardize the commercial viability and efficient use of the existing bus service.
• The manner in which the promoters made patronage predictions for the scheme based on the results of the Stated Preference poll does not inspire confidence.
• Demand for the planned park and rides has been over-estimated.
• The overhead cables cannot be seen as a positive element that could influence investment decisions because of its appearance of permanence.
• The promoters have not taken into account evidence that other forms of technology are advancing or that trolleybuses have been used less frequently in recent years.
• The promoters have given insufficient weight to the environmental damage caused by overhead cables compared to other methods of propulsion.
• The promoters have not fully considered if there are more appropriate routes for a rapid transit system to meet the scheme’s aims.
• Policy support for the scheme at local and national levels must be weighed against the harm that the scheme would cause to green space, biodiversity and heritage assets which would be contrary to other local and national policies.
• The scheme’s aggregate impact on air quality including carbon emissions would be negative due to the use of grid electricity and the impact on other traffic.
• The overhead cables would be more extensive than for trams and would be likely to have a negative effect on the appearance and character of buildings and their settings.
• The viability of some companies is likely to be adversely affected by the implementation of the scheme.
• The scheme would cause a reduction in the total area of open space, some of which is hard to justify weighed against the scheme’s likely benefits.
• The need to isolate trolleybus stops from other bus stops would make it less easy for people to use public transport.
• Because the scheme is expected to take a large part of its ridership from existing bus services, it could result in reduced bus services in the corridor and beyond.
• If bus operators engage in competition with the trolleybus, it could threaten the scheme’s viability.
• The scheme would not improve congestion, and would cause some junctions to have longer queue lengths and an increase in the total distance travelled each year by cars.
• Reduced parking and other traffic restrictions along the route could affect the viability of companies.
• Trolleybuses would share parts of the route with pedestrians which would lead either to the vehicles being unable to travel at their design speeds or a risk to the safety of pedestrians.
• Provisions for cyclists were not a priority when the scheme was being designed and standards have been compromised in favour of trolleybuses and motor vehicles, risking the safety of cyclists.
• The A660 is not well suited for articulated vehicles.
• The number of standing passengers on the trolleybuses would be a safety concern.
• The impacts on heritage assets, mature trees and open space would be both significant and adverse.
• The loss of open space, trees and the impact on the historic environment would not be sufficiently mitigated.
• Any positive effects on the appearance and character of areas south of the route would not offset the serious harm to the appearance and character of listed buildings and conservation areas in the north.
• There should have been a monetised estimate for impacts of the construction phase, which are likely to be substantial.
• The supposed journey times are optimistic and there is not enough evidence to substantiate them.
• There is insufficient detail to substantiate the promoters’ cost estimates and to provide assurance that they won’t be exceeded.
• Even with the assurance that was made to finance the scheme’s construction should the Order be made, there is a reasonable possibility that the scheme would not attract the funding needed to maintain it.
• Based on the evidence, there is a high degree of uncertainty as to whether the scheme would be viable operationally.
• There may be cheaper alternatives that require less compulsory purchase of land that would more effectively address the scheme’s aims and objectives.

Links

Inspector’s Report 12.5.1.6

Secretary of State’s Decision Letter 12.5.16

Lord Ahmad (photo courtesy of Yorkshire Post Newspapers)

It was reported today on MP Greg Mulholland’s website,¹ that Robert Goodwill will not after all be deciding the future of the trolleybus proposal. The announcement is the result of concern expressed by Mr Mulholland to Transport Secretary Patrick Mcloughlin about remarks made by Mr Goodwill in 2009 which indicated his support for the proposal. Mr Goodwill had said at a meeting of the Parliamentary Yorkshire and Humber Regional Grand Committee²:

“Leeds is now looking at – I hope it will go forward with this – a trolley bus scheme”

Mr Mulholland’s website states:

Mr McLoughlin has now confirmed that the final decision will instead be made by Lord Ahmad to avoid “even the appearance of bias”.

Tariq Ahmad is a businessman and former Wimbledon councillor. He became Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon in 2011 and was made a transport minister in May 2015.

References

Robert Goodwill (photo courtesy of Malton and Pickering Mercury]

In 2005, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling refused to give Leeds the money for a Supertram scheme similar to Sheffield’s.¹ Now, ten years later, and following a six months long public inquiry in 2014, Leeds waits to hear whether transport minister Robert Goodwill will give Leeds approval for an inferior and much cheaper trolleybus system.²

As well as being under-secretary of state for transport, Robert Goodwill is also the MP for Scarborough and Whitby. A farmer, with 250 acres at Terrington near York, Mr Goodwill has numerous business interests.³

One would think that such an important decision as whether or not Leeds will get a trolleybus system would be made by someone who is impartial. But before Mr Goodwill became a transport minister, he told a parliamentary committee that he hoped the trolleybus scheme would go ahead. His words were, “Leeds is now looking at — I hope it will go forward with this — a trolley bus scheme.”⁴

Greg Mulholland (photo courtesy of Yorkshire Post Newspapers)

MP Greg Mulholland has now been to see the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin,⁵ to express his concern that the minister responsible for deciding whether or not the scheme goes ahead, has previously shown bias in favour of the scheme.⁶

This affair raises several important questions. Was Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin aware of Robert Goodwill’s views on the trolleybus when he gave him the job of deciding whether or not the scheme should get the go-ahead? Should Mr Goodwill have refused the job when he was offered it? Now that Patrick McLoughlin knows without question about Mr Goodwill’s support for the scheme, will he give the job of deciding the scheme’s future to someone else? For surely the stance of the person responsible for making the decision on the trolleybus scheme should should only have been determined after he had read the inspector’s report and considered all the views which have been put forward.

Patrick McLoughlin (photo courtesy of Wikipedia)

The trolleybus scheme is hugely unpopular in Leeds with an online poll of over seven thousand Yorkshire Evening Post readers showing that over 70% consider that it would be bad for Leeds.⁷ And since July 2012 when the scheme was given an initial “thumbs-up” by the Department for Transport, over two hundred letters have been published in the Yorkshire Evening Post criticising the scheme. If Robert Goodwill decides in the scheme’s favour, people will always wonder if the decision was pre-determined, and if there was ever any point in having a public inquiry.

But the outcome of this controversy has an importance that goes beyond Leeds, for if the Leeds trolleybus scheme goes ahead, it’s likely that other transport authorities in the UK will want to follow suit with trolleybus schemes of their own. At a meeting of Leeds City Council’s Executive Board in June 2013, the head of Highways, Councillor Richard Lewis, said that the other towns in the region want Leeds to get a move-on with the trolleybus scheme, as they want trolleybus schemes of their own. His exact words were, “It isn’t just Leeds riding on this, it’s the other districts . . . They are saying that they’d love to have NGT and Leeds needs to push through with it as this will affect them too.”⁸
oooooo

References

Photo courtesy of Yorkshire Post Newspapers

In a letter to Greg Mulholland MP, Transport Minister Robert Goodwill has confirmed that he will be the minister responsible for deciding whether or not the trolleybus scheme is given the go-ahead.¹ The minister told Mr Mulholland he was “replying as the Minister responsible for decisions under the Transport and Works Act (TWA) on local transport schemes such as this.”

It’s a cause for great concern that the Secretary of State has given the responsibility for making this hugely important decision to someone who has publicly expressed their desire that the trolleybus scheme should go ahead.

During a parliamentary debate on the 11th March 2008,² then opposition MP Robert Goodwill said:

Leeds is now considering a trolley bus scheme — a second best scheme — which will share the same infrastructure as the cars and buses.

But a year later, Mr Goodwill had changed his mind about the trolleybus. At a meeting on the 29th October 2009 of the Parliamentary Yorkshire and Humber Regional Grand Committee³ attended by fellow MP Greg Mulholland, Mr Goodwill said:

Leeds is the largest city in Europe that does not have its own rapid transit scheme. In 2001, the Government gave provisional approval for a supertram scheme in Leeds. In the light of that, work was undertaken on assessing bids, procurement and roadworks to provide the necessary infrastructure. However, the Government called a halt to the project in 2005. Despite being cancelled, significant public funds were spent on the project. On 20 December, the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), stated:
000000
“Around £39 million of public sector finance has been spent on Leeds Supertram. Of this, around £5 million has been spent on construction costs with around a further £14 million on land and property purchase. In 2004–05 the Department provided £6 million to the promoters of Leeds Supertram for scheme development costs, including advance works.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 2916W.]
000000
That is money down the drain because of the inability of the Government to deliver the funding for a project that they encouraged Leeds city council to go ahead with. Leeds is now looking at—I hope it will go forward with this—a trolley bus scheme. Why was it not given the signal that it should go ahead with a trolley bus scheme from the start, rather than all that money being wasted?

Is it right that someone who has already said that he hopes the trolleybus scheme will go ahead, should be the person who decides whether or not it does go ahead?

References

oooo
A deputation from the A660 Joint Council informs councillors at a full meeting of Leeds City Council, that there are ten major errors in the council’s Draft Site Allocations Plan relating to open space calculations, which mean that Hyde Park and Woodhouse ward has a deficit in open space and not a surplus as claimed by the Draft Site Allocations Plan, and therefore no part of Woodhouse Moor can be spared for the trolleybus route.

For the full text of the speech given to councillors, please click on this link:

http://a660.org/leeds-city-council-urged-to-reconsider-trolleybus-scheme/

Traffic Survey Partners instal traffic surveying equipment on Woodhouse Lane

Following reports from residents that a traffic survey is taking place along the A660, MP Greg Mulholland has discovered that the survey is one of several, and that they are in preparation for the trolleybus and are costing £160k.

The inspector’s report and the Transport Secretary’s decision on the trolleybus are not expected until either late 2015 or early 2016, and so the traffic survey would seem to be jumping the gun. In a recent press release, Mr Mulholland expressed the anger and frustration felt by many at this potential waste of a huge sum of money.

The survey is being carried out by London based firm Traffic Survey Partners. One of their vans is pictured in the above photograph. The driver has illegally mounted the kerb and parked on the costly and difficult to replace York stone pavement.

The recent picnic on Belle Isle Circus attracted the attention of a bear hitherto unseen in the area. Whilst picnickers in the American west are warned not to feed the bears, such a warning hadn’t been thought necessary on Belle Isle Circus. The question now on everyone’s mind is, “Is the bear dangerous?” For an expert opinion, we spoke to Professor Lionel Fortescue from the Department of Bear Studies at Leeds University.

Interviewer: “Professor, is the bear dangerous?”

Professor Fortescue: “It was first sighted on Belle Isle Circus, So I’m going to stick my neck out and say it’s probably a circus bear. Since it will be used to being around humans, I’d say it’s highly unlikely to attack anyone.”

Interviewer: “Why has no one seen it before?”

Professor Fortescue: “It’s almost certainly been hibernating underneath Belle Isle Circus in the disused air raid shelter. The smell of the picnic food will have attracted it out.”

Interviewer: “Do you think the bear is at risk now that people know that it’s here?”

Professor Fortescue: “I’m not concerned about local residents who as you’ve seen today, are very protective of the bear. I’m extremely concerned though about the threat from Metro who want to fill in the air raid shelter as part of their trolleybus proposals. This would deprive the poor creature of its lair.”

Interviewer: “Would you say this means that the trolleybus proposals are unsustainable?”

Professor Fortescue: “I’d go further than that. They’re unbearable.”

Thank you everyone who helped organise, and everyone who came along to this afternoon’s picnic. Thanks too to everyone who brought along cakes and other delicacies they’d made specially for the occasion. I think we all had a very nice time. The weather was wonderful, there was lots of delicious food to eat, and interesting people to talk to. There was kite flying for the energetic and a chance to get your photo taken with Teddy Bear. Such activities couldn’t take place if the trolleybus scheme went ahead. They’d be too dangerous with trolleybuses running nearby. Kite flying would be especially dangerous with the risk of electrocution from overhead high voltage cables.

A big thank you to everyone who came along to today’s protest picnic on Belle Isle Circus and to passing motorists for all their messages of support. Thanks too to everyone who brought along food to share. The scones, samosas and butterfly buns were delicious. I didn’t have any of the wonderful looking pineapple cake but that was because I’d already eaten so much. A final thank you to Peg Alexander from Radio Leeds and Jeremy Morton from South Leeds Life who came and interviewed people. Don’t forget that there will be another protest picnic tomorrow from 12 noon until 2pm on Monument Moor.