Following the admission that disclosure of a “peer review” of West Yorkshire’s mass transit plans would damage public confidence in them, central and regional government continue to act in a way that suggests the plans really are “in peril” and that the contribution of trams to the scheme may be limited.
The latest desperate looking move is a press release from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA):
Businesses, investors and political leaders have united to reaffirm their backing for West Yorkshire’s Mass Transit plans following a visit to the region from the Rail Minister.
[…]
Leeds United Football Club is the latest high-profile organisation to throw its weight behind Mass Transit, alongside the National Wealth Fund and leading developer Muse.
The press release adds:
Rail Minister Lord Peter Hendy met key stakeholders in the region on his visit – discussing the vital importance of Mass Transit to economic growth.
[…]
Lord Hendy wrote a letter of support to the Mayor following his visit, which states that he and Secretary of State for Transport Heidi Alexander are “fully committed” to West Yorkshire Mass Transit.
But Hendy’s letter suggests that WYCA will have a tough job making the case for the scheme to which ministers are “fully committed”:
We discussed the importance of clearly articulating the jobs, growth and homes that WYMT can help deliver as part of your Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC).
And that while “mass transit means trams”, their contribution may be limited.
As you work through the most effective mix of modes and routes to build a mass transit solution that delivers for the people of West Yorkshire, it is important to carefully consider the cost, effects and benefits/disbenefits of ‘street running’ vs utilising reserved track where available or running through brownfield land.
As a footnote, in January, Leeds United secured planning permission to redevelop its Elland Rd stadium (pictured) including a Section 106 agreement to pay for highways improvements.
3 responses to “Marching on together?”
-
Peter Hendy is right to require that the wider economic impacts of the proposed mass transport scheme be clearly articulated. A business case based on standard travel time savings methodology is unlikely to provide adequate justification. He is also right to ask for consideration of the use of alternative routes for trams,other than street running, which can be more costly than expected, as in Edinburgh. The success of London’s DLR and Overground in using disused rail routes is relevant.
LikeLike
-
Thanks David, very interesting.
LikeLike
-
-
How is it that a city area of about 1 million people doesn’t have a comprehensive Tram system already?
Many much smaller towns and cities throughout Europe have comprehensive Tram systems. Most of them are not worried about a little extra congestion for cars and some including Geneva deliberately delay traffic to ensure the public transport system (buses and trams) operate very efficiently. Zurich also refused the Central Government wish to put an underground metro system to allow cars to move more easily instead of tram street running. A pity Local Government in the UK, and England particularly, hasn’t got much more power to do what is obviously needed and is unfortunately tightly controlled by Central Government (DfT officials or Ministers?).
LikeLike
Transport Insights 
Leave a comment