Updates

Transport Committee call for evidence 

A response on behalf of Action for Yorkshire Transport 

What are the key features that make a transport system feel joined up to the user? How would ‘integrated’ transport look different to current services and networks?

Users need:

1. Timetables (bus, train and tram) printed, online and at bus stops, regularly updated, which provide clear and understandable and promoted modal interchange opportunity both between individual bus services and intermodal.
2.  Zone-wide Fare Systems which are intermodal and are at a level which offer a realistic and attractive competitive price, compared with using the private car and other modes – e.g. taxis – to both encourage people out of their cars but also ensure those on low incomes, especially young people and job seekers who are now prevented from travelling by excessive and unaffordable cost. This is happening, even with the welcome £3 maxim fare (which can still represent a £12 daily travel charge if more than one bus service is used in each direction).  M-tickets in West Yorkshire partly fill this need but are not cross boundary and in most cases are not intermodal.  
3. Leisure tickets The Day Ranger, the prime West Yorkshire rail-based leisure ticket, cannot be used in weekday peak afternoon, the very time users want to return home, even during school holidays, which massively reduces its use and value. The reason for this is “lack of capacity” on trains which is a woeful and perhaps uniquely British admission of failure of transport policy and a chronic lack of investment over many decades.  We use fiscal means to restrict use of trains overcrowded by decisions not to provide sufficient capacity. Unbelievable we also then tacitly encourage the use of private cars with low petrol prices and a freezing of fuel duty. This a lamentable national and regional policy failure, political cowardice in face of the car lobby.  
4. Rover and ranger travel tickets should include cross boundary services as people living close to Unitary Authority boundaries are excessively penalised, especially as some boundaries e.g. North Yorkshire (between Leeds and Harrogate or Skipton) are purely political and do not follow any natural geographic or economic boundaries. A Netherlands-style Yorkshire Region-wide travel ticket to offer travel within the Region by trains services and then onward travel by local bus in the town or city of arrival would hugely boost usage and convenience and thereby reduce traffic congestion and pollution, a huge economic as well as environmental benefit. 

What stops effective integration happening now, and how can these barriers be overcome?

Integration of public transport in the UK took a huge backwards step in 1985 with the notorious Ridley Transport Act that privatised buses and brought in on-street hugely wasteful and disruptive  competition on key profitable bus routes, plus the selling off of huge assets – the greatest asset stripping charter of modern times when valuable bus depots and even bus stations were sold off to predatory developers.  Minor bus routes and rural networks were then vulnerable to this cherry picking and have declined ever since.  

For a time even co-operation between companies was abolished. Unbelievably in South Yorkshire two bus companies sharing common ticketing on each other’s services actually had their offices raided.  Passenger Transport Executives in conurbations were later abolished and absorbed into weaker Combined Authorities where they have been predictably marginalised, losing much if not all their hands-on involvement with the managing and marketing of local bus and train routes. .

As a result, we now have the worst of all possible worlds, with large bus companies in our Region offered virtual monopolies and the Combined Authorities lacking financial resources and legal powers, so unable to act even as bus service along prime corridors deteriorate to unacceptably poor levels. This means that, in much of Yorkshire, including West Yorkshire and the Yorkshire Dales, services have been reduced in quality and frequency to an alarming degree. Local authorities have also failed to restrain car use on radial roads into centres such as Leeds or Bradford, leading to huge delays in service and cost increases for bus operators, worsening reliability and timetables, some of which are deliberately extended to allegedly to increase reliability, which they do not. In some cases buses now wait up to 5 minutes along routes to meet even imaginary congestion delays yet still get caught up in later congestion,  We now have the worst, perhaps slowest, least reliable bus services in parts of Yorkshire since World War I. This in turn is encouraging ever increasing car and taxi use leading to a “death spiral” which even bus franchising in two or three years’ time is unlikely to reverse, especially as passengers lost, once they have invested in cars, bikes, and even scooters and are unlikely to return without really effective city centre traffic management measures and parking controls and massive new budgets to enhance what are now skeletal services. 

What kinds of interventions and policy decisions are needed to provide joined-up transport, including in areas beyond transport such as planning?

Critical is the willingness of local authorities to bring (as in Nottingham) effective city and town centre congestion charge and workplace parking levies whilst offering really attractive bus and tram service, supported by cheaper weekly, monthly and annual multimodal travel tickets. A far greater range of these – even extending as far as Skipton and Harrogate  – were available prior to 1986 in West Yorkshire but were weakened or removed over subsequent decades.  Such facilities should be cross boundary to reflect economic, social and geographic realities not often arbitrary political boundaries.

Planning and development control decisions should put public transit at the centre of all decisions, whether ensuring access to current well served corridors especially if served by or connected to rail or tram, or working with transport authorities to show that real investment is in place, if appropriate costed into the development, not just  pious platitudes quietly ignored by developers as “unaffordable” as soon as planning permission is secured.

How should transport integration and its benefits be measured and evaluated—including the impact on economic growth, decarbonisation and the Government’s other ‘missions’?

Traffic congestion is a huge economic cost. Significant investment is desperately needed in rail-based systems including the new West Yorkshire Mass Transit system which is hopelessly overdue. But this is still a decade or so away. It should be prioritised together with investment in the Region’s rail network. TransPennine electrification is hugely welcome but is at least two decades overdue.  The North desperately need investment in both urban and rural transport, raising standards to those in other Continental European countries notable Switzerland, Germany, much of France, The Netherlands and Austria. 

But in the meantime the first priority is to enhance and restore bus service to frequency levels of two decades ago, again restoring cross-boundary services to meet work, leisure and education travel needs not artificial political jurisdictions.  

There are lots of effective ways of surveying and measuring the social and economic benefit of new transport services and networks, and Yorkshire has several Universities capable of such work. However, inevitably these benefits will not be instantaneous and will need a three year period to build up as users gain confidence and accept lifestyle changes to enable them to use the new services and realise the many new opportunities, such as access to jobs and education, that may now be available to them. 

How should the cost of interventions needed to deliver transport integration be assessed and appraised? Will proposed changes to methodology in the Treasury’s ‘Green Book’, including the introduction of ‘place-based business cases’, change this?

The Treasury’s measurement of cost benefit to justify investment using London-scale criteria has been a disaster and has frozen rail investment in the North for decades – even such quick and huge cross-Regional winner as the reopening of the Skipton-Colne line which would revitalise the East Lancashire and to come extent the West Yorkshire economy, has been ignored. This would provide overheated Leeds with access to cheaper housing in East Lancashire on journey times of less than an hour from central Leeds to Colne or Nelson as well as access to major centres of higher education for young people from East Lancashire.  

There is a need for much more holistic approach in the English Regions to transport investment. More must be done to secure long term commitment on both capital and revenue funding e.g. from developers.  Yet in our area the very opposite is happening – huge new housing estates have been approved along one key transport corridor at the very time that the core bus service has been reduced by 33% on weekdays and 50% on Sundays. Timetables which are difficult to understand, vary by a few minutes every hour are subject to random waiting delays for imagined congestion yet suffer from constant cancellation and delay.  At the same time all competing bus services have been withdrawn on economic grounds. This appalling situation largely ignored by WYCA for whatever reason, is making bus travel the choice of last resort for people in many parts of West Yorkshire, with predictable long term consequences. 

Funds secured from congestion charges and workplace parking levies are a major source of revenue – and need to be seen as such – to support urban transport investment and service revenue support in our conurbations and need to be presented as such.  

Will integration in itself deliver other benefits such as wider transport options in more places, and behaviour changes such as mode shift? What other impacts could it have?

Evidence from many countries in Europe e.g. The Netherlands – show that well-integrated, well-market public transport, combined with effective traffic management policies can secure significant modal shift, but wider promotion is also crucial. What is needed are high quality service frequencies (10-15 minute daytime intervals, half hourly evenings )  on urban routes and hourly between market towns on rural routes, feeding to and from key railheads. Such networks will secure huge modal shift and reduce both congestion and pollution both of which impose massive economic penalties on the community and also the NHS.  What we have now, a result of outdated “free market” economics, is both appallingly wasteful and destructive. Bus franchising is long overdue but will only work if adequately funded and perceived as part of a wider, responsible green travel choice – linked to extensive walking and cycling routes and options to increase physical and mental health.  The massive impact on human health of the car, both in terms of passive lifestyle choices and pollution and accidents, should be used as a measure to support the adequate financing of and continued support for the greener alternatives rather than talk of “subsidy” which is an emotive term. The real “subsidy” is the lack of penalties currently being given to those who inflict on society the massive costs of congestion and pollution. 

What is needed to ensure that integration is inclusive and meets the diverse needs of transport users? Will integration necessarily lead to better outcomes for accessibility?

Critically we need continuous and meaningful dialogue between actual bus and train users and both bus and train operators and local authorities.  What we have at the moment are bus operators that many people feel  are totally out of touch with the realities of their own services, senior managers who it is suggested rarely if ever use their own products and cashed starved local authority senior managers who again would seem to have little actual experience of using or managing buses. This is in stark contrast to what used to happen in the days of the Passenger Transport Executives, many of whose employees were recruited from the actual local bus and rail industries and who had therefore extensive local experience, knowledge and understanding who could soon see through the often lame arguments of failing operators, determined to cut services to the minimum to defend profit margins and thereby share prices. 

There needs to be new forums set up with real power to take failing bus managers to task, not just vacuous talk shops, following which nothing actually changes.  

A huge contrast however to the failing First Leeds monopoly in West Yorkshire is the volunteer managed Dales & Bowland Community Interest Company who manage the highly successful and fully truly integrated DalesBus network on a shoestring budget.  DalesBus is a network of up to 14 weekend bus services that operate from York, Harrogate and the Leeds-Bradford conurbation, plus services from other towns in North Yorkshire and even East Yorkshire and Teesside into the Yorkshire Dales National Park and Nidderdale National Landscape. This small group manage and market the Dalesbus services, working with operators, into the Daes. One of their core principles is working closely each year with bus users to design services that meet actual user needs, in this case weekend leisure users and walkers.  Users also provide a regular programme of guided walks from DalesBus services even through winter months.  This in turn has built a strong brand loyalty. DalesBus also uses a range of printed timetables, a comprehensive booklet and individual leaflets, up to date bus stop information and has also a strong website and online presence, all achieved on a tiny budget.  

This compares with such bureaucracies as the West Yorkshire Combined Authority who use up massive resources in endless consultations, strategy and policy documents, none of which result in more than little if any token service improvement, indeed most often only seem to oversee and confirm continuing service decline. 

Will the meaning of integration vary across different kinds of areas and for different kinds of journeys? (such as rural and suburban areas, and inter-city journeys)

 In urban areas what is required is frequent “clock face” regular interval journeys ideally a daytime frequency of 15 minutes or less so that users in cities and inner suburbs do not need to consult a timetable as the next bus or tram is no more than 12 minutes or so away.  In rural areas on key corridors along main roads between market towns, fast, good quality, comfortable bus services capable of attracting  drivers out of their cars, should be at least hourly, preferable half hourly between larger centres, but with feeder services which could be by shared taxi or community minibus, feeding into the core network from outlying settlements. Devising such networks is not rocket science. But it does need an imaginative, integrated approach, and be customer led, not forced to meet profit targets or London-imposed budgets.  There is a strong case for Regional funding of all rural and urban public transport.  

Bus networks should also be designed and timetables created to fit in with the National Rail network to and from key local railheads, even if this might result in slightly altered clock-face departures to meet key trains.  Again cross-boundary multi-modal tickets (as indeed are already offered on DalesBus from Leeds and Bradford via Skipton and Ilkley on Northern Rail and onward by DalesBus),  are needed.

Why can a small volunteer team in Yorkshire do this when large public authorities such as WYCA, and North Yorkshire fail?

What lessons can be drawn from attempts to integrate transport elsewhere in the UK and around the world? What examples should the Government seek to emulate?

We have already given DalesBus as an example and proof that even in the UK, an integrated and even intermodal public transport network, with a stronger user focus, can be established that will attract passenger usage in significant numbers.  But for this to happen on a larger scale we need a change of culture.  The appalling and damaging 1985 Transport Act needs to be replaced with something more relevant for the 21^st century with an emphasis on cooperation not competition. It must put the needs of passengers – who are not the same things as customers – first,  not the needs of shareholders of international corporations.

However, several northern European countries offer evidence of how a genuinely integrated travel network in both urban and rural settings can be made to work, but it has to be centred on community needs not company profits or forced to meet local authority Treasury imposed budgets.

Greater London has proved very much better in achieving these goals than the North of England but that also reflects the fact that Greater London has a single Mayor with executive powers, an elected Assembly and the vision to think beyond local authority boundaries.   Devolution of powers in the case of Yorkshire as a great Region not just to four potentially competing Mayors, but through a one strategic body is essential.  A single Transport for Yorkshire with powers over bus, rail and LRT networks is perhaps the only way to develop the vision and create the human and financial resources needed to make a difference to the travel opportunities of the Region, especially for a younger generation not yet wedded to a car dependent lifestyle.

What we have now is NOT integration.  Public transport in our Region is expensive, unreliable and has disintegrated in more than one sense. Services operate in isolation and rarely if ever meet. Indeed provision has significantly worsened over the last decade.  A revolution in thinking is required to secure equality with many of our European neighbours, but even more important allow the Region to grow economically without  the massive costs of congestion and pollution and in rural areas, rural isolation and transport poverty caused by poor, inadequate and grotesquely underfunded public transport.     

We have followed the debate about increasing the number of wheelchair accessible taxis in North Yorkshire and are aware how this compares with the situation in West Yorkshire. We are concerned that a significant number of people find it difficult to travel in North Yorkshire because they need a wheelchair and appropriate taxi. This difficulty leads to isolation as well as problems in accessing services most of us take for granted we can travel to. 

Not all taxis are going to be wheelchair accessible and we need a balance financially as well as environmentally. But a significantly higher proportion of wheelchair accessible taxis is needed, perhaps upto half the fleet. We hope for the benefit of those who need improved facilities that the North Yorkshire Council can make a significant improvement in this area.

The Department for Transport has called for ideas for an integrated strategy for transport. Here is our response.

1. How could the transport network be better ‘joined-up’?

A single journey should be made easy, with a change to the mode of travel only if necessary.

• Ticketing and Fares: A national or regional digital ticketing system should be developed, allowing passengers to easily switch between different modes of transport (bus, train, tram, cycling, etc.) without needing to purchase multiple tickets. This should include contactless payment options across all services. We can learn from systems such as NS in the Netherlands where passengers can use their ‘NS Card’ anywhere in the country to travel on buses, trains, rent bikes and boats.
• Coordinated Services: Timetables across modes should be synchronised to improve travel options and reduce waiting times between transfers, making public transport more reliable and efficient. Holding services to accommodate late running connections should be considered. Where possible, bus routes should serve railway stations. Where they do, printed timetables for these services should be displayed in the station. In areas where either the bus or train services are of lower frequency (half hourly or worse), timetables should be developed to enable connectivity. In all cases, signs indicating the location of bus routes which serve the station should be displayed.
• Integration: Local transport hubs should be frequent focal points where different modes intersect, such as from train to tram, or tram to bus. These can be located at key centres such as office parks or shopping centres.
• Local Solutions: Local networks must be developed cohesively with longer-distance routes to ensure they are connected to the regional and national network, including enhanced local bus routes and safer active travel infrastructure. Specific demands should be adequately accommodated such as football matches.
• Coordinating Strategies: a national strategy should set the tone nationally to respond to broader societal goals including responding to climate change, reducing social and economic inequalities and regional disparities in transport investment. An environmental example is the French policy of discouraging internal flights in favour of rail journeys.

2. How could data be used to improve the transport network?

Data plays a crucial role in improving our transport network.

• Journey Planning and Real-Time Information: Data should be used to provide passengers with real-time journey information on multiple platforms. All bus stops and rail stations should have real time information. This includes accurate data on departure times, delays, crowds and alternative routes. Better timetable information displays should include connecting services at each station and not restricted to one mode of transport. An alarming current omission is that there is no bus information or real time data at Leeds Railway Station, despite this having been pointed out to them.
• Comprehensive journey planning apps can guide passengers on the fastest, easiest routes and improve their overall travel experience.
• Accessibility: Collecting and analysing data on accessibility needs (like step-free access, space for mobility aids and accessible toilets) can mean that transport better caters for the needs of disabled and elderly passengers and a more inclusive system for everyone.
• Traffic Management: Data from sensors and cameras can be used to improve traffic flow and reduce congestion in urban areas. Real-time data could adjust traffic signals to support bus priority, redirect routes to avoid traffic and thus supporting reduction in emissions via congestion.
• Monitoring and Evaluation: Data can help monitor and reduce the environmental impact of transport by tracking emissions, energy use, and modal shifts.

3. How could technology be used to improve the transport network?

• Electric and Sustainable Transport: Technology should prioritise the transition to electric vehicles and shared electric mobility solutions, including electric bikes and e-scooters. This would reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality in urban centres. The infrastructure for charging and maintaining electric shared mobility options needs to be increased. However, there are safety concerns about the use of e bikes and scooters and the law about their use needs to be better defined and the penalties for mis-use strengthened.
• Mobility as a Service (MaaS): MaaS platforms could combine different transport modes (e.g., bus, train, bike-sharing, tram) into one accessible service. With a single app, passengers could plan, book and pay for their entire journey, incorporating all modes of transport.
• Smart Infrastructure: The use of smart technologies, such as IoT (Internet of Things) sensors in roadways, bridges and train stations can improve the management and safety of transport infrastructure. These technologies can monitor infrastructure health and traffic conditions in real time, enabling preventative maintenance and reducing service disruptions
• The Future: Autonomous Vehicles could complement existing public transport networks by providing last-mile solutions in under-served areas. For example, they could provide flexible on-demand transport in rural or less dense urban areas, connecting people to main transport hubs. This could help bridge gaps in public transport access, particularly in areas with lower population densities.

4. How, if at all, would you improve the way decisions are made about the transport network?

Improving decision-making processes is essential for delivering a transport system that serves the needs of all communities. Specifically, decisions are needed to reduce carbon emissions, social mobility and economic benefit. We suggest:

• Inclusive and Transparent Decision-Making: Decisions about the transport network should be made with input from a wide range of stakeholders, including local authorities, transport operators, community groups and environmental organisations. Transparent consultation processes should be standard practice, with regular progress reviews
• Long-Term Planning: decisions should be based on long-term strategic goals rather than short-term political cycles. This could be supported by setting up an independent body tasked with developing and overseeing national transport strategies, ensuring alignment with long-term climate goals and social equity objectives
• Evidence-based decision-making: is crucial for improving the transport network. Data from passenger feedback, travel patterns, environmental monitoring and economic assessments should be central to policy development and infrastructure investment. This should include the acceptance of the concept of Induced travel, whereby additional road space tends to increase the volume of cars and leads to congestion at the next weak point in the road network. Likewise the reverse concept of traffic evaporation when traffic options and space is reduced.
• Decentralisation: Local decision-making could be empowered by providing regional transport authorities with more control over budgets and infrastructure projects. The recent trend of the Treasury offering packages for authorities to bid for, for specific projects, undermines local autonomy.  

5. Any other comments?

The current fragmented approach, where multiple bodies manage transport in isolation, is hindering a coherent strategy and failing to address multi-modal transport needs. Unlike Scotland and Wales, England lacks an integrated framework for aligning transport with broader societal goals, exacerbating challenges like climate change, health inequalities, and regional disparities in investment and services.

We would like the government to have a unified vision to integrate transport and spatial planning, fairer investment to bridge regional gaps, decentralised funding to empower local authorities, and a clear governance framework to ensure accountability and responsiveness. Such a strategy could better support sustainable, inclusive, and equitable transport systems. A step increase in the use of public transport and subsequent reduction in car use is needed if we are to effectively reduce carbon emissions and road congestion. The current situation is one where few people travel efficiently to their destination because of overcrowded roads.

There is a lack of basic public transport in many rural areas, where services may omit journeys to work and to medical facilities, with nothing in the evenings.  Many services operate only between 10am and 3pm, and are not co-ordinated with school services: if school services carried fare paying passengers as well, as they do in London, passenger options would improve considerably.

A more integrated approach can lead to cost savings. For example, is the expansion of airports necessary if internal flights are discouraged in favour of rail journeys? It also applies to freight: much of the road network will need renewal soon, can more freight go by train or by waterways?  

Transport, both for freight and for people, should be seen as a service that is the blood of the economy and society. Government financial support for transport should be regarded as enhancing the economy and society, and not as a subsidy.

The following response has been sent to West Yorkshire Combined Athority on their mass transit proposals for West Yorkshire.

Leeds City Centre Options

Option L1 involves disruption to bus stops in Infirmary Street, some of which are the nearest to the rail station for the routes served (some having been relocated from Aire Street), potentially having a negative effect on bus-rail connectivity for users. The extent of any disruption is however unclear. It does not run very close to the main retail centre, except for City Square and passing the western end of Boar Lane. It is also distant from the bus station but would link to a number of bus routes in the city centre. Closure of Portland Way to general traffic may result in vehicles which are exiting Woodhouse Lane car park, when leaving the city to the west, having to make a circuitous journey, creating extra traffic on the loop road. In addition to the rail station and City Square however, the route would pass close to Leeds General Infirmary, the Town Hall, Library, Art Gallery, Millenium Square, the City Museum, O2 Academy music venue, Civic Hall, the universities and First Direct Arena.

Option L2 while being similar to L1, involves a split route requiring more wayfinding information for passengers, with added complication arising from different running times for northbound and southbound legs. While it would seemingly avoid disruption to Infirmary Street bus stops, it would affect the amenity of pedestrianised Cookridge Street.

Option L3 causes disruption to bus stops in Park Row but avoids this in Infirmary Street. Again, the extent of this is unclear. Like L1 and L2, it passes close to the rail station but is some distance from the bus station. It does however, pass closer to the main retail area than L1 or northbound L2, while still serving the civic area and LGI. It would serve broadly the same locations as L1 and L2, if a little further from the universities than L1 and northbound L2. Universities are an important objective but should still be accessible from L3. Like southbound L2, L3 would affect the amenity of Cookridge Street, perhaps especially the Cathedral. Events in Millenium Square may need revised access/exit arrangements, as at present these extend partly across Cookridge street during events. The simpler crossing of Woodhouse Lane, at the junctions of Cookridge Street and Clay Pit Lane however is an important positive feature of this route, avoiding the sharp curves of L1 and northbound L2.

Option L4 involves another split route with similar drawbacks to L2. It does not serve the civic area and LGI as well as the other route options and does not pass close to the universities. It also does not serve the First Direct Arena. It would serve more of the main retail area than the other route options however. It would pass close to the Grand Theatre, the Playhouse and closer to the bus station than the other options but changes to bus services on the Headrow may cause problems for bus users. The suggested effect on reliability of mixing with other traffic  on the A61 would be a major negative factor of this option. Mass Transit should be segregated from traffic as far as is possible to maximise reliability, speed and predictability of journey times.

Conclusion: We would lean towards option L3 for its relative simplicity and for striking a balance between serving the retail and civic areas, LGI, the universities and Arena. Either L1 or its variant L2 would be our second preference.

South Leeds route options

Option L5 despite the apparently stated preference of Leeds City Council to serve Elland Road stadium, does not do this, instead largely following Dewsbury Road along the southern edge of Beeston. Though serving residential areas and being stated as having the shortest end-to-end journey time of the three south Leeds options, the route along Dewsbury Road is heavily used by general traffic and buses and this would likely have a negative effect on journey times and reliability, an already existing disincentive to use public transport, an issue which Mass Transit is supposed to address and avoid.

Option L6 like L5, involves some sharing of space with other traffic. It does however serve Elland Road stadium, which generates large numbers of potential transit users, though this is only on certain days. Traffic could though, like option L5, have an impact on reliability. Buses to/from Morley via Churwell pass Elland Road stadium and could connect with L6 in the vicinity. L6 takes a direct route from the city centre and would help with regeneration in parts of Holbeck and Beeston.

Option L7 takes the most indirect route of the three options but offers some interesting possibilities for bus connections, as well as connection with Bradford Line option B2. Bus connections could include services to/from Gelderd Road, Whitehall Road and Holbeck/Beeston centres, as well as services to/from Morley via Churwell. There is some shared running with general traffic, notably on Gelderd Road, which could be problematic. Priority measures would likely be needed as there is limited space for segregation. Gelderd Road and Lowfields Road are of course very busy when matches are taking place at Elland Road. The possibility of connecting with the Bradford Line if option B2 were also adopted, and sharing infrastructure into the city, is interesting. This, as stated, could reduce construction costs for both lines and provide connection between the two, opening up  connectivity gains without the need for travel into the city centre. Both lines, if combined in this way would help regeneration in parts of Holbeck and would, running via Sweet Street, pass close to the proposed site for the British Library North project at Temple Works. For all three options in south Leeds, consideration should be given to the future possible extension towards Dewsbury and any implications for likely usage of the whole route.

Conclusion: We lean towards option L7 as it serves high population areas in Beeston, as well as serving Elland Road, potentially connecting with B2 around Domestic Road and for regeneration opportunities in Holbeck. An alternative might be a hybrid of L6 and L7. Issues around traffic on Gelderd Road in particular however would need to be addressed.

Bradford line route options

Option B1 taking the most direct route between Bradford and Leeds, does not however address the need for better connectivity for the town of Pudsey. While, of the three options, it is said to offer the joint fastest journey time between the two cities, it arguably duplicates some existing provision on the corridor. It appears to follow broadly the A647 which, perhaps especially in Bradford and Thornbury, is highly congested with other traffic, which already affects bus services, surely presenting challenges for mass transit. As the location of the proposed Southern Gateway station in Bradford, previously suggested as being the site of St James’s wholesale market, is yet to be announced, it is difficult to comment on the route to connect to Forster Square station. The map suggests this option might run via Well Street on the eastern edge of the main city centre. Any route option should ideally serve the Interchange, if that is to continue in use. This option appears to miss both the Interchange and the St James’ market site. At the other end of the line, In Leeds, this option appears to enter the city via Wellington Street, thereby serving much new office and residential development west of the centre, requiring however, construction of an additional line separate from the south Leeds route, to enter the city centre. This route would also not support regeneration in Holbeck.

Option B2 does address the aforementioned need for better connectivity for Pudsey, utilising in part the trackbed of the former Pudsey loop railway line, as well as the spare trackbed of the existing National Rail route between Bramley and Wortley, presumably with stops at a number of locations such as Gamble Hill, Armley and Wortley. Access to the rail network from Pudsey would be available at Bramley eastbound and Bradford Interchange or ‘Southern Gateway’ for Calder Valley westbound and at Forster Square for Aire/Wharfe Valley services. While the least direct route between the two city centres, there is the option of interchange with the south Leeds line, if option L7 for that line were adopted. It would support previously mentioned regeneration opportunities in Holbeck, including the Temple Works project, but would miss new developments around Wellington Street and Whitehall Road. Running via Domestic Road, B2 could also connect to the existing walking route alongside the A643 to Elland Road stadium, as well as connecting to L7 services passing the ground. The two routes could also connect here with Whitehall Road and Gelderd Road bus services for a number of potential journeys. In Bradford city centre, the route appears to serve the Interchange and run to Forster Square station by way of Market Street, thereby taking a more central route through the centre, serving both the retail and entertainment districts. It would presumably connect also to the Southern Gateway station and appears to pass close to St James’s market, a potential location for this. At the Bradford end, this route option, along with B3, might also offer potential for connection to a future Bradford – Dewsbury route, possibly via Dudley Hill, Euroway and Low Moor, adding a connection into Leeds via Pudsey from the Spen Valley for the first time since 1914, closing a significant connectivity gap and adding value to both corridors.

Option B3 is a hybrid of B1 and B2, sharing the route of B2 between Bradford and Bramley, then as B1 into Leeds, entering the city along Wellington Street. Like B2, the route would serve  Pudsey, with the same apparent route through Bradford city centre to Forster Square station, serving Interchange and presumably the Southern Gateway station.

Conclusion: For the Bradford line, we lean towards option B2 for serving the town of Pudsey, thereby improving connectivity for the town, not least in the longer term as new transit routes are added. The potential connection with L7, if adopted, is also a factor, as is the opportunity to help drive regeneration in Holbeck. We would, as a second choice support B3 as it also serves Pudsey, and would bring benefits in west Leeds, albeit different ones to B2. Reference is made in respect of both B2 and B3, that there would be fewer opportunities for placemaking. While this is desirable in a scheme, it should not trump connectivity, which is the prime role of a transit system.

Future phases 

Provision for future phases should be considered during final detailed design work on phase one. Original candidate corridors for phase one which were ‘sifted’ out, should follow the first phase as soon as possible eg extension from St James’s Hospital into east and north east Leeds. Also in Leeds, a short extension, or branch, to connect more closely to the universities should possibly be considered. Continuity in such projects avoids loss of knowledge gained and lessons learned during first phase construction. Corridors were sifted in part due to low usage forecasts, but corridors on a transit system cannot be looked at in isolation. As a system grows and corridors become part of a wider system, usage across the system increases. Usage of East Leeds and Bradford – Dewsbury, both ‘sifted’, would doubtless exceed original forecasts. Bradford – Dewsbury should possibly be re-imagined however and maybe combined with a first phase of the north Bradford corridor, becoming part of a cross-city line. Using Tram-Train technology This could be relatively quickly introduced between Shipley and Low Moor or Cleckheaton. At Shipley, this could initially terminate on the site of the now disused platform 1 on the west side of the station, adjacent to Station Road, though future extension to Otley would require modifications to the east side (platforms 3 and 4) to allow for Low floor vehicles as at Rotherham Central station. Other stations on the route would need the same modifications. Use of the former platform 1 site would enable services, in the short term, to turn back without compromising capacity by using through platforms until services were extended to Wharfedale. To the south, a phased extension to Dewsbury would improve connectivity, currently poor, between Dewsbury, the Mirfield area and Bradford. This, arguably, should take precedence over the extension to Dewsbury from White Rose, as it could also enhance, via Low Moor, currently very poor connectivity between Dewsbury and Halifax. As well as a cross-city line for Bradford, a Shipley – Dewsbury line would also provide an orbital connection between radial rail routes running west from Leeds – Aire and Wharfe Valley lines, Calder Valley and Trans Pennine lines. As mentioned previously, a connection between this corridor and either the B2 or B3 options via Pudsey to Leeds, would also close a significant connectivity gap. We believe Tram-Train technology, though not a WYCA preferred mode for this corridor, would be appropriate, as WYCA has mentioned the route in its Rail Strategy on the basis that it could form part of a direct rail route (with the Crigglestone line) between Bradford, Barnsley and Sheffield. We would also like to see the question of Wetherby addressed and how the town could be connected better with the rest of West Yorkshire, preferably with a rail based solution.

General points

The cost of light rail systems in the UK is, for a myriad of reasons, artificially high compared to many other countries and this needs addressing urgently. We would urge that Combined Authority Mayors press the Government to address this issue so that systems can be built more cheaply and quickly, to bring about urgently needed connectivity improvements in the regions of the UK.  While we are aware that modern trams are usually off-the-peg designs from global companies, the possibility of having vehicles for the system constructed in the UK should be investigated. A mode which should be considered is very, or ultra, light rail, currently under development for Coventry, for which a working prototype has been built. This was included in the Mass Transit Vision as a potential mode for the Bradford-Dewsbury corridor and may be a suitable option for parts of the. system in West Yorkshire, perhaps including short connections to rail (or other mass transit lines), similar to the Stourbridge Shuttle, but using a Coventry style vehicle. A demonstration of VLR in West Yorkshire might be useful to evaluate its potential. Segregation from other traffic, as far as is possible, should be a guiding principle if Mass Transit is to be transformational and achieve modal shift. Reducing car traffic will also help bus services to operate more reliably. Modal integration between first phase and later corridors should be adopted where possible, avoiding lower grade options such as BRT. Such options are sometimes seen as lower cost, but this does not always apply over the medium and longer term. There should be a perceived step change for users in the experience of using public transport if modal shift is to occur at scale, supporting not only better connectivity but also our climate change commitments. While closely integrated with bus and rail, the system needs a distinct quality of its own.