Why WPRA is Opposing NGT on the A660

The NGT trolleybus scheme is intended to be a further step towards an integrated transport system for Leeds, calling on 170 million pounds of government funding towards a total estimated cost of 250 million pounds.

Benefits Claimed by the Promoters

1. It will provide a quicker, more reliable, and more attractive alternative to bus services.
2. There will be a big improvement in air quality along the route.
3. It will entice many commuters out of their cars onto public transport leading to further reductions in congestion and air pollution.

Obvious Disbenefits for Local Residents

1. Overhead wires on pylons are unsightly and intrusive, especially on a route that involves five Conservation Areas.
2. Running large trolleybuses through Headingley and Hyde Park will require considerable modifications to a valuable streetscape, such as narrowing of pavements, road widening, land appropriation, and tree felling.
3. The loss of mature trees is an especially sensitive issue in an area where even the local names Meanwood and Weetwood indicate the importance of trees to the locality.

WPRA's Assessment of the Promoters Claims

We've dealt with this in detail already in our document 'Critique by WPRA of NGT Trolleybus Proposals for the A660' which can be read or downloaded from here. The essence of our argument is:

1. Most of the predicted improvements in journey times derive from these measures that could equally well be applied to buses but with less environmental impact, i.e., fewer stops, a conductor on board for ticketing (or something like Oyster cards), more segregation of the route from other traffic.
2. Many people will have to walk further to reach the stops, and there will be fewer of them.
3. Bus operators are likely to withdraw some services that are no longer economic to run once the NGT has creamed off the main profit-making sections of the route.
4. NGT will reduce the extent of cycling and walking on the route by about 7%. (NGT data in tables 8.3 and 8.4 in Ref. 5).
5. The predictions of how many car drivers will switch to the trolleybus are over-optimistic guesses because there are no other UK trolleybuses to compare with.
6. The priority given to the trolleybus will make congestion worse for other road users forcing them to use rat-runs. The promoters even predict that the additional mileage that this entails will consume extra fuel to the extent that 1.3 million pounds in extra fuel duty will be collected - see last line in the table in Ref. 6. This wasted fuel will make air quality worse on the rat-run streets.
7. By the time the NGT is operating (estimated to be 2019) electric buses will be available that will make overhead power lines unnecessary.

Conclusion - The Drawbacks Outweigh the Benefits

Yes, by all means improve the transport infrastructure, but let's do it using the most appropriate modern systems that are suitable for the roads on which they will operate. Members of the WPRA committee think that the claimed benefits are mostly illusory and that a trolley bus system is not appropriate for this route because:

• For most of those living along the A660 route the scheme will actually result in a worse transport service than they have now.
• It will increase congestion for all non-NGT buses and vehicles so that many will be forced to rat-run on other roads such as Spen Lane and Weetwood Lane.

As a result we have decided to campaign against the NGT in its present form and to join the A660 Joint Council, an alliance of other local organisations that have also decided that 'the emperor has no clothes'. We cannot support a scheme which will not deliver value for money, and does not respect or benefit the homes, businesses, and communities along the A660.

References and supporting documentation

1. NGT Fact or Fiction
2. Questions about the NGT proposals
3. Critique of the NGT Proposals for the A660
4. Hyde Park/Woodhouse NGT views
5. NGT Documentation
6. NGT 'Appraisal Summary Table'.