The use of Trolleybus technology

• Many experts question the wisdom of using trolleybus technology:
• The system is inherently inflexible (needs special vehicles which cannot be used on other routes)
• The technology is offered only by relatively few suppliers (thus not much competition between suppliers and likelihood of high prices for vehicles and spares)
• It requires specialist maintenance and spares
• It is likely to become outmoded given the rapid development of battery technology
• No other major city is currently installing such a system from scratch, and many of those that have them (e.g. in Eastern Europe and Russia) want to, or are, getting rid of them because of inflexibility, maintenance cost and quality of streetscene..
• It might be better to adopt best available technology (eg diesel-electric hybrids) and then replace with more advanced battery technology when it becomes attractive.
• Metro's own figures show trolleybus has high initial costs and that its ongoing operating costs are more than twice those of the buses they replace.

Funding

• The overall cost of the scheme has been estimated as 250m pounds.
• Central Government is expected to contribute up to 173 pounds
• At least 53m pounds is to come from Leeds City Council and Metro (money that would otherwise be available for other local priorities)
• The remainder is to come from a variety of "local sources".

• If the trolleybus is not financially viable, Leeds would have to meet the on-going costs (with implications for council tax payers and/or meeting other priorities). Metro has prepared a "business case" which indicates that the financial viability of the Trolleybus is dependent on:
• assumed operating and maintenance costs being realistic
• underlying growth in demand for transport into central Leeds
• potential passengers having a preference for the trolleybus over bus (other things being equal) - and their willingness to pay a premium fare if this becomes necessary
• the park and ride succeeding in attracting car drivers
• the bus operators not seeking to compete by reducing their fares

• It can be argued that a "hidden" contribution to the cost of the scheme is to come from a surprising source; Section 8.33 of Metro's submission to DfT indicates that the duty on the extra fuel used in consequence of the increased congestion would contribute 1.3m pounds per annum to the Exchequer - offsetting the Government's injection of capital for the scheme!