+ All Categories
Home > Documents > AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport...

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport...

Date post: 20-May-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 17 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
90
AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1
Transcript
Page 1: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1

Page 2: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 2

Executive Summary

Introduction

Leeds City Council, in partnership with West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA), are developing a longer term strategic approach to transport in the city, through a conversation initiated by the Transport Summit (10th June 2016). The first phase of the Conversation was focused on securing the promised £173.5m from the Government and sits within a wider context of the £1 billion of transport schemes, identified through the Transport Fund.

Progression of the Transport Conversation and the £173.5 million programme proposals was reported to Executive Board on the 14th December 2016, with subsequent submission of a business case to the Department of Transport on the 20th December 2016.

A three month conversation was initiated on 2nd August, until 11th November, through an online survey questionnaire. Simultaneously, a number of other consultation mechanisms were used: a series of workshops with stakeholders, younger and older people forums and equality groups; community committee presentations and workshops; one to one discussions; liaison with the WYCA Transport and Bus strategists; and other City events. There was also a comprehensive programme of social media and traditional public relations activities which are detailed in the main report.

The table below summarises the key dates and activities from which responses were taken. The following sections summarise the key outcomes of the questionnaire, stakeholder and community workshop sessions.

The Key Dates and Activities: Phase One

Transport Conversation:

Summary of Key Activities

Transport Summit: 10th June 2016

Two stakeholder workshops: 15th/ 20th September 2016

Launch of online questionnaire: 2nd August – 11th November

2016

Young persons questionnaire: 16th September – 11th November

2016

Community Committee presentations: September/October

2016

Community Committee Workshops: September/October/

November 2016

Younger people/older people/ Physical and Sensory

Impairment Network workshops: September/October/

November 2016

One to ones and meetings – July/ August/ September/

October/ November 2016

WYCA Bus Strategy and Single Transport Plan consultation:

18th July - 21st October 2016

20 workshops

25 presentations and

discussions

30 meetings

25 drop-ins

375,000 postcards distributed

1500 paper questionnaires

distributed

55 emails and letters received

8169 responses to the

Transport Conversation

Questionnaire

136 responses to the Young

Person’s Transport

Conversation (joint

LCC/WYCA) questionnaire

This executive summary primarily highlights the key findings from the Transport Conversation Questionnaire. Unless specified otherwise the results shown are from this survey. Key themes raised in the workshops and meetings are highlighted where appropriate. Where this is the case these groups are collectively referred to as ‘Stakeholders’.

Page 3: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 3

Questionnaire responses:

A total of 8169 responses were received to the questionnaire. The graph below shows the demographic profile of respondents. Figure 1: Demographic Profile of Respondents.

Base: All respondents (8169)

6%

43%37%

12%

2%

54%

43%

3%6%

90%

4%

85%

8% 7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16

-24

25

-44

45

-64

65

+

Pre

fer

no

t to

sa

y

Ma

le

Fem

ale

Pre

fer

no

t to

sa

y

Yes

No

Pre

fer

no

t to

sa

y

White B

ritish

Oth

er

Pre

fer

no

t to

sa

y

Age Gender Do you consideryourself disabled?

Ethnic Origin

Page 4: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4

Current modes used

Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work, of which 43% currently travel to work by car, 24% by bus and 11% by train. Those who travelled to work were asked how they would prefer to make this journey. Of those that travelled by car alone, just over half (56%) wanted to change to a more sustainable mode, of which the preferred alternative mode was train (14%) or tram (13%), even though Leeds does not currently have a light rail option. This is illustrated below. Figure 2: Mode currently used to travel to WORK and which mode those who drive to work would like to change to. Mode currently use to travel to work Mode car drivers would like to use to travel to work

Base: all those who work (6900) Base: all those drive to work (2972)

Page 5: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 5

Respondents were asked to rate their usual mode of transport for work. Car users generally rated their journey as good, particularly for comfort and safety (93%). Those using public transport however were less likely to rate their journey as good, with less than half of those that used the bus to travel to work giving a positive rating. In particular, bus users were unhappy with their overall door to door journey with just (24%) rating it as good or very good. Train users were happier with the door to door journey (57%) but only 23% were happy with the cost of their journey.

Page 6: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 6

Travelling by Public Transport

Respondents wanted to use public transport more, particularly when travelling to Leeds City centre.

Accessing local services (e.g. shops, doctors, and community centres) was more important than travelling to the city centre for half of respondents (50%), being especially important to older people (69%) and disabled people (63%).

De

sire

to

use

Pu

blic

Tra

nsp

ort

mo

re

•78% felt more people should travel to the city centre by public transport

•78% felt through car traffic should be directed away from the city centre

•73% wanted schemes to improve the capacity of the rail network

•71% would use park and ride service if it were quicker, cheaper and more convenient than parking in the city

•69% wanted alternative types of high quality, high capacity public transport schemes, for example tram or bus rapid transport

•56% agreed we should take away road space from cars and give priority to public transport on main routes in the city centre

•52% wanted an increase in Park and Ride options around the city

•Stakeholders strongly advocated the need for an integrated multimodal network and ticketing

Lim

ita

tio

ns o

f cu

rre

nt P

ub

lic T

ran

sp

ort •49% public transport links between

my area and the city centre are good

•46% bus routes allow me to easily access the locations I need in the city centre

•73% stated public transport reliability is a problem

•Only 45% felt confident changing between different types of transport

•Just a third (33%) found it is easy to use different types of transport for their local journeys

•35% felt the distance to travel when changing between bus and/ or rail stops/ stations is acceptable

•Stakeholders highlighted the physical separation of Leeds rail and bus station as a barrier to interchange

Page 7: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 7

Figures 3 and 4 below highlight the key difference in response, about respondents’ experiences of Leeds City centre and their local neighbourhood, by specific demographic groups and the location in which respondents live. Figure 3: Key Differences in response by demographic group*

*percentage shown is the proportion of people who strongly agreed or agreed with the statement

•More likely to feel public tranport links

to city centre are good (58%)

•Access to local services more

important than travelling to the city

centre (69%)

•Least likely to feel their local

neighbourhood is pedestrian friendly

(32%)

•More likely to travel to

work by bus (40%)

•Less likely to agree city

centre is pedestian

friendly (65%)

•Less likely to agree that

transport links to city centre

are good (42%)

•More likely to say access to local

services more important than travelling

to the city centre (69%)

•Least likely to think the distance to

travel when interchanging is

acceptable (30%)

•Least likely to agree it was easy to use

different types of transport for local

journeys (29%)

• More likely to feel public tranport links to city centre are good (54%)

• Experienced issues with public transport reliability (80%)

• More likely to travel to work by bus (30%)

• More likely to agree city centre is pedestian friendly (73%)

• Less likely to feel comfortable cycling in the city centre (5%)

• Less likely to feel confident cycling in their local neighbourhood (31%)

WomenUnder

25s

Over 65Disabled

Page 8: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 8

Figure 4: Key differences in response by Community Committee area*.

* percentage shown is the proportion of people who strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. * nb the information shown is where the response for the Community Committee is significantly different from the average response. * Postcode data has been grouped into Community Committees in order to identify appropriate areas for analysis. This is limited by the available postcode data (note in accordance with IOC guidance, LCC policy on data protection limits the collection of postcode data to outcode, LS1 etc, not the full postcode) which does not exactly coincide with the Community Committee areas. 27% of respondents did not provide a postcode.

Page 9: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 9

Transport Strategy

Respondents were given six statements about the future transport strategy and asked to what extent they agreed with them. Respondents generally agreed that spending should be prioritised on:

Main routes approaching Leeds City centre (76%).

Cross city journeys including those not going through the city centre (64%).

Regional journeys and connecting Leeds to other cities (63%).

However, fewer respondents thought spending should be prioritised on

Local journeys in and round adjoining neighbourhoods (57%). However in the Workshops and one to one meetings Community groups were particularly keen to see improvements to local services.

Movement within the city centre (44%).

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide any further comments on priorities for transport investment. Just over half of respondents (56%) made a comment. Of those that provided a comment,

almost a fifth (18%) cited improvements to cycling facilities and

a further 16% requested investment in a tram system.

The top ten coded responses are below.

Other priorities for investment Frequency (n) Percent (%)

Improvements to cycling facilities 823 18

Invest in tram system 743 16

More reliable bus service 630 14

Tackle traffic congestion, e.g. congestion charge, car share 476 11

Expanded local rail service 403 9

Expansion of Park and Ride facilities 403 9

Cheaper/ better value for money (Bus) 370 8

Improve journey times/ more express services 332 7

Improvements to pedestrian facilities 327 7

Cheaper/ better value for money (General) 326 7

Base (respondents who provided a comment) 4545

Page 10: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 10

The figure below shows the difference in priorities for investment by community committee area.

Figure 5 Key differences in response by Community Committee area*

* percentage shown is the proportion of people who strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. * nb the information shown is where the response for the Community Committee is significantly different from the average response. * Postcode data has been grouped into Community Committees in order to identify appropriate areas for analysis. This is limited by the available postcode data (note in accordance with IOC guidance, LCC policy on data protection limits the collection of postcode data to outcode, LS1 etc, not the full postcode) which does not exactly coincide with the Community Committee areas. 27% of respondents did not provide a postcode.

Page 11: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 11

Transport Strategy – Short and long term

Respondents were given the following statement

“Delivering new transport infrastructure takes time and costs money. With the promise of an additional £173.5m from government for public transport improvements, we need to make sure that any changes to the road, bus or rail network are safe, provide improvements to journeys and that people have a chance to have their say.”

They were then asked to indicate whether they preferred short or long term improvements or a combination.

The majority opted for a combination (61%) of short and long term improvements.

Over a quarter (26%) opted for just longer term improvements.

12% preferred only short term improvements.

Figure 6: Investments in Future Improvements

61% Short and long term improvements

26% Long term improvements

Younger people (36%)

Men (32%)

12% Short term improvements

45 and older (16%)

North West (18%)

Outer South (18%)

Page 12: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 12

Sustainable Modes and the Environment Environment Just over half of respondents (56%) felt there were too many cars in the city centre and only 29% of respondents thought that air quality in the city centre was good. 65% thought greater priority should be given to creating a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment. Stakeholders noted the negative impact on residents’ respiratory health of high levels of congestion, particularly surrounding the M621. Walking Respondents generally felt the city centre was pedestrian friendly (71%). However, just 42% thought their local neighbourhoods were pedestrian friendly. Stakeholders felt further walking infrastructure was needed in the city centre, particularly in eastern, western and southern parts. Some Stakeholders felt the transport strategy should include a specific walking strategy to include the assessment of infrastructure such as lighting and condition of pavements and a desire to make walking “more pleasurable for all”. Cycling Only 8% felt comfortable cycling in the city centre. However nearly two fifths (39%) stated they felt comfortable cycling around their local area.

56% wanted schemes to create quality and safe pedestrian and cycling friendly areas. ‘Improved cycling facilities’ was the most frequently given comment to the free text questions (18%). “Better infrastructure to make cycling safer please, especially on routes in and out of the city for commuters and on routes used by children to get to school.”

Stakeholders particularly mentioned the need for increased cycle infrastructure to improve accessibility. Suggestions included increased provision of cycle lanes and the promotion of existing lanes to increase usage. Bus Almost three quarters (73%) of respondents stated reliability of services was an issue. Stakeholders in particular highlighted the need for greater prioritisation of services into the city centre. Stakeholders felt electric buses should be an aspiration for Leeds. The provision of real time information would help increase bus patronage. Some community groups mentioned the need to change the franchising structure to improve the customer experience and reduce the cost of travel.

Page 13: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 13

Tram and Train Light rail was mentioned by stakeholders and was the second highest unprompted response given to the public survey (16%).

“A tram or metro system is the only viable solution to the issues facing the city. Any lesser solution would simply be spending for spending’s sake and would not address the issues.” Several Stakeholders, in the short term, raised the idea of opening more rail stations and disused rail lines. Stakeholders were keen that rail related projects such as HS2 and Northern Powerhouse schemes and widespread electrification come to fruition.

Park and Ride Half (52%) of respondents would welcome an increase in Park and Ride options around the city.

Park and Ride was particularly mentioned by Stakeholders. The Chartered Institute of Transport and Logistics felt that any focus on Park and Ride should be combined with traffic restrictions and a reduction in parking facilities in central Leeds to ensure they were used.

“Park & Ride spaces in Leeds should replace city centre parking and not be in addition to it.”

Community groups felt it was important that Park and Ride facilities are integrated with other transport hubs.

Road Network

Congestion in Leeds City centre was an issue mentioned throughout the Conversation. Three quarters (74%) of respondents wanted spending to be prioritised on schemes to reduce congestion at busy junctions. Stakeholders felt more could be done to promote the use of sustainable modes and discourage car use. Through traffic was reported by stakeholders to make up one third of traffic in the centre and directing this traffic away was raised by Stakeholders and 78% of questionnaire respondents said it was a priority. Freight was thought to make a significant part of this and it was felt more could be done to reduce the amount of freight traffic including a consolidation centre.

Connectivity to Leeds Bradford Airport was mentioned across Stakeholder groups as an issue to be addressed. Several Community groups specified an (electrified) rail link to the airport was needed. Several community groups also questioned the existing location of the airport, stating a review of this was needed.

Page 14: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 14

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 15

1.1 The Leeds Transport Conversation.................................................................... 15

1.2 Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 15

1.3 Workshops, presentations and one to one meetings ......................................... 17

1.4 Format of the Report ......................................................................................... 21

2. Online Survey ............................................................................................................. 22

2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 22

2.2 Analysis of the Data .......................................................................................... 22

2.3 Respondent Profile ............................................................................................ 23

2.4 Usual mode of travel and view of that mode ...................................................... 25

2.5 Leeds City centre .............................................................................................. 31

2.6 Leeds Neighbourhoods ..................................................................................... 34

2.7 Looking to the future: Our Transport Strategy .................................................... 36

2.8 Looking to the future: Investing in Transport ...................................................... 39

2.9 Young Persons Survey: Summary of Results .................................................... 48

2.10 Cheaper Buses for Leeds - Youth Parliament November 2012 .......................... 50

3. Stakeholder Workshops and Face to Face Meetings .................................................. 51

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 51

3.2 Integrated transport, hubs and ticketing ............................................................. 52

3.3 Bus .................................................................................................................... 53

3.4 Cycling .............................................................................................................. 57

3.5 Mass Transit and Tram ...................................................................................... 58

3.6 Rail .................................................................................................................... 59

3.7 Cars, Freight and Road ..................................................................................... 60

3.8 Park and Ride (all modes) ................................................................................. 61

3.9 Changes to Leeds City centre ........................................................................... 62

3.10 Future travel and Technology ............................................................................ 63

3.11 Active and sustainable travel ............................................................................. 63

3.12 Connectivity to Leeds Bradford Airport. ............................................................. 65

3.13 Examples from other Locations ......................................................................... 65

4. Accessibility and Equality ........................................................................................... 66

4.2 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 66

4.3 City Centre ........................................................................................................ 66

4.4 Use of public transport ....................................................................................... 66

5. Summary and Conclusion........................................................................................... 69

Appendix A Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 71

Appendix B Questionnaire Summary Tables ........................................................................ 72

Appendix C Open Ended Questions and responses ............................................................ 81

Appendix D Young Persons Survey ..................................................................................... 86

Appendix E Stakeholders and Workshops Attendees .......................................................... 87

Page 15: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 15

1. Introduction

1.1 The Leeds Transport Conversation

Background: Leeds City Council, in partnership with the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, have initiated an extensive transport conversation with the City; on both the development of a longer term Transport Strategy; as well as an examination of shorter term measures which would form the programme of spend for the £173.5million (previously allocated to NGT).

The Conversation was launched through a Transport Summit on the 10th June and followed through with an online questionnaire (2nd August, until 11th November). The first phase of the Conversation was followed by a series of workshops with stakeholders, younger and older people forums and equality groups, community committee presentations and workshops, one to one discussions and liaison with the WYCA Transport and Bus strategies, plus other City events. A list of the workshops is given in Appendix E. There was also a comprehensive programme of social media and traditional public relations activities which are detailed in the next section.

The aims of this Conversation were to:

Reach and engage as many Leeds residents, organisations and businesses in a conversation about the future of transport in the City;

Gather evidence of the City’s views, opinions and ideas around all aspects of transport in Leeds, to inform a proposal / submission to government in Autumn 2016;

Extend the Conversation into 2017 by developing a 20 year long term Transport Strategy;

Run an inclusive, responsive and interactive ‘Conversation’ process, as pledged at the transport summit by Cllr Blake; and

Link into other related and relevant ongoing consultations.

Taking these aims forward, a number of key activities were employed to engage with a wide range of people and communities across the City. This included a widely publicised questionnaire as well as one to one and group feedback through workshops, presentations and meetings with Community Committees, Businesses, access groups and special interest transport groups. The section below describes that process and the groups involved in more detail.

1.2 Questionnaire

Transport Conversation Questionnaire: The Leeds Transport Conversation was launched by an online survey on 2nd August and was originally due to close on the 20th September. However, this deadline was extended to 11th November, which meant the questionnaire was available for completion for three months. The questionnaire was designed to take 5 to 10 minutes to complete and can be found in Appendix A. Question areas included:

Current mode of travel;

Travel Preferences;

Travelling to Leeds City centre;

Travelling Locally;

Leeds Transport Strategy;

Spending Priorities; and

Demographics.

Page 16: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 16

Analysis of the data: The data was analysed using SPSS Statistics; a software package used for statistical analysis. Initially, simple frequencies were run on each question of the questionnaire. Following on from this, cross tabulations were undertaken to explore the data in greater depth, and highlight any differences across the sub groups. For the purpose of cross tabulations, the data was analysed by:

Geography (Community Committee area);

Age;

Gender;

Ethnic Origin; and

Disability.

Questionnaire distribution: Whilst the emphasis was on filling in the questionnaire online, to maximise response rates paper copies (with a freepost envelope) and postcards were made available at One Stop Centres, Community Hubs, Community Centres and at Community Committee events and workshops. The questionnaire was advertised at events such as City Connect, South Bank Consultation, and posted directly to ‘Access’ group members without online capability.

The questionnaire was also circulated by partners and stakeholders using their networks, to the Transport Summit stakeholders, MPs, Chamber of Commerce, Community Committee Ward Members and networks, Doing Good Leeds, the Community Foundation, Public Transport Operators, Leeds Travelwise, Leeds Sustainable Development Group, Access groups, Passenger Services, West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Metro messenger, road safety events, school networks and RES essentials.

A City/District wide circulation of the postcards took place to Leeds households (352,000).

A total of 8169 responses were received, and of those, 208 were paper responses.

Young person’s questionnaire: The Leeds Transport Conversation worked alongside the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) to provide a co-ordinated approach. This was employed to develop a child friendly questionnaire for distribution through the Child Friendly networks. It received a total of 136 responses (104 have responded to the Leeds questions) the results of which can be found in section 2.9 and a copy of WYCA’s report can be found in Appendix D.

Copy of postcard used to advertise the Conversation and circulated across Leeds district

Page 17: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 17

This survey was designed to ask younger people about a series of bus related issues and how bus travel could be improved. The Transport Conversation section asked younger people their opinion on the future of travel.

1.3 Workshops, presentations and one to one meetings

Transport Summit: Led by Leeds City Council (LCC), the Transport Summit took place at Leeds Civic Hall on June 10th. Representatives from leading transport bodies across the region attended, including LCC, West Yorkshire Combined Authority and The University of Leeds. Presentations were given by Sir Peter Hendy CBE, chairman of Network Rail and Professor Greg Marsden of the University of Leeds Institute for Transport Studies.

Key themes for the summit included the latest position on future transport projects and an update on current work being undertaken around the City including new Park and Ride sites, better cycle and walking routes and railway network improvements. The event was opened by Councillor Judith Blake, leader of Leeds City Council.

The Summit was the first in a series of dedicated meetings and discussions held with communities across the City.

Additional workshops: Whilst the Summit was seen as a very positive start to the discussion, additional stakeholder feedback was requested with more time for discussion. Consequently, two further workshops (15th and 20th September) were attended by a wide range of stakeholders including individuals, representation from organisations and businesses (over 80 attended). This involved a brief presentation followed by an extended question and answer session with round table discussions facilitated by a transport professional.

Additional workshops have taken place with other key City stakeholders for example:

The Physical and Sensory Impairment group;

The Millennials;

Leeds Sustainable Development Group;

Youth Forum; and

Older Peoples Forum.

“This summit will, we hope, be the spark for a new, inclusive discussion that will give people in communities all across Leeds the chance to be part of planning for the future of public transport in their City. We know that public transport and how people get from A to B has become an increasingly pivotal issue for Leeds and in particular for our ability to continue to grow and capitalise on our economic success. We also know that the people of Leeds deserve better and what we have now is an opportunity to gather the full of range of talent and ideas from the people living and working and travelling in Leeds. It is imperative that we now work together as a City and region to ensure that the £173.5m that has been secured for transport in Leeds is put to the best possible use in improving journeys for local commuters.” (Cllr Blake)

for our ability to continue to grow and capitalise on our economic success. We also know that the people of Leeds deserve better and what we have now is an opportunity to gather the full of range of talent and ideas from the people living and working and travelling in Leeds. It is imperative that we

now work together as a City and region to ensure that the £173.5m that has been secured for transport in Leeds is put to the best possible use in improving journeys for local commuters.” (Cllr

Blake)

Leeds Transport Summit

Page 18: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 18

Community Committee Meeting

Young Persons Workshop

One to ones were also carried out with Public Transport Operators, Businesses, Special interest User Groups (including the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) and Cycle Forum), Access and equality groups (including the BME Hub, Access and Use ability group, Deaf Forum, equalities assembly, LGBT Hub). The outcome from these discussions is summarised into key themes in Section 3.

Community Committees: For the ten Community Committees, a background report was submitted and presented at seven of the Community Committee meetings. Ten further ‘Transport Conversat ion’ specific workshops subsequently took place at each of the Community Committees across the District. These presentations and workshops took place in local areas during the early evening to be as accessible as possible. The key themes from these workshops and discussions

is included in Chapter 3.

Seven Community Committees presentations (from the 5th – 22nd September)

Ten Community Committees workshops undertaken (from the 6th September - 8th November)

Six Forum/ sub group meetings – presentations and discussion (from 13th September – 14th November)

Activities with Young People: These activities have sought to engage with and promote feedback from key groups which might experience specific transport difficulties, such as younger people, older people and access groups.

Liaison with Leeds City Council Children’s services: the Voice Influence and Change team.

E-bulletin to over 1200 Voice Influence change leads on their network e.g. schools, youth groups, children’s services, third sector etc.

Incorporation of recent transport consultation outcomes with young people i.e. ‘Cheaper buses for Leeds’.

Two workshops with the Swarcliffe youth groups (joint with WYCA) on the 27th October (over 50 attendees) and at Tingley youth group (over 10 attendees) on 14th November.

Joint young person’s questionnaire with WYCA (see Appendix D and section 2.9).

Passenger services distribution of paper questionnaires to vulnerable adults and children.

Page 19: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 19

Older Persons Workshop

Activities with Older People: A number of specific activities were undertaken including:

Liaison with Forum Central regarding contact with Older People Forums

Two workshops with Moor Allerton Elderly Care (28th October, 10 attendees) and Richmond Hill Elderly Action (7th November, 25 attendees).

Paper copies of the questionnaires were made available at libraries, hubs and community workshops for those without online access.

Age Hub: circulated to 130 member organisations

Best City to Grow Old: Breakthrough Project Management Board – mentioned at the meeting and through internal newsletters.

Forum Central: Collective voice for health and social care, third sector Leeds, 300 organisations contacted.

Activities with Access Groups: A number of specific activities were undertaken including:

Physical and Sensory Impairment Group (PSI): a joint workshop with WYCA took place on 7th September with the PSI network and Tenfold (learning disabilities), Leeds Older People’s Forum and Volition (mental health). This particular workshop focused on disabled people’s issues, with over thirty attendees.

The questionnaire link was sent out to the members of the Equalities Assembly (via LCC Communities Team) as well as the Community Foundation, Doing Good Leeds, RNIB, Citizens Panel Community Committee Members, Contacted Best City to Grow Old and the Dementia Friendly Forum.

Paper copies (with pre-paid envelopes) were sent to 80 members of the Equalities Assembly who registered a requirement for postal contact, along with distribution of 1500 paper questionnaires to all Leeds libraries and hubs. Further copies were distributed to Community Committees and Forums and in response to specific requests.

The Transport Conversation and questionnaire was raised at the following meetings: The BME Hub, Disability Hub, LGBT* Hub, Hubs Reps Network, Access and Usability Group, BME and Deaf Forum and Access and Usability group.

Two stakeholder workshops (see in workshops above) included invitations to a range of equality contacts, which included representation from the BME Hub, the Access and Usability group and visual and audio impairment. Access arrangements, large print questionnaires and BSL interpreters were provided.

A stall and drop-in was included in the Equalities Assembly Conference on 2nd November with representatives from Leeds Involving People, Chair of the Access and Usability group and the National Federation of the Blind.

Engagement with other consultations and events: The Transport Conversation took place within a similar timeframe (19th July to 21st October) to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority’s (WYCA) Transport and Bus strategy consultation (details of which can be found at www.westyorks-ca.gov.uk/ytys) and has been working alongside WYCA to provide a co-ordinated approach. For example, a joint approach has been employed for developing a child friendly questionnaire for distribution through the

Voice and Influence Team networks of over 1200 different networks and contacts.

Page 20: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 20

Social Media

Additionally, officers from LCC Highways have attended the majority of the 23 Leeds drop in events for the Bus and Transport Strategy in Leeds. The feedback received has been used to develop the twenty year West Yorkshire Bus and Transport Strategies. Additionally there were three joint (LCC/WYCA) workshops with the Physical and Sensory Impairment workshop, the Millennials and the Swarcliffe Youth Forum workshop.

The Transport Conversation also attended a number of other events across the City in the Summer/ Autumn to facilitate joint working. This included City Connect, the South Bank Master Plan and the West Yorkshire and Transport Fund City centre package.

A full list of the events and workshops is given in Appendix E.

Marketing: A wide range of marketing and communication activities were employed including radio advertising, on bus advertising, local rail stations, Leeds Bus Station, digital screens (Millennium Square, Kirkgate Market and One Stop Centres and Community Hubs), social media and press releases.

Facebook: There was a high level of Facebook activity. The main Facebook advert started on 22nd August, with over 299,000 ‘Facebook impressions’ on people’s newsfeeds (number of times advert viewed), and over 7100 click throughs to the web page from the advert. Facebook and Twitter were used to promote the community events and encourage participation. A Facebook advert posted on 1st November has so far reached over 13,770 people, resulting in 230 clicks on the link to the webpage.

Graphics, Branding, logo: A graphic presentation was developed for the Transport Conversation.

Web page: A dedicated page was set up on the Leeds City Council website with a shortened url www.leeds.gov.uk/leedstransportconversation. Over 14,800 visits have been made to date (12,900 unique visits) with people spending an average of 9 minutes on the page. All communications directed traffic to this webpage and the survey link.

Email: A dedicated email address was set up ([email protected]) for individuals to comment on the conversation, 52 emails were received.

Traditional media: Regular interviews and press releases were undertaken, with PR activity around key milestones. Cllr Blake gave an interview to launch the Conversation which was picked up by Radio Leeds, Yorkshire Evening Post, Yorkshire Post, Business Desk, Made in Yorkshire and other organisations.

Print media: 15,000 postcards were distributed across the City to One Stop Centres/Community Hubs, libraries and community venues, Leisure Centres and Housing Offices. Paid distribution was undertaken across the City centre and suburbs, plus targeted distribution across hard-to-reach areas. They were also handed out at Community Committees, consultation events and by the South Bank Leeds and Your Travel Your Say teams at events. Posters were distributed to the above venues and a pull-up banner was produced for use at events. 1,500 printed questionnaires were circulated to One Stop Centres, Community Hubs and Libraries and handed out at events.

Radio: A two week campaign was undertaken from 5th September 2016 to promote traffic to the online survey, including 372 thirty second airtime slots reaching 169,000 residents across Leeds and targeted to

Page 21: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 21

reach 115,000 drivers. There was also a digital presence on the Radio Aire website with a link to the survey and social media messages.

Internal communications: The Transport Conversation was featured in several editions of Essentials, the council’s e-newsletter to staff. A promotional advert was also placed on the intranet home page.

Partnership work with WYCA: The Conversation was included an article in Metro Messenger sent to 7,500 contacts and as an item in the Travel Plan Network e-newsletter, sent to 300 employers to forward to staff.

Real time information messaging also took place (‘Join the conversation on transport in Leeds, find out more www.leeds.gov.uk/transportconversation’) from 0900 to 1300 and 1700 to 2100 on all 430 Leeds bus stop real time screens and all 3,500 bus stop pips.

Animation: A short animation was commissioned to promote uptake of the Conversation and was used at events, workshops and on screens in Leeds Kirkgate Market event/dining area. The animation was posted on the web page and social media (the YouTube link has received 634 views to date).

Twitter: Twitter played an active role during the course of the Conversation. The hashtag #leedstransport was used to promote events and for people to anchor their views into the Conversation. Over 400 tweets contained #leedstransport which were viewed by over 60,000 accounts (termed as impressions).

A link to the survey was pinned to the header of the Highways twitter page

Following the pausing of the conversation, members of the public continue to use the #leedstransport hashtag.

Bit.ly link: there have been over 11,500 clicks on the bitly link to the webpage, which has been used on social media.

1.4 Format of the Report

Following this introduction, this report is structured as below:

Chapter 2 details the findings from the Transport Conversation questionnaire;

Chapter 3 summarises the findings from the workshops and face to face meeting that have taken place with stakeholders;

Chapter 4 highlights specific accessibility and equality issues; and

Chapter 5 summarises the key findings.

Included in the appendices is the following information:

Appendix A – Questionnaire

Appendix B - Questionnaire Summary Tables

Appendix C – Open Ended Question responses

Appendix D – Young Persons Survey

Appendix E – Stakeholders and Workshop attendees.

Page 22: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

22

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

2. Online Survey

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter we describe the response to the online survey including:

Analysis of the data;

Respondents Profile;

Response to the survey:

─ Usual mode of travel and view of that mode;

─ Leeds City centre;

─ Leeds Neighbourhoods;

─ Transport Strategy; and

─ Future Investment.

A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix A.

2.2 Analysis of the Data

The data was analysed using SPSS Statistics; a software package used for statistical analysis. Initially, simple frequencies were run on each question on the questionnaire. Following on from this, cross tabulations were undertaken to explore the data in greater depth and highlight any differences across key sub groups. Tables summarising the findings can be found in Appendix B. For the purposes of the cross tabulations the data was analysed by:

Location;

Age;

Gender;

Ethnic Origin; and

Disability.

Reporting of Data

In the following tables, percentages may total more than 100%; this is either due to rounding or because respondents were able to give more than one answer to the question.

The Base is the sum of respondents who expressed an opinion. Respondents who ticked ‘not applicable’ have not been counted.

Throughout the analysis, an asterisk (*) is used if a proportion is more than zero but less than 1%.

Only results that are ‘significantly’ different between sub-samples are shown below, this means differences are significant at the 95% confidence level.

Postcode data has been grouped into Community Committee areas in order to identify appropriate areas for analysis. This is limited by the available postcode data (note LCC policy on data protection limits the collection of postcode data to outcode, LS/BD/WF etc, not the full postcode) which does not exactly coincide with the Community Committee areas.

The findings have been compared to the WYCA Bus Strategy and Transport Strategy consultations and these are shown in orange boxes throughout the report.

Page 23: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

23

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

2.3 Respondent Profile

In total 8169 responses were received to the Transport Conversation questionnaire. Table 2.1 shows that just over half (54%) of respondents were male, nearly half (49%) were aged 45 and over and 6% were aged 24 years and below.

Just 6% of respondents stated that they considered themselves disabled; this is lower than recorded in the census for Leeds, and may be owing to different wording of this question. 85% were White British.

The table below shows the demographic profile of respondents compared to the census data for Leeds.

The sample over represented those aged 25-64 and under represented younger people, older people and those with disabilities. To compensate, these groups were specifically targeted to take part in workshops to ensure their views were represented (see section 2.9, 2.10 and Chapter 4).

Table 2.1: Demographic Profile of Respondents

Census Respondent profile

Age 16-24 19% 6%

25-44 35% 43%

45-64 28% 37%

65+ 18% 12%

Prefer not to say 2%

Gender Male 49% 54%

Female 51% 43%

Prefer not to say 3%

Do you consider yourself disabled?

Yes 17% 6%

No 83% 90%

Prefer not to say 4%

Ethnic Origin White British 81% 85%

Other 19% 8%

Prefer not to say 7%

Location Inner East 2%

Inner North East 8%

Inner North West 5%

Inner South 6%

Inner West 7%

Outer East 6%

Outer North East 8%

Outer North West 12%

Outer South 6%

Outer West 8%

Out of District 6%

Postcode Not Given 27%

Base: All respondents (8169)

Page 24: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

24

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Figure 2.1: Shows proportion of questionnaire respondents from the Community Committee areas

Please note, 27% of respondents did not provide a postcode and a further 6% lived outside of the Leeds area.

© Crown Copyright and database right

2016 Ordnance Survey LA100019567

Page 25: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

25

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

2.4 Usual mode of travel and view of that mode

2.4.1 Journey to Work

Most (84%) respondents stated they travelled to work, of which 43% currently travel to work by car, 24% by bus and 11% by train. This is illustrated in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Q1a Mode Currently Used to Travel to Work

Base: All respondents who Travel to Work (6900)

Some of the differences noted by sub group included:

The proportion of respondents walking to work was highest in the Inner East, Inner North West and Inner South neighbourhoods.

30% of female respondents usually travelled to work by bus, compared to 19% of males. Conversely, 12% of males cycled to work, compared to 5% of females.

Only 24% of younger respondents usually travelled to work by car, compared to 38% or more amongst other age groups.

28% of BME respondents travelled to work by bus, compared to 24% of White respondents. Conversely, 44% of White respondents travelled by car, compared to 38% of BME respondents.

40% of respondents with a disability usually travelled to work by bus, compared to 23% without.

Respondents were asked to rate their usual mode of transport for work. Overall, the proportions of respondents rating the different aspects as good were:

Comfort and safety (66%)

Door to door journey (56%)

Cost (53%)

24%

1%

43%

9%

11%

1% 7%3%

Bus

Car and park and ride

Car

Cycle

Train

Powered two wheeler,motorbike, scooter

Walk

Other

Page 26: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

26

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Car users in particular rated their journey as good for:

Comfort and safety (93%)

Door to door journey (64%)

Cost (58%)

Those using public transport however were less likely to rate their journey as good, with less than half of those that used the bus to travel to work giving a positive rating. In particular bus users were unhappy with their overall door to door journey, with just 24% rating it as good or very good. Train users were happier with the door to door journey (57%) but only 23% were happy with the cost of their journey.

Figure 2.3: Q2a Rating their Journey as Good by Mode

Base: Bus (1676; 1651; 1666) Car (2944; 2941; 2947) Train (775; 773; 778)

Some of the differences cited by sub group included:

Comfort and safety

Only 55% of younger respondents rated this as good, compared to 63% or more amongst older age groups.

Cost

55% of male respondents rated cost as good, compared to 50% of females.

53% of White respondents rated it as good, compared 48% of BME respondents.

Door to door journey

48% of younger respondents rated this as good, compared to 55% or more amongst older age groups.

50% of respondents with a disability rated door to door journey as good, compared to 57% of those without.

44%

28%24%

93%

58%

64%

40%

23%

57%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Comfort and safety Cost Door to door journey

Bus

Car

Train

Page 27: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

27

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Respondents were asked how they would prefer to travel to work. Just over half (56%) of those who usually drove to work wanted to change to a more sustainable mode, of which, the preferred alternative mode was train (14%) or tram (13%), even though Leeds does not currently have a light rail option. This is illustrated in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4: Q3 Preferred sustainable mode

Base: Those who currently drive to work (2972)

Some of the differences cited by sub group overall included:

15% of female respondents stated that they would prefer to travel to work by bus, compared to 8% of males.

18% of male respondents would prefer to travel by tram, compared to 7% of females.

11%

9%

14%

13%

4%5%

44%

Bus

Cycle

Train

Tram

Walk

Park and Ride/ Powered twowheeler

Stay Car Driver

Page 28: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

28

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

2.4.2 Journey to Non-Work activities

Respondents were asked which mode of transport they used when travelling for non-work activities. Almost three fifths (58%) stated they travelled by car. Nearly a quarter (23%) used the bus and just 6% each used the train or walked. This information is shown in Figure 2.5.

Figure 2.5: Q1b Mode used for non-work travel

Base: All respondents (8169)

Some of the differences observed by sub group included:

Only 11% of respondents from outside the district usually used the bus to travel to non-work activities. This compares to 17% or more in the other Leeds neighbourhoods.

The proportion of respondents that indicated that they usually walked to non-work activities was highest in the Inner East, Inner North West and Inner South neighbourhoods.

26% of female respondents usually travelled to non-work activities by bus, compared to 21% of males. Conversely, 5% of males cycled, compared to 2% of females.

Nearly a third (32%) of younger respondents and 37% of respondents aged 65 and above usually travelled to non-work activities by bus, compared to 21% or less amongst other age groups.

28% of BME respondents usually travelled to non-work activities by bus, compared to 23% of White respondents. Conversely, 59% of White respondents travelled by car, compared to 48% of BME respondents.

36% of respondents with a disability usually travelled to non-work activities by bus, compared to 22% of respondents without.

23%

1%

58%

4%

6%

1%6%

2%

Bus

Car and park and ride

Car

Cycle

Train

Powered two wheeler

Walk

Other

Page 29: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

29

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Respondents were asked to rate their usual mode of transport for non-work journeys. Overall, the proportion of respondents rating the different aspects as good were:

Comfort and safety (76%)

Door to door journey (61%)

Cost (55%)

Travelling by car was rated very highly for non-work journeys particularly for comfort and safety with (93%) rating their journey as good compared to just over half of train users (54%) and slightly less than half (49%) of bus users.

Bus and train journeys were considered expensive with just 34% and 36% respectively rating the cost of their journey as good or very good.

Figure 2.6 shows how respondents rated different aspects of their journey for non-work activities by mode.

Figure 2.6: Q2b Rating their journey for non-work activities as good by mode

Base: Bus (1872; 1687; 1854) Car (4679; 4665; 4671) Train (444; 446; 446)

Comfort and safety

79% of respondents aged between 45 and 64 rated comfort and safety as good, compared to 76% or less amongst other age groups.

77% of White respondents rated comfort and safety as good, compared to 70% of BME respondents.

68% of respondents with a disability rated comfort and safety as good, compared to 77% of respondents without.

49%

34%

27%

93%

58%

74%

54%

36%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Comfort and safety Cost Door to door journey

Bus

Car

Train

Page 30: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

30

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Cost

53% of male respondents rated the cost of their journey as good, compared to 58% of females.

56% of White respondents rated it as good, compared 48% of BME respondents.

Only 51% of respondents with a disability rated the cost of their journey as good, compared to 56% of respondents without.

Door to door journey time

59% of male respondents rated their door to door journey time as good, compared to 64% of females.

52% of younger respondents rated their door to door journey time as good, compared to 59% or more amongst older age groups.

62% of White respondents rated their door to door journey time as good, compared to 55% of BME respondents.

54% of respondents with a disability rated their door to door journey time as good, compared to 62% of those without.

Respondents were asked how they would prefer to travel to non-work activities. Of those that drove 47% would prefer to travel by a sustainable mode; particularly train (13%) and tram (11%), even though Leeds does not currently have a tram.

Figure 2.7: Preferred mode for non-work activities

Base: Those who currently drive to non-work activities (4717)

18%

3%

36%10%

11%

13%

1%6%

2%

Bus

Car and park and ride

Car

Cycle

Train

Tram

Powered two wheeler

Walk

Other

Page 31: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

31

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

This is reflected in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation where 77% of respondents agreed there is a need to adopt targets to reduce air pollution and 64% wanted a Clean Air Zone to be introduced.

Some of the differences cited by sub group overall included:

13% of female respondents stated that they would prefer to travel to non-work activities by bus, compared to 8% of males.

Similarly, 17% of respondents with a disability would prefer to travel by bus, compared to 10% of those without.

16% of male respondents would prefer to travel by tram, compared to 6% of females.

A fifth (19%) of respondents aged 65 and above would prefer to travel by bus, compared to 12% or less amongst younger age groups. Furthermore, a greater proportion of this age group would prefer to travel by Park and Ride (11%).

2.5 Leeds City centre

Respondents were presented with a series of seven statements regarding sustainable transport in Leeds City centre and asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each.

Respondents generally felt that the City centre was pedestrian friendly (71%).

However the remaining scores were poor with less than half of respondents agreeing that:

Public transport links between my area and the City centre are good (49%).

Bus routes allow me to easily access the locations I need in the City centre (46%).

Car parking is easy to find (26%).

Just over half of respondents (56%) felt there were too many cars in the City centre and only 29% of respondents thought that air quality in the City centre was good.

Only 8% felt comfortable cycling; though 39% of respondents did not answer this question.

Page 32: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

32

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Figure 2.8 highlights the level of agreement for the different statements relating to travel from home to the City centre.

Figure 2.8: Q4 Travel to/ in the city centre

Base all: Pedestrian friendly (8146); Cars in centre (8129); Public transport links (8058); Bus routes (7877); Air quality (8143);

Car parking (6895); Cycling (4947)

Some of the differences highlighted by sub group included:

City centre is pedestrian friendly

Female respondents (73%) or those aged under 25 (77%) were most likely to agree that the City centre is pedestrian friendly.

However, those who identified themselves as disabled were less likely to agree (65%).

15% of respondents that did not think the City centre was pedestrian friendly, felt transport should have a positive effect on people’s health and wellbeing.

There are too many cars in the City centre

Males were more likely to agree this was the case (58%), as were those living in Inner North West areas (67%).

Disabled respondents (50%) and those in Outer North East areas (47%) were less likely to agree.

A fifth of respondents (20%) that thought there were too many cars in the City centre, did not think that the City centre was pedestrian friendly.

Nearly half of respondents (48%) that agreed there were too many cars in the City centre, felt that air quality was poor.

74% of respondents that said there were too many cars in the City centre agreed road space should be taken away from cars.

89% of respondents that agreed there were too many cars in the City centre agreed that through traffic should be directed away from the City centre.

91% of respondents that agreed there were too many cars in the City centre said more people should travel by public transport.

80% of respondents that agreed there were too many cars in the City centre said more priority should be given to public transport.

71

56

49

46

29

26

8

14

27

13

17

31

15

12

15

16

37

33

37

56

72

*

1

1

4

3

3

7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

City centre is pedestrian friendly

There are too many cars in the city centre

Public transport links between my area and the citycentre are good

Bus routes allow me to easily access the locations Ineed in the city centre

Air quality in the city centre is good

Car parking is easy for me to find in the city centre

I feel comfortable cycling in the city centre

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Don't know

Page 33: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

33

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Public transport links between my area and the City centre are good

Younger respondents aged under 25 and respondents aged 65 and above were more likely to agree with this (53% and 58% respectively), as were those in the Inner North West (64%).

Disabled respondents were least likely to agree (42%).

Bus routes allow me to easily access the locations I need in the City centre

Again younger and older respondents were most likely to agree with this (54% and 56%), as were Inner North West respondents (60%).

Inner South and disabled respondents were least likely to agree (41%).

Nearly three quarters of respondents (74%) that disagreed bus routes allowed them to easily access locations in the City centre, felt that public transport links between their area and the City centre were poor.

73% of respondents that agreed bus routes allowed them to easily access locations in the City centre said they would use a Park and Ride service.

Air quality in the City centre is good

Females (31%) and respondents under 25 (37%) were most likely to agree with this.

85% of respondents who felt air quality was poor agreed that through car traffic should be directed away from the City centre.

Car parking is easy for me to find in the City centre

Those in the Inner North East were most likely to say this was the case (32%), along with those aged between 25 and 44 (30%).

However, disabled respondents (18%) and those living in Inner East areas (20%) were least likely to agree.

21% of respondents that said it was easy to find car parking in the City centre said they would not use a Park and Ride service.

I feel comfortable cycling in the City centre

12% of respondents living in Inner West areas and 9% aged under 25 stated they felt comfortable cycling in the City centre.

This compared to 5% of both those in the Outer North East and females.

46% of respondents that did not feel comfortable cycling in the City centre also felt that air quality was poor.

78% of respondents that did not feel comfortable cycling in the City centre felt that more priority should be given to pedestrians and cyclists.

Page 34: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

34

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

65% of respondents to the WYCA Bus Strategy consultation said they had experienced buses not running to timetable and 81% said they had experienced them not turning up.

2.6 Leeds Neighbourhoods

Respondents were presented with a series of seven statements regarding sustainable transport when travelling between Leeds neighbourhoods and asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each.

Accessing local services was more important to half (50%) of respondents than travelling to the City centre (50%).

Travelling by sustainable modes locally was a concern for respondents, as highlighted:

73% stated public transport reliability is a problem.

Only 45% felt confident changing between different types of transport.

Just a third (33%) found it is easy to use different types of transport for their local journeys.

35% felt the distance to travel when changing between bus and/ or rail stops/ stations is acceptable.

Nearly two fifths (39%) stated that they felt comfortable cycling around their local area, though over a third of respondents (38%) did not answer this question.

Figure 2.9 shows the level of agreement for the different statements relating to travel around and between Leeds neighbourhoods.

Figure 2.9: Q5 Neighbourhood travel

Base: Reliability (7897); Local services (7951); Confident changing (7738); Pedestrian friendly (7957); Different types of transport

(7942); Distance when interchanging (7510); Cycling (5099)

73

50

45

42

39

35

33

13

29

18

21

16

28

16

14

21

37

36

45

37

50

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Public transport reliabilty is a problem for me

Accessing local services is more important to methan travelling to the city centre

I feel confident changing between different types oftransport to get to my destination

My neighbourhood is pedestrian friendly

I feel comfortable cycling around my localneighbourhood

The distance to travel when changing between busand/ or rail stops/ stations is acceptable

It is easy for me to use different types of transport formy local journeys

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Page 35: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

35

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Some of the differences cited by sub group included:

Public transport reliability is a problem for me

Respondents from the Inner West (81%) or those aged under 25 (80%) were most likely to agree that public transport reliability was a problem.

Those aged 65 and above were less likely to agree (61%).

58% of respondents that felt reliability was a problem said it was difficult to use different types of transport for local journeys.

Accessing local services is more important to me than travelling to the City centre

Over two thirds (69%) of respondents aged 65 and above or 63% of respondents with a disability stated that accessing local services was more important to them than travelling to the City centre.

This compared to 40% of both those in the Inner South and those aged under 25.

I feel confident changing between different types of transport to get to my destination

Respondents aged 65 and above were more likely to agree this was the case (54%).

Those who classed themselves as disabled were less likely to agree (38%).

71% of respondents that did not feel confident changing transport modes said it was not easy to use different types of transport for local journeys.

85% of respondents that did not feel confident changing transport modes said public transport reliability was a problem.

My neighbourhood is pedestrian friendly

Younger respondents aged under 25 were more likely to agree with this (65%), as were those in the Outer South (53%).

Respondents aged 65 and above were least likely to agree (32%).

I feel comfortable cycling around my local neighbourhood

Respondents from the Outer East (53%) those aged under 25 (46%) were most likely to agree with this.

This compared to 24% of respondents in the Inner South, 31% of females and 33% of those aged 65 and above.

The distance to travel when changing between bus and/ or rail stops/ stations is acceptable

Those in the Inner West were most likely to say this was the case (41%), along with those aged under 25 (46%).

This compared to 30% of disabled respondents and 32% of those living in the Inner South areas.

68% of respondents that thought the distance to travel was unacceptable said it was not easy to use different types of transport for local journeys.

84% of respondents that thought the distance to travel was unacceptable said public transport reliability was a problem.

56% of respondents that thought the distance to travel was unacceptable did not feel confident changing modes.

It is easy for me to use different types of transport for my local journeys

Over a third of respondents living in the Inner North West (38%) or 45% aged 65 and above stated it was easy for them to use different types of transport for local journeys.

This compared to 24% of those in the Inner East and 29% of disabled respondents.

Page 36: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

36

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

2.7 Looking to the future: Our Transport Strategy

Respondents were presented with a series of five statements regarding WYCA’s future transport strategy and asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each.

Almost all respondents (98%) agreed it was important to have access to the transport system for everyone, with transport helping to create an attractive place for people to live and work (95%).

Whilst respondents were least likely to agree (86%) that it was important for transport to have less impact on the environment, this is still a high level of agreement.

Table 2.2 demonstrates the level of agreement for the different statements relating to the future transport strategy.

Table 2.2: Q6 Future Transport Strategy

Thinking about our future transport strategy to what extent do you agree… % Agree

It is important that everyone can access our transport system 98%

Transport should help create an attractive place where people want to live and work

95%

Transport should support the growth of our economy 92%

Transport should have a positive effect on people's health and wellbeing 91%

It is important that transport has less impact on the environment 86%

Base: Access (8154); Attractive (8140); Economy (8139); Health (8142); Environment (8146)

Some of the differences noticed by sub group included:

It is important that everyone can access our transport system

100% of respondents from the Inner West agreed with this, as did 99% of females.

This compared to 96% of respondents from the Inner East.

Transport should help create an attractive place where people want to live and work

96% of respondents with a disability agreed with this statement, as did 96% of respondents aged between 25 and 44.

Transport should support the growth of our economy

Males, and respondents from the Outer North East, Outer East, Outer South and Outer North West respondents were most likely to agree that transport should support the growth of our economy (93%, 96%, 95%, 94%, and 91% respectively).

This compared to 86% of respondents from Inner West areas.

Transport should have a positive effect on people’s health and wellbeing

93% of female respondents agreed with this statement, as well as 94% of those aged 65 and above.

Respondents from the Inner East were least likely to agree (84%).

Of those respondents that felt transport should have a positive effect on people’s health and wellbeing, over a third (38%) felt that air quality was poor.

68% of respondents that agreed with this statement felt that greater priority should be given to pedestrians and cyclists.

Page 37: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

37

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

68% of respondents in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation agreed that the Road Network Draft Policy should provide new or expand Park and Ride sites. 83% wanted the policies to improve transport hubs for better integration of all types of transport, and add more rail and bus Park and Ride spaces.

In79% of respondents in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation agreed that

policies should improve orbital roads that take traffic out of town/ City centres to create

people friendly places.

It is important that transport has less impact on the environment

Respondents from the Inner North West, Inner North East, female respondents and those aged between 25 and 44 were most likely to agree with this (94%, 90%, 90% and 88% respectively).

This compared to 83% of respondents in both the Outer North East and Outer West areas, 84% of males and those aged 65 and above.

Over a third of respondents (39%) who felt it was important that transport had less impact on the environment, said that air quality in the City centre was poor.

Respondents were informed:

“Our City is growing – we need to provide 70,000 new homes by 2028 and we want to see growth in jobs. With increased car travel comes additional problems to solve, for example road casualties, poor air quality, noise, carbon and traffic congestion.”

They were then asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with six statements. The statements that received the greatest level of agreement were:

Through car traffic should be directed away from the City centre (78%).

More people should travel to the City centre by public transport (78%).

The purchase of land and property to deliver transport improvements on narrow key transport routes should be considered (76%).

I would use a Park and Ride service if it was quicker, cheaper and more convenient than parking in the City (71%).

Page 38: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

38

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Figure 2.10 shows the level of agreement for the different statements relating to transport and future growth of the City.

Figure 2.10: Q7 Transport and future growth of the City

Base: Through car traffic (8120); Travel to City centre (8136); Land purchase (8115); Pedestrian/ cyclist priority (8097); Park and

Ride (6789); Public transport priority (8132)

Some of the differences observed by sub group included:

Through car traffic should be directed away from the City centre

Those aged 65 and above (88%) and male respondents (82%) were most likely to agree that through car traffic should be directed away from the City centre.

Respondents aged under 25; female respondents and those with a disability were less likely to agree (73%, 74% and 74% respectively).

More people should travel to the City centre by public transport

89% of respondents from the Inner North West agreed that more people should travel to the City centre by public transport.

This compared to 73% of those in the Outer North East and 71% of those with a disability.

68% of respondents that felt more people should travel by public transport agreed that road space should be taken away from cars.

The purchase of land and property to deliver transport improvements on narrow transport routes should be considered

Male respondents and those from the Inner East were more likely to agree with this statement (84% for both).

Respondents with a disability and females were less likely to agree (69% and 67% respectively).

56

65

71

76

78

78

14

19

11

15

14

11

30

17

18

9

8

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

We should take away road space from cars and givepriority to public transport on main routes in to the city

centre

More priority should be given to creating a pedestrianand cycle friendly environment in our city centre

I would use a park and ride service if it was quicker,cheaper and more convenient than parking in the city

The purchase of land and property to deliver transportimprovements on narrow key transport routes should

be considered

More people should travel to the city centre by publictransport

Through car traffic should be directed away from thecity centre

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Page 39: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

39

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

79% of respondents in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation wanted policies to provide safe, convenient, walking and cycle networks; 76% also suggested using freed-up space in town/City centres to improve walking and cycle routes and facilities; and 77% wanted more high-quality, on and off-road routes for walking and cycling.

I would use a Park and Ride service if it was quicker, cheaper and more convenient than parking in the City

Respondents from the Outer South (77%) were most likely to agree with this.

This compared to 62% of respondents who classed themselves as having a disability.

More priority should be given to creating a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment in our City centre

Respondents from the Inner North West were more likely to agree with this (85%).

This compared to 53% of respondents from the Outer East and 57% of respondents with a disability.

88% of respondents that agreed with this statement felt that through traffic should be directed away from the City centre.

We should take away road space from cars and give priority to public transport on main routes in to the City centre

Those in the Inner North West were most likely to say this was the case (75%), along with those aged under 25 (60%).

This compared to 53% of respondents aged 45 to 64 and 46% of those living in the Outer East.

2.8 Looking to the future: Investing in Transport

Respondents were asked to say how important they thought it was for the Council to focus spending on five different transport infrastructure areas on a scale of 1 to 5 (i.e. 1 is not important at all and 5 is very important).

Respondents generally agreed that spending should be prioritised on:

Main routes approaching Leeds City centre (76%).

Cross City journeys including those not going through the City centre (64%).

Regional journeys and connecting Leeds to other cities (63%).

However, fewer respondents thought spending should be prioritised on:

Local journeys in and round adjoining neighbourhoods (57%).

Movement within the City centre (44%).

Page 40: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

40

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Figure 2.11 shows the level of agreement for the different statements relating to the future investment in transport.

Figure 2.11: Q8 Investment focus: journeys

Base: All respondents (8169)

Some of the differences noted by sub group included:

Main routes approaching Leeds City centre

Those from the Outer South, Outer North West, male respondents and those aged 25 to 44 were most likely to agree that the Council should focus spending on main routes approaching Leeds City centre (82%, 81%, 79% and 79% respectively).

Respondents from the Inner North West were less likely to agree (71%).

Cross City journeys including those not going through the City centre

70% of respondents from the Inner North East agreed that cross City journeys should be a priority for funding, as did 67% of females.

79% of respondents that agreed with this statement also said that the Council should prioritise main routes approaching Leeds City centre.

Regional journeys and connecting Leeds to other cities

Over two thirds of respondents aged 65 and above agreed with this (70%).

81% of respondents that agreed with this statement also said that the Council should prioritise main routes approaching Leeds City centre.

69% of respondents that agreed with this statement also said that cross City journeys should be prioritised.

64% of respondents that agreed with this statement also felt that local journeys in and round adjoining neighbourhoods should be prioritised.

Only 48% of respondents that agreed with this statement also felt that the Council should prioritise movement within the City centre.

Local journeys in and round adjoining neighbourhoods

Respondents with a disability, females, BME respondents and those aged 65 and above were more likely to agree with this option (65%, 64%, 64% and 64% respectively).

This compared to 52% of male respondents.

44

57

63

64

76

31

29

22

26

16

26

14

15

10

8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Movement within the city centre

Local journeys in and round adjoiningneighbourhoods

Regional journeys and connecting Leeds to othercities

Cross city journeys including those not goingthrough the city centre

Main routes approaching Leeds city centre

Important Neither important nor unimportant Unimportant

Page 41: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

41

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

82% of respondents in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation agreed policies should jointly manage a West Yorkshire Key Route Network of the most important, most congested local roads, to improve journey times and reliability.

68% of respondents in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation agreed that the Road Network Draft Policy should provide new or expand Park and Ride sites.

90% of respondents in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation agreed policies should provide consistent high quality standards for rail travel on all Leeds City Region rail lines and 88% agreed that policy should improve existing rail services by building new stations, running more cross-City rail services and extending some existing lines.

76% that agreed with this statement also said the Council should prioritise main routes approaching Leeds City centre.

75% of respondents that agreed with this statement also said cross City journeys should be prioritised.

50% of respondents that agreed with this statement also said the Council should prioritise movement within the City centre.

Movement within the City centre

Respondents from the Inner South, those aged under 25, BME respondents and those with a disability were most likely to agree with this (55%, 55%, 50% and 50% respectively).

This compared to 34% of respondents from the Outer North West.

85% of respondents that agreed with this statement also said the Council should prioritise main routes approaching Leeds City centre.

69% of respondents that agreed with this statement also said cross City journeys should be prioritised.

Respondents were then asked how important it was to prioritise spending on new types of infrastructure.

The statements that received the greatest level of agreement were:

Schemes to reduce congestion at busy junctions (74%).

Schemes to improve the capacity of and access to the rail network, for example new stations (73%).

In contrast, just over half (52%) felt investment should be focused on increasing park and ride options around the City.

This is illustrated in Figure 2.12.

Page 42: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

42

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Figure 2.12: Q9 Investment focus: schemes

Base: All respondents (8169)

Some of the differences seen by sub group included:

Schemes to reduce congestion at busy junctions

Respondents from the Outer South, Inner West, Outer West and female respondents, were most likely to support this investment option (80%, 79%, 78% and 77% respectively).

This compared to 64% of respondents from the Inner North West area.

Schemes to improve the capacity of and access to the rail network, for example new stations

Those in the Outer North West were most likely to support this option (79%).

Alternative types of high quality, high capacity public transport schemes for example tram or bus rapid transport

Male respondents and those aged under 25 were more likely to agree with this option (72% and 78% respectively).

Respondents aged 65 and above were less likely to support this option (66%).

82% of respondents that agreed with this statement also agreed that the purchase of land and property to deliver transport improvements should be considered.

Schemes to improve bus journey times through changes to the road network

BME respondents and females were more likely to agree with this (72 and 71% respectively).

67% of respondents that said schemes to improve bus journey times were important agreed we should take road space from cars.

52

56

66

69

73

74

27

24

21

15

18

17

21

20

13

16

10

9

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

An increase in park and ride options around the city

Schemes to create quality and safe pedestrian and cyclingfriendly areas

Schemes to improve bus journey times through changesto the road network

Alternative types of high quality, high capacity publictransport schemes for example tram or bus rapid transit

Schemes to improve the capacity of and access to the railnetwork, for example new stations

Schemes to reduce congestion at busy junctions

Important Neither important nor unimportant Unimportant

Page 43: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

43

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

76% of respondents in the WYCA Transport Strategy consultation wanted policies to use freed-up space in town/City centres to improve walking and cycle routes and facilities; and 77% to provide more high-quality, on and off-road routes for walking and cycling.

Schemes to create quality and safe pedestrian and cycling friendly areas

Respondents from the Inner North West, Inner North East, Inner South, BME respondents, those aged under 25 or aged 25 to 44, were most likely to support this investment option (75%, 70%, 63%, 66%, 59% and 59% respectively).

Respondents from the Outer East and those aged 65 and above were least likely to agree with this (40% and 51% respectively).

An increase in Park and Ride options around the City

Those in the Outer East were most likely to agree (58%), along with those in the Outer South (56%) and females (55%).

This compared to 41% of respondents from the Inner North West and 42% of those aged under 25.

Over half (59%) of those who felt there were too many cars in the City centre wanted to see an increase in park and ride.

Respondents were asked to provide any further comments on priorities for transport investment. Just over half of respondents (56%) made a comment. Of those that provided a comment, almost a fifth (18%) cited improvements to cycling facilities and a further 16% requested investment in a tram system. The top ten coded responses are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Q9b Top 10 items mentioned unprompted

Other priorities for investment Frequency (n) Percent (%)

Improvements to cycling facilities 823 18

Invest in tram system 743 16

More reliable bus service 630 14

Tackle traffic congestion, e.g. congestion charge, car share 476 11

Expanded local rail service 403 9

Expansion of Park and Ride facilities 403 9

Cheaper/ better value for money (Bus) 370 8

Improve journey times/ more express services 332 7

Improvements to pedestrian facilities 327 7

Cheaper/ better value for money (General) 326 7

Base (respondents who provided a comment) 4545

Page 44: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

44

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Some of the differences seen by sub group included:

Improvements to Cycling Facilities

“Better infrastructure to make cycling safer please, especially on routes in and out of the City for commuters and on routes used by children to get to school.”

Eighteen percent of those who commented suggested improvements to cycling facilities were needed.

Those in the Inner North West (40%) were most likely to suggest improvements to cycling facilities, compared to just 9% of those in the Outer East.

Twenty three percent of those aged 25 to 44 also suggested improvements to cycling facilities, compared to just 8% of those aged 65+.

Invest in tram system

“A tram or metro system is the only viable solution to the issues facing the City. Any lesser solution would simply be spending for spending’s sake and would not address the issues.”

Those in the Inner East and Inner South (21% each) were most likely to suggest an investment in a tram system was needed, whilst those in the Inner West and Inner North West (14% each) were least likely to suggest this.

Those under the age of 25 (30%) were the age group most likely to suggest this, with those aged 45 to 60 (14%) the least likely to do so.

More reliable bus service

“It would be an advantage to people who do not drive if a consistent transport service could be relied upon. A service where buses do not arrive on a daily basis is unacceptable and it is frustrating when trying to get to appointments on time.”

Those under 25 (19%) were significantly more likely than those aged 25 or over to suggest a more reliable bus service was required, whilst women (20%) were significantly more likely than men (10%) to suggest the same.

Tackle traffic congestion, e.g. congestion charge, car share

“Having lived in London, I find that the traffic in the centre of Leeds can be really bad in comparison.”

Eleven percent of those who commented felt there was a need to tackle traffic congestion. Those in the Outer North West (15%) were most likely to suggest this, whilst those in the Inner East (6%) were least likely.

Respondents were presented with the statement:

“Delivering new transport infrastructure takes time and costs money. With the promise of an additional £173.5m from government for public transport improvements, we need to make sure that any changes to the road, bus or rail network are safe, and provide improvements to journeys.”

They were then asked to indicate which of the three options they most agreed with, when deciding how the Council should deliver new types of transport investment:

As Figure 2.13 shows, three fifths of respondents (61%) felt that when delivering new transport investment, the Council should combine their approach to consider both shorter and longer term improvements across the City and on key routes. It should be noted that the online questionnaire forced a response to this question and respondents did not have the option to say don’t know or none.

Page 45: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

45

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Figure 2.13: Q10 Delivery of transport investment

Base: All respondents (8169)

Some of the differences seen by sub group included:

Younger people were more in favour of longer term solutions (36% under 25 and 31% of 25-44 year olds).

Those aged 45 and over were more in favour of short term solutions (16% 45-60 and 65+).

Men (32%) were also more in favour of longer term solutions.

Those living in Inner North West (18%) and Outer South (18%) areas were more in favour of a shorter term solution.

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were given the option to provide any further comments regarding the conversation. The majority of respondents (72%) made no comment. Of those that did, nearly a fifth (18%) of respondents stated that a longer term vision for transport solutions was needed. A further 17% cited improvements to bus services/ network/ facilities and 15% said improvements to rail services/ network/ facilities. The top ten coded responses are shown in Table 2.4.

26%

12%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Delivering longer termimprovements for futuregrowth with a large scale

public transport project onfewer key routes

Delivering earlierimprovements in the shortterm across the city even if

these schemes are smallerin scale

A combination of the aboveapproaches

Page 46: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

46

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Table 2.4: Top ten unprompted responses given from the delivery of transport investment comments section.

Additional comments Frequency (n)

Percent (%)

Longer term vision for transport solutions needed 421 18

Improvements to bus services/ network/ facilities 386 17

Improvements to rail services/ network/ facilities 341 15

Implement tram system/rapid mass transit 262 11

Reduce car use in City centre/ tackle congestion, e.g. restrict access, reduce speeds, Park and Ride

262 11

Improvements to cycling facilities, e.g. cycle lanes, priority at junctions 208 9

Consider needs of all users, e.g. commuters, residents, visitors, etc. 206 9

Deliver several small scale joined up schemes 197 9

Creative/ imaginative/ innovative ideas needed - Need to think big/ bold, etc. 164 7

Improvements to ticketing, e.g. affordability, fare structure, value for money 163 7

Base (Respondents who provided a comment) 2323

Some of the differences seen by sub group included:

Longer term vision for transport solutions needed “Long term planning is a more responsible use of public money, but if only focusing on a few key routes, you need to also ensure all areas of the City are linked in well to the network.” The proportion of respondents suggesting a longer term vision was needed decreased as age increased, with 31% of under 25s, 22% of 25 to 44s, 14% of 45 to 65s and 13% of aged 65+ suggesting it was needed. By location, those in the Inner North West (29%) were most likely to suggest a long term vision was needed, whilst just 14% of those in the Outer West agreed. Improvements to bus services/ network/ facilities “Simple improvements like increasing the number of buses on certain routes, improved timing and reliability of services, better design of buses, special buses to take wheelchair users, others to take only prams…” Twenty one percent of disabled respondents felt improvements to bus services, networks or facilities were required, compared to 16% of those who were not disabled. Twenty three percent of females felt the same way, compared to just 13% of males.

Page 47: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

47

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Improvements to rail services/ network/ facilities “More investment in trains is needed, more rolling stock and more research into where there are shortfalls.” Those in the Inner North West (20%) were most likely to suggest improvements to the rail services, whilst those in the Inner North East (14%) were least likely. Implement tram system/rapid mass transit “What we need is a tram system, like Sheffield, going to all parts of the City; ideally I would like an underground service like London.” Younger people were more likely to suggest a tram/ rapid mass transit system is implemented, 18% of under 25s suggested it compared to just 9% of 45 to 65 year olds and 7% of those 65+. Males were twice as likely as females to suggest a tram/ rapid mass transit system be implemented (14% compared to 7%). Reduce car use in City centre/ tackle congestion, e.g. restrict access, reduce speeds, Park and Ride “Make the City centre vehicles free. Only buses, taxi and blue badge holders can drive on the Leeds loop roads” Those in the Inner North West (19%) were most likely to suggest reducing car use in the City centre/ tackling congestion, compared to just 7% in the Outer North East.

A full list of comments for the open ended questions is included in Appendix C.

Page 48: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

48

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

2.9 Young Persons Survey: Summary of Results

A total of 136 young people aged under 25 responded to the Young Persons survey, which was conducted jointly by WYCA and LCC. A copy of the full report can be found in Appendix D. The survey was circulated by the Leeds Voice and Influence team to over 1200 contacts and organisations to distribute to young people and was available online on the LCC and WYCA websites between the 16th September and the 11th November. The first part of the survey was West Yorkshire District wide and looked at bus services specifically. The findings show that the majority of bus journeys made by young people in the survey were on weekday mornings and these journeys were most likely to be for shopping or school/training. The most common problems experienced were:

Buses are not always on time (90%);

Buses not turning up (70%);

Time taken to get to their destination (58%); and

Travelling by bus isn’t a nice experience (55%). Respondents suggested a number of ways of improving bus travel that included-:

Reliability

Improved information (including real time information)

Connectivity: interchange particularly multi-modal

Quality: waiting environment and on-board (new seats and cleanliness)

Technology: Wi-Fi “Clean buses More legroom onboard WiFi for all services more frequent buses” The second part of the survey covered the Leeds Transport Conversation, and respondents were asked to ‘weigh up’ which of two statements came closest to their own opinion of how transport should work differently in the future. There were 105 respondents to the Leeds Transport Conversation section. The table below summarises the results in order of the most popular statement first. This shows that bus travel was considered extremely important by young people because it helped them be independent (90%). The least supported statement was ‘I don’t need public transport’ which was supported by only 10% of respondents. The following comment illustrates the importance of reliability: “I had to change colleges after one week as the bus didn’t turn up any of the days even though it was confirmed with the bus company”

Page 49: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

49

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

This second table summarises the results to show the least popular statement first:

A copy of the joint LCC/ WYCA report on the Young Persons Survey can be found in Appendix D.

Page 50: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

50

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

2.10 Cheaper Buses for Leeds - Youth Parliament November 2012

The survey results from the ‘Cheaper Buses for Leeds’ (undertaken in November 2012 by the Youth parliament) was also submitted as part of the Conversation. The survey had 952 respondents between the ages of 9 and 19. The main issues raised in this survey were price; cleanliness (smell); bus driver attitudes; understanding bus routes and timetables; and integrated ticketing. Suggestions for improvement included reduced prices; dayrider tickets across the City; provision of London Underground style maps; and group tickets.

Page 51: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

51

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

3. Stakeholder Workshops and Face to Face Meetings

3.1 Introduction

In this section we summarise the response to the Stakeholder Summit, Stakeholder workshops and group discussions with:

Community Committees

Youth groups

Older people’s forums

Equality groups

Special interest transport groups (including the Motorcycle Action Group and Cycle Forum)

City wide interest groups

Business groups Any letters, emails, Facebook and Twitter comments received were also considered as part of this section. Due to the diverse and wide ranging structure of the responses to the conversation and to ensure this breadth is covered in sufficient detail, we have collated and analysed the responses by theme and highlighted where relevant, any converging and diverging views rather than the type of respondent organisation. All responses have been treated equally. Key Themes

3.2 Integrated transport, hubs and ticketing

3.3 Bus:

─ 3.3.1 Electric and hybrid and newer bus stock

─ 3.3.2 Bus traffic priority

─ 3.3.3 Provision of information and Real Time Information (RTI)

─ 3.3.4 Changes to bus services

─ 3.3.5 Franchise structure and comments on operators

─ 3.3.6 Access bus

─ 3.3.7 Congestion

3.4 Cycling

3.5 Mass Transit and Tram

3.6 Rail

3.7 Cars, Freight and Roads

3.8 Park and Ride (all modes)

3.9 Changes to Leeds City centre

3.10 Future travel and technology

3.11 Active and sustainable travel3.12 Connectivity to Leeds Bradford Airport

Page 52: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

52

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Smart Ticketing Check Point

3.2 Integrated transport, hubs and ticketing

There was strong and consistent feedback from workshops about the need for integrated ticketing and the need to integrate the transport infrastructure between all types of transport and services. For example, community and hospital transport, transport for social services and children’s services. Many groups and discussions highlighted the need for integrated ticketing. At a Community Committee meeting, examples of this type of ticketing were given such as that existing in London, which allows for multi-modal travel with the use of one ticket.

“One fare system on buses/flat fare travel (London £1.50 for 1hrs worth of bus travel across multiple buses)”

A transport pressure group also felt that stable ticket pricing should be a key aspiration for Leeds. “Rolling out a smart ticketing system across all modes is of the utmost

priority for integration”

Community groups also echoed this, aspiring to a multi-mode ‘smart’ solo ticket system which offers greater flexibility. This view was shared by a local Chamber of Commerce which felt there should be a commitment to create an integrated ‘metro-style’ integrated transport network across the West Yorkshire region. The Chamber would like to see the £173.5 million budget used as a catalyst to invest in: “a homogenous approach to integrated travel across the area rather than a micro-focus on local transport problems” Several responding groups felt Leeds should look to other cities as a model for how to improve integrated transport, with a transport interest group suggesting that;

“The bus network needs to become integrated within itself and with other transport modes, yet also be

more flexible. This will be sought through integrated ticketing and scheduling and by passengers being

able to interchange bus services at intermediate interchanges”

A commercial estates group felt the local transport network in Leeds was becoming increasingly inadequate, and development of the network is needed to realise the commercial potential in Leeds City centre. “We particularly endorse the important role that growing the city’s public transport network will have in realising potential jobs growth and improving the quality and environment of the city centre.” Comments in response to the conversation on Twitter highlighted a need for Leeds to improve its network if the city is going to offer an attractive location for global companies. The physical separation of Leeds rail and bus stations as an existing barrier to interchange between rail and bus was also highlighted in various workshops and was echoed by a forum for disabled people. One solution offered to encourage integration of travel was to provide better integration through the use of transport ‘hubs’ by adding well-lit paths and walking facilities and green infrastructure. The introduction of a cycle hire scheme, similar to Boris Bikes in London, was also suggested as a way of improving integration.

Page 53: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

53

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Transdev36 bus

Transdev36 bus

Summary of suggested improvements

Integrated Ticketing e.g. London

Integrated Bus and Train station

Hubs connected with green infrastructure and cycle parking

Improved functioning of the network

3.3 Bus

3.3.1 Electric and hybrid and newer bus stock

The Transdev 36 bus (high specification vehicles with leather interior which run on the route connecting Ripon and Leeds) was often cited by groups and workshops as setting the standard for all buses in Leeds. A Community group and workshops echoed this, stating their desire to see fast, frequent, high quality vehicles with high quality interiors. On board Wi-Fi was cited by one youth group as an improvement which would help to achieve the aim of increased bus patronage. “I’m a teenager so any buses with Wi-Fi and plugs to charge phones is definitely a good idea!” Young Persons Survey Use of electric vehicles was also mentioned in connection with the need to reduce air and noise pollution from buses. Vehicles of this nature were cited as an aspiration for Leeds by several responding groups. However, one respondent raised the issues of buses being too quiet so visually impaired people can’t hear them coming. A transport pressure group felt that on orbital and radial corridors where light rail is not a possible solution, there should be a commitment to deliver a high quality bus service to these routes through electric or hybrid vehicles.

Summary of suggested improvements

High quality bus provision including Wi-Fi, clean and high quality interiors e.g. Transdev 36

Electric Buses

Improvements in air quality

Transdev36 bus

Page 54: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

54

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Bus

Parking on Pavements

3.3.2 Bus traffic priority

The need for infrastructure changes to give buses priority over other road traffic was mentioned in many discussions, workshops and responses. One transport expert highlighted the need for enhanced bus priority measures to improve traffic flow and the pedestrian experience. A business response stated that active traffic management is needed to improve the reliability of bus services. One group felt cooperation was needed between Leeds City Council/WYCA and bus operators to allow buses to move unimpeded by congestion. The issue of bus movement was also picked up in an elderly forum workshop regarding cars being parked on the roads. “People working in town and parking their cars on the roads, making it hard for buses to pass and to cross the road” Richmond Hill Elderly Forum Bus lanes seemed to be a somewhat polarising issue. Some responses stated that creating new bus lanes was necessary with one response highlighting locations where they could be introduced.

“Bus lanes are brilliant – better perceived air quality as bus not queuing”

Physical and Sensory Impairment workshop.

By contrast there were several comments made that the removal of existing bus lanes in central Leeds would improve traffic flow.

There is also perceived to be an issue of buses in the City centre with a transport interest group stating

that:

“Air Quality is known to be a serious problem in Leeds City Centre… the very large number of buses and

almost complete lack of bus priority or regulation of boarding and alighting means that a large amount of

this pollution will be from buses”

Some contributors, while supporting proposals to improve an outer ring road junction, felt provision for buses had been omitted from the plan and that an element of bus traffic priority should have been included in that scheme. The Motorcycle Action group would like to see sharing of bus lanes with motorcycles.

Summary of suggested improvements

Creation of more bus lanes

Signal priority for buses

Improve air quality

Motorcyclists share bus lanes

Restrict parking in bus lanes and roads

Page 55: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

55

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Information/ help point on tram Pavements

Young Persons Workshop

3.3.3 Provision of information and Real Time Information

Several groups highlighted the need for improved accessibility to accurate bus information for passengers. “not real-time, more like guess time” (Youth Forum feedback on buses)

In particular, increased provision of real time information across the network (highlighting a particular need for coverage to be increased in areas outside of central Leeds), and the facility to check for updates and or service status by text was mentioned. Transport experts felt the provision of real time information would help to increase bus patronage. Groups representing disabled passengers again highlighted the lack of audio-visual information on buses as a particular problem (see Chapter 4).

Provision of information at stops and at transport hubs was also cited as an issue by disabled groups and also by an individual member of the public, with reports back from Community Committees pointing out that timetables can be out of date. Requests were received to improve the clarity and durability of timetable displays.

3.3.4 Changes to bus services

Community groups made comments that related to existing services and day to day functioning of the bus network; calling for reduced journey times and increased off peak services. It was maintained that the early morning and late evening are not well served by public transport, with several Community groups highlighting the need for more evening services from Leeds centre to their locality. These groups also felt that better connectivity within and between communities was needed as bus routes do not provide adequate coverage between certain locations. One group wanted to see the application of local knowledge to create a bus network with improved journey times and increased connectivity between the East and West of Leeds. The need for cross-City routes through the City centre, removing the need to interchange between services in central Leeds, was also expressed. A number of Community groups and discussions commented there was a need for improved orbital bus routes around Leeds, with a further Community group suggesting that the routing of ‘circular’ buses around the Outer East area could be funded by supermarkets. A group of older residents felt existing bus services were not reliable enough, and that the current network does not adequately serve key locations such as hospitals, doctors’ surgeries and railway stations. A comment made by a local Community Healthcare provider highlighted the issue of patients being able to access services, requesting that services “should recognise patient flows locally”.

Summary of suggested improvements

Extend real time information coverage

Improve reliability of real time information

Improve audio-visual information on buses

Up to date information at bus stops

Page 56: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

56

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Comments from Twitter and emails highlighted poor bus reliability as a major cause of frustration for passengers, an issue which was also raised at many of the Community Committees and youth and elderly forums. “If I knew it was going turn up I’d use it more” Swarcliffe Youth group

“Not always on time so late to college” Tingley Youth group The cancellation of the previous free City bus was felt by an access group to be an issue for those wanting to get around the City. The importance of bus services to access work locations was stressed by a local developer. “Bus services have a substantial role to play in improving the accessibility of jobs in the City centre”.

3.3.5 Franchise structure and comments on operators

A Community group wanted to see changes to the commercial operation of bus services, with changes to the franchising structure to encourage operation with customer needs at the heart, rather than profit or shareholders. A further Community group wanted to see franchising improve reliability and reduce the price of services to the customer. Another Community group also felt it was key that bus operators deliver what the strategy requires of them including more circular routes around the City. One Community group felt that the customer service delivered by drivers should be improved at the point of service, increasing the focus on the customer experience, which was perceived to be variable at present. The cost of bus tickets was mentioned as a key concern by those responding from youth focused organisations. One group suggested that young people do not feel that bus services offer value for money, maintaining that initiatives which allowed young people to travel for £1 had been successful and should be expanded.

Summary of suggested improvements

Improved journey times

More services in off peak times such as early morning and late evening

Improved Orbital routes around Leeds

Improved reliability

Improved services to key locations e.g. Hospitals and Doctors surgeries

Reinstate the free City bus

Summary of suggested improvements

Changes to the franchising structure

Operators being more customer focused

Better value for money

Page 57: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

57

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

New Leeds Cycle City Connect scheme

3.3.6 Access Bus

Issues around the ‘Access’ bus were raised by a number of stakeholders and within equality workshops.

Comments made included the view that there was not enough time allowed when booking the bus (e.g.

having to ring up a week in advance). Also mentioned was a gap in provision of women taxi drivers,

particularly at night. Proposals were also submitted for a dial a ride service for older people and people

with special needs to connect them more specifically with the services or recreational opportunities they

need access to. A stakeholder workshop raised the issue of improved independence of those with

access/ learning needs, i.e. teaching them to use the bus independently rather than rely on the access

bus/ taxis. Another suggestion made was for increased service provision for vulnerable children and

adults.

3.4 Cycling

Increased infrastructure for cycling to improve accessibility was mentioned in several responses. Suggestions included increased provision of cycle lanes and the promotion of existing lanes to increase usage. A transport pressure group felt the introduction of cycle priority is needed at road junctions and that there should be more cycle paths which are segregated from traffic and pedestrians. Another suggestion was that towpaths could be regenerated. They also felt that cycle parking should be installed at all transport hubs to encourage usage and ease of interchange. This point was echoed by groups

representing the young. “Not many cycle paths around the City centre – lots of people that live in Leeds want more opportunities to cycle to work” Millennials workshop Email responses from members of the public gave specific support to the cycle network outlined in the City Connect ‘Cycling Ambition’ booklet, but felt that the North West of Leeds was neglected in this scheme and should be served by a new cycle path. However some respondents were not in favour of the City Connect scheme.

Summary of suggested improvements

More time allowed for Access bus bookings

Improved Access Bus Service

Improved provision for vulnerable children and adults

Education to promote independent use of public transport

There were similar issues raised in both the Leeds Transport Conversation and the WYCA Bus Strategy workshops relating to:

Multi modal ‘smart’ tickets

Greater accessibility to real time information and improved audio-visual information for those with disabilities

Enhanced bus priority measures e.g. bus lanes

Shorter journey times, more comprehensive routes and need for off peak services

Hybrid, electric and newer buses

Improvements in air quality

Re-instating disused rail lines

Page 58: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

58

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Improved cycle routes and paths to schools were also cited as priorities by several groups. In contrast to this clear support for further improvements to encourage cycling, some Community workshops and individuals raised issues around the implementation of the cycle network and were not in favour.

3.5 Mass Transit and Tram

Mass transit was mentioned by several of the Stakeholder and

Community Committee workshops and in various discussions

with stakeholders. The view was that a commitment to

delivering mass transit needs to be included in the strategy.

A transport pressure group felt the short-term aspiration

should be Bus Rapid Transit with road allocation through

dedicated lanes, stops with platforms, regulated boarding and

alighting and entirely off-bus fare collection (aside from

contactless payment). They felt that this should then be

replaced by a tram network in the longer-term.

A local sustainability group agreed that the money should be spent on one “truly impressive

development….and give Leeds an exemplar project and set the pattern for future expansion” rather than

spending it incrementally on smaller schemes with less apparent impact. The unprompted section of the

questionnaire showed a high interest in tram with 16% of respondents mentioning the need for a tram

system. Feedback from the Stakeholder workshop wanted bold solutions stressing that the £173.5 million

shouldn’t be the budgetary limit. Others suggested additional potential funding streams including;

implementing within the NWLTF Alternative Transport Strategy; Infrastructure Tax; Workplace parking

levy; Road Space levy; and Community Infrastructure Levy.

One community group and respondents via email stated that the transport debate should assess fully the

merits of all tram and rail related modes to ensure expert views were incorporated in order to reach the

best solution for Leeds. The same group also advocated the building of a new tram link between East

Leeds and Bradford, while another felt an ‘overground’ or ‘underground’ approach was needed across the

area, with a focus on tram in East Leeds.

An Underground or light rail solution were also mentioned by several responding groups. An underground

was also raised in the unprompted response section of the questionnaire with 5% of those providing a

comment, suggesting investment in an underground system is required.

One respondent stressed the need for a tram-train link and interchange with the planned HS2 North.

Another put forward the idea of a cable-car based mass transit system for Leeds City centre and suburbs.

However, not everyone was in favour of introducing a tram, underground or overground infrastructure,

with several individuals expressing concern. Community groups tended to focus on their local area feeling

Summary of suggested improvements

More cycle lanes/paths

Cycle priority at junctions

Cycle parking at hubs

Cycle network implementation City connect

Page 59: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

59

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

New Kirkstall Forge Rail Station

local connections should form the bulk of the strategy: “small-scale local improvements should be

prioritised as they are more impactful to passengers at the point of use”.

One transport expert made several suggestions for potential upgrades to improve connectivity in the region including Light Rail Transit or Bus Rapid Transit to St James Hospital, upgrading existing guided bus corridors and other radial corridors.

3.6 Rail

Several Community groups and Stakeholder workshops discussed the idea of reopening closed or disused rail lines and stations, with one suggesting using an old track bed to serve Elland Road and other locations. The issue of safety and the need for improvements at rail stations was mentioned by one community group. The issue of accessibility at rail stations was raised by disability and access groups. As well as the need to refurbish some stations such as Leeds, Cross Gates and Bramley, it was suggested that pedestrian and cycle access to stations such as Pudsey should be improved. One Community group suggested that if more new stations are created, longer platforms should be a form a part of the design and consequently, there would be a need for longer trains. These measures would serve to increase capacity. Another idea was to open new stations on the existing network with a local transport pressure group commenting that there is “a lack of local rail stations in the City” In terms of improving rail infrastructure in Leeds, a transport group from a local council felt that existing train lines should be utilised by short-haul commuter services, with the HS3 concept implemented to cover inter-city journeys out of Leeds. While a transport pressure group felt the long term rail solution should be the provision of four tracking (to increase capacity) to the east of Leeds, they felt the short term approach should be to increase the number of rail stations. The response from a Chamber of Commerce also agreed with this notion highlighting the need to ensure that all rail related projects in the pipeline (including HS2, Northern Powerhouse related schemes and wide spread electrification) come to fruition. One response also highlighted the need for electrification on the Leeds-Harrogate–York circuit. Not everyone was in favour of HS2 or Northern Powerhouse Rail (formally referred to as HS3) with several individuals expressing concern. Overcrowding on existing train services, the high price of fares and complicated ticketing were also cited as key issues for several responding groups, as well as by both the young and older people’s workshops.

Summary of suggested improvements

Short term bus based rapid transit

Tram, train and underground options need consideration

Bold and impressive solutions required

Local improvements and connectivity also required

Page 60: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

60

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

3.7 Cars, Freight and Road

A stakeholder group felt that in order to reduce congestion (and car numbers) in central Leeds, priority needed to be given to public transport, maintaining that people chose to have cars because the public transport options are not there. It was also suggested that a lack of public transport hits deprived communities with low car ownership the hardest. Several groups and individuals thought the reduction of car congestion should form a key part of the strategy and at the moment Leeds City centre is not “anti-car”. A couple respondents suggested the introduction of a congestion charge. One response specifically noted congestion on the M621 which generates a ‘knock on’ impact on to Leeds suburbs (particularly related to poor air quality and the impacts of this on residents’ respiratory health) and access into Leeds City centre. A Community group echoed this, stating that while congestion levels compare favourably with other cities, air quality was still an issue in Leeds. Whilst a local Chamber of Commerce suggested to: “Encourage more environmentally friendly buses to be operated, to assist the City’s Clean Air objectives”

A transport pressure group felt there should be further promotion of car sharing and travel planning in the region. One Community group maintained that just under a third of traffic in central Leeds transited through the City centre and the issue of increasing freight traffic, in particular home deliveries, was also raised in various workshops. A Stakeholder workshop suggested more should be done to reduce the passing of freight through the City centre. It was suggested there was a requirement for a consolidation centre. HGV parking in residential areas was raised as an issue in some areas. A local Chamber of Commerce also felt that a review of the function of the Leeds loop was required in conjunction with the implementation of the Leeds South Bank Highway Grid (covered under the South Bank consultation). Stakeholder feedback compared it to feeling like a ‘racetrack’, separating the City centre from surrounding communities. One respondent stated that road conditions were poor across Leeds and suggested new road surfaces to enhance the road conditions. The outer ring road was specifically mentioned as being in need of upgrading to dual carriageway standard with one email respondent suggesting it should be upgraded to a motorway. Improved links between the M1, A1 and the M621 were also raised. The A660 was also mentioned as being in need of improvement. There was also feedback suggesting that the maintenance of the Highway network is important as well as new schemes. It was suggested that having more Variable Message Signs would assist with traffic management and inform drivers enabling them to make decisions about their travel.

Summary of suggested improvements

New stations required

Station refurbishment

Improved accessibility of stations

Electrification of the rail network

Introduction of HS2

Use of former rail tracks

Reducing the cost of fares

Simplifying the ticket system

Page 61: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

61

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Elland Road Park and Ride

A local transport pressure group stated that building new roads would lead to increased traffic and as such should be the last resort, and should only be considered as an option when measures to reduce congestion had failed.

3.8 Park and Ride (all modes)

An increase in Park and Ride facilities was suggested for inclusion in the strategy by several responding groups and seen as a key way of reducing congestion. Additionally, several community groups requested an expansion of car parks at local railway stations to encourage those who would usually drive into the City centre to consider using the train. A transport group felt any focus on Park and Ride should be combined with traffic restrictions and a reduction in parking facilities in central Leeds. This would ensure that such schemes were used. “Park and Ride spaces in Leeds should replace City centre parking and not be in addition to it” A local developer felt the success of existing Park and Ride services was an indication that there was a demand for alternative travel methods.

“The success of Elland Road Park and Ride, despite not being an optimum location, demonstrates an underlying demand for effective alternatives to driving into the city centre” The success of Apperley Bridge station car park (full after 6 months) was also quoted in a community workshop as an example of a successful park and ride scheme at a rail station. Local Community groups suggested specific locations in their locality for Park and Ride infrastructure to improve connectivity for residents. A commercial property group felt a comprehensive approach to Park and Ride was needed around Leeds City centre. A number of community groups felt that it was important that Park and Ride facilities are integrated with other transport hubs, with a local business suggesting that: “Above all, a comprehensive approach to Park and Ride around Leeds City centre is required to intercept

traffic before it comes into central areas. Park and Ride has long been proposed on the M621 at Stourton.

Summary of suggested improvements

Review of the Inner loop

Freight traffic management

Reduce congestion in the city centre

Improve air quality

Promote car sharing

Improved road surfaces

Focus on road maintenance

New roads do not reduce car usage

Consolidation centre

Page 62: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

62

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Implementation of this scheme, connecting to the City centre by any form of public transport, must now be

a top priority”

A stakeholder workshop, with access and disabled representatives, raised the issue of creating

weatherproof ‘roofing’ over disabled car parking spaces so that disabled passengers are protected from

the weather when getting in and out of cars. It was also suggested that the work undertaken with the NGT

Access group should still be used.

3.9 Changes to Leeds City centre

The size of the City centre is expected to grow substantially over the next few years with the expansion of the South Bank area. As a consequence improving connections around and across the City centre were raised by various groups. Several emails requested more assessment of land use planning and access to employment when looking at changes to infrastructure and new public transport routes. As part of this the local Green Party and a transport group felt further pedestrianisation was needed in Leeds City centre, with the latter highlighting eastern and southern parts of the City as a particular concern. “There is too much traffic in the City centre, which on the Loop Road and parts of the Inner Ring Road is often moving too fast for people to cross the road safely between junctions and for cyclists to make movements which may conflict with general traffic.” The Inner South Community Committee workshop also raised the issue of improvements for pedestrians required in accessing the City centre. Issues of commuters parking in residential areas and then walking into the City centre were also raised. While a workshop of Millennials felt a 20mph zone was needed in the City centre, a transport pressure group felt there should be greater restrictions on freight movement in and out of Leeds City centre. This group stated there should be more loading and unloading bays, and also highlighted that water freight should also be explored. They also advocated the creation of compulsory parking permits for use in inner City locations. Parking in Leeds City centre was highlighted by a commercial property group who felt it is uncontrolled at present and several individuals requested more affordable parking in the city centre.

Summary of suggested improvements

Increase Park and Ride

Increase amount of parking spaces at train stations

Reduce amount of parking in the City centre

Traffic restrictions to encourage use of Park and Ride

Weather proof covers for disabled parking spaces

Summary of suggested improvements

Further pedestrianisation

Reduce traffic in City centre

Improve walking and cycling routes into City centre

Restrict freight in City centre and use of water freight

Improve parking controls

Page 63: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

63

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

New electric car charging point

New Leeds City Connect Cycle scheme

3.10 Future travel and Technology

The predicted growth in population and housing was raised by several groups and that there is consequently a need to be thinking about transport in both the shorter and longer term. It was felt that a key future focus should be on the enabling and promotion of other modes of travel around Leeds City centre, with a particular emphasis on shared cycle hire schemes, circular electric buses and autonomous vehicles. Better use of technology (e.g. free Wi-Fi was often quoted) and advance planning, were also raised in various workshops in terms of being able to use the existing infrastructure more efficiently. “We need a better understanding of journey planning using technology” Millennials workshop. Investing more in new technologies, e.g. electric cars, infrastructure and Uber was frequently cited in the Stakeholder workshops and Community Committees. However, some participants raised the issue of the battery life of electric cars and how viable they really are. One community group mentioned they liked the free parking offered to electric cars and another suggested being proactive when it comes to technology with statements on positions around technologies.

It was suggested that technology could be utilised to help with accessibility, for example, being able to book a wheelchair space on a bus was mentioned as a solution to access issues in a Stakeholder workshop.

3.11 Active and sustainable travel

One group questioned whether the target to increase bus patronage was sufficient, and whether this should include targets to increase walking and rail use as well. Both stakeholder workshops raised the promotion of walking and cycling as a key part of the strategy for shorter journeys, arguing that the associated health benefits should be promoted. Another group felt that the transport strategy should include a specific walking strategy, to include an examination and assessment of the required infrastructure i.e. lighting and pavement conditions. One community committee agreed, feeling that the walking infrastructure should be improved to maximise the potential for mode shift utilising existing ‘walk to work’ areas. Both a pressure group and a group for older people highlighted the need for footways and walking infrastructure to be maintained over time to ensure safe passage. A council environmental group stated that verges should be used to segregate

footways from main traffic roads to make walking (and cycling) “more pleasurable and healthier for all”.

Summary of suggested improvements

Journey planning using technology

Invest in/ better use of technology

Use of technology to aid accessibility

Page 64: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

64

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Cycle and Walkway example in Lyon, France

Safe crossing, particularly on routes to schools was also raised by individuals. An Older People’s Forum workshop highlighted issues with cars parking on pavements, emphasising the potential hazard this presents for pedestrians and other road users. A workshop of stakeholders felt investment in infrastructure and incentives are needed to encourage modal shift (making it easier to complete short journeys by foot or by bike). They felt such investment would save money in the long run through achieving a cultural shift in travel behaviour. They felt that branding was key to achieving this ‘step-change ’. As part of this approach there were discussions at stakeholder and Community workshops about how to encourage people to walk and cycle through the use of green infrastructure as well as taking a ‘whole corridor’ approach to transport improvements. A number of discussions at Community Committees discussed the need for incentives to encourage modal shift and to embed sustainable travel behaviour within younger generations. In a Stakeholder workshop, a suggestion was made that behavioural and cultural changes are required to change the way we travel, highlighting that encouraging changes in the workplace such as car-pooling and better facilities for cycling could be a way to start to achieve modal shifts.

Summary of suggested improvements

Promote the health benefits of cycling and walking

Provide incentives to encourage modal shifts

Use of branding to achieve cultural change and ‘step change’

Use green infrastructure to promote walking and cycling

‘Whole corridor’ approach to transport improvements required

Behavioural and cultural change required

Page 65: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

65

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

3.12 Connectivity to Leeds Bradford Airport.

Connectivity to Leeds Bradford Airport was mentioned several times across all groups as an issue to be addressed. One stakeholder group stated an improved connection to the airport was essential. Several Community groups specified an (electrified) rail link to the airport was needed, while one responding individual stated that funding should be applied specifically to build a tram-train link to the airport. Routes mentioned included Harrogate and Horsforth. Several community groups also questioned the existing location of the airport, stating a review of this was needed. However, some such as the Leeds Green Party were against any expansion of the airport. Harrogate Chamber of Commerce specified that bus services from Harrogate to Bradford via Leeds Bradford Airport were inadequate in terms of frequency, reliability and operating hours and that the current mistimed timetable deters potential users from either side of the airport. They also felt more work was required to attract fare-paying passengers to use the bus. Suggestions given for how to promote the service included: promotion from airlines, tourism websites and hotels and the addition of an express service to reduce journey times. North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce also felt more flights were needed from Leeds Bradford to ‘business’ destinations. The local Green Party and some individuals via email felt the creation of a light rail link to Leeds Bradford Airport was preferable to the creation of a new link road. One local parish council stated the consultation on the link road was flawed as it didn’t give respondents the option to reject all three proposed designs for the scheme nor allow individuals to make their own suggestions. There was also concern from the same parish council about the removal of green belt land through the proposed creation of the Airport Village, the Air Innovation and Freight Parks. They also expressed concern about environmental disturbance as a result of any expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport.

3.13 Examples from other Locations

The workshops and discussions often used other cities both in the UK and elsewhere as exemplars for Leeds to consider learning lessons from. Examples given included:

London’s ‘Freedom Pass’, integrated ticketing and cycling network;

Nottingham, for its workplace parking scheme levy;

Both Nottingham and Manchester for their tram systems;

Edinburgh and Manchester for their bus systems;

Gothenburg, for its train system;

Pittsburgh: driverless Supercars, better use of technology to inform journeys

Paris/Marseille - look to Europe and consider new technologies e.g. electric car hire

New Yorks High Line: reuse of a Railway viaduct

Summary of suggested improvements

Electrified rail link

Tram train link

New tram from East Leeds to Bradford

Location of airport changed to Church Fenton

Promote the existing bus link

More flights to business destinations

Consultation on link road

Page 66: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

66

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

4. Accessibility and Equality

4.2 Introduction

In this chapter we highlight the key issues raised in the questionnaire survey and the stakeholder workshops by women, older people, people with a disability and respondents from a Black or Minority Ethnic Group (BME).

4.3 City Centre

Pedestrian Friendly: Although women were the most likely to agree the city centre is pedestrian friendly (73%), those who identified themselves as disabled were the least likely to agree (65%). Car Parking: Issues with inappropriate parking in disabled spaces by other people were raised as well as the lack of disabled parking around schools. The size of car parking spaces was also raised as some use mini buses that are wheelchair accessible but the mini bus cannot fit into a single car parking space. Just 18% of respondents with a disability felt car parking was easy to find. The workshops with disabled people highlighted further issues with parking including:

The number and allocation of disabled parking spaces

The distance between parking spaces and their destinations

The availability of parking in the City centre

The varying costs of disabled parking

The lack of information regarding disabled parking spaces on the street. ‘Signage regarding real-time parking space availability – current offering is poor, suggestion of wider use

of the VMS system providing advanced information’ Physical and Sensory Impairment workshop

4.4 Use of public transport

4.4.1 Travel to work: Women (30%), BME respondents (28%) and those with a disability (40%) were more likely to use the bus to travel to work than others (24% average bus use).

4.4.2 Cost of Public Transport: Women (50%) and BME respondents (48%) were less likely to rate the

cost of public transport to get to work as ‘good’ than others (58% average). 4.4.3 Disabled: Disabled respondents were least likely to rate the door to door journey as good (50%)

and least likely to agree that public transport links to the city centre are good (42%).

Just 38% of disabled respondents felt confident changing between modes of transport. Those from accessibility groups felt more needed to be done to improve accessibility for all forms

of public transport, with the need for ongoing engagement with user groups at all stages of any improvement projects.

Representatives from both BME and disabled groups highlighted the issue of abuse and racism encountered by their members when using public transport, highlighting many people preferred to travel by car or taxi than public transport because of this. It was felt the strategy did not take these kinds of issues into account.

Detailed issues raised by disabled groups about travelling by public transport are provided below.

Page 67: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

67

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

4.4.4 Buses: A lack of wheelchair space on board buses, and in particular conflict with passengers with

pushchairs on board, was cited by disabled groups as an issue of concern. This resulted in them missing buses because there was no room on board.

“Remove the pole next to the wheelchair spot as it is really difficult to get a wheelchair into such a small space.” Young Persons survey

More visual information was felt to be needed. This includes both information about public transport, including route maps at stops or public transport hubs and on-board information such as what is the next station/ stop. Feedback from stakeholders and workshops was that drivers needed more training on disability awareness, particularly hidden disabilities.

There was a request from a workshop that disabled bus passes should be valid before, or at least from, 9am. It was felt the pass is there to compensate for the disability, unlike the free travel for older people. The Deaf Hub stated their members preferred to use passes as it minimises the need to engage in conversation with the driver with regards to destination/ money etc.

4.4.5 Trains: Better visual information was requested on trains, particularly by the Deaf Forum which

reported the lack of such information could mean members of the Forum got off in the wrong town or ended up on the wrong train. The use of mobile apps for information provision with regards to stops/ services was suggested. At stations this was considered particularly important for any ‘last minute change’, for example, when platform alterations are announced deaf people are left “confused as to why is everyone leaving the platform and where they are going”. Static information rather than scrolling was preferred so that it can be read and absorbed. In addition, ticketing was generally felt to be complex and expensive.

‘Trains too expensive, tickets too complicated’ Moor Allerton Elderly Forum

4.4.6 Community Transport and Taxis: There was also a feeling from these groups that community

transport functions quite inflexibly in terms of the times it is available and the destinations of travel.

Deaf respondents requested that taxi firms be included in the conversation as they can have problems communicating with drivers, particularly if they are sitting behind them, separated by a screen.

4.4.7 Transport disruption: The Deaf Hub fed back that there is a need for more Vehicle Activated

Signs (VAS) to convey information about transport disruption – hearing drivers obtain this from the radio.

Page 68: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

68

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Summary of suggested improvements

Better visual signs

Improved wheelchair space on buses

Extension of bus pass validity

Bus driver training and engagement

Use of technology to facilitate accessibility

More VAS signs for disruption and parking

Trains expensive and complicated ticketing

Address issues of abuse and racism experienced on public transport

Page 69: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

69

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

High Level of Engagement

Desire to Travel sustainably

Investment

Greater integration

Inclusivity

5. Summary and Conclusion

The Transport Conversation has utilised a wide range of media and consultation methods to engage as a wide variety of Leeds residents, businesses and visitors as possible. 8169 questionnaire responses, along with feedback from 100 workshops, meetings and presentations demonstrated a keen interest in engaging with the city on issues of transport, both now and in the longer term. Across the consultation there was a strong desire to travel more sustainably. In the workshops, letters and emails, many of the comments referred to wanting to improve public transport, walking and cycling routes. This is evidenced in the questionnaire survey where those who currently drive to work and to non-work activities wanted to use a more sustainable mode for these journeys (56% and 47% respectively). However, current options were not thought to meet the needs of respondents. The reliability, frequency of services, availability of services, time taken to get to their destination and poor interchange were all cited as barriers to using public transport. Very few people felt comfortable cycling in the city and the issue of safe cycling routes was raised by stakeholders. Across the survey and other consultation mechanisms, respondents felt that investment in the Leeds Transport System was vital to improve the economy and the environment. Some suggested looking towards other cities such as Manchester and Nottingham for their tram systems, and London for its integrated ticketing. Countries further afield were also thought to be leading the way in their use of technology and use of electric and driverless vehicles. In the survey respondents supported a combination of short and long term spending (61%). This was also raised by stakeholders who suggested a number of ‘quick wins’ to improve current travel in and around Leeds such as bus priority lanes and wider ranging longer term solutions of mass transit to meet the demands of a growing population. There was an overarching desire for greater integration between modes both physically (i.e. joining bus and rail stations) and through a simpler and cheaper ticketing system. The need for better connections between local areas and key services such as hospitals, employment and education sites were also highlighted. Greater links to areas outside Leeds were also mentioned including HS2 and the need for improved access to Leeds/Bradford airport.

Women, those from a BME background and people with disabilities are more likely to use public transport than others and therefore any issues with public transport were felt most acutely by these groups. Similarly, those in more deprived areas where car ownership is low also felt the impact of poor public transport links more than others. Poor reliability, lack of services and cost impacted these groups quite significantly reducing their ability to access services, employment and education.

Page 70: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

70

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

The table below shows key suggested areas of improvement.

Page 71: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

71

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Appendix A Questionnaire

Page 72: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

72

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Appendix B Questionnaire Summary Tables

Please note that this summary includes the ‘NA - Not Applicable’

My Travel

Q1 To work

To non-work activities

How do you usually travel?

Bus 21% 23%

Car and park & ride 1% 1%

Car 36% 58%

Cycle 8% 4%

Train 10% 6%

Powered two wheeler 1% 1%

Walk 6% 6%

Other 3% 2%

I do not work 16% -

Base: all respondents (8169)

Q2a

Respondent profile

Rate usual type of transport for work – comfort and safety

Very Good 27%

Good 27%

Neutral 14%

Poor 10%

Very poor 4%

N/A 18%

Rate usual type of transport for work – cost

Very Good 20%

Good 23%

Neutral 20%

Poor 13%

Very poor 5%

N/A 19%

Rate usual type of transport for work – door to door journey time

Very Good 21%

Good 25%

Neutral 13%

Poor 13%

Very poor 9%

N/A 18%

Base: all respondents (8169)

Page 73: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

73

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Q2b

Respondent profile

Rate usual type of transport for work – comfort and safety

Very Good 38%

Good 37%

Neutral 14%

Poor 7%

Very poor 3%

N/A 1%

Rate usual type of transport for work – cost

Very Good 22%

Good 31%

Neutral 25%

Poor 13%

Very poor 5%

N/A 4%

Rate usual type of transport for work – door to door journey time

Very Good 26%

Good 34%

Neutral 19%

Poor 13%

Very poor 6%

N/A 2%

Base: all respondents (8169)

To work

To non-work activities

How would you prefer to travel in the future?

Bus 13% 18%

Car and park & ride 2% 3%

Car 22% 35%

Cycle 13% 10%

Train 13% 11%

Tram 11% 13%

Powered two wheeler 1% 1%

Walk 6% 6%

Other 3% 2%

I do not work 16% NA

Base: all respondents (8169)

Page 74: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

74

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Leeds City Centre

Q4 If you were to travel from your home to the city centre today, to what extent would you agree with the following statements?

Higher level of agreement from

Lower level of agreement from

71%

City centre is pedestrian friendly

Women (73%) Disabled (65%)

Under 25 (77%)

56%

There are too many cars in the city centre

Male (58%) Disabled (50%)

Inner North West (67%)

Outer North East (47%)

49%

Public transport links between my area and the city centre are good

Inner North West (64%)

Disabled (42%)

Under 25 (53%)

65+ (58%)

46%

Bus routes allow me to easily access the locations I need in the city centre

Inner North West (60%)

Inner South (41%)

Under 25 (54%) Disabled (41%)

65+ (56%)

29%

Air quality in the city centre is good

Women (31%)

Under 25 (37%)

26%

Car parking is easy for me to find in the city centre

25-44 (30%) Disabled (18%)

Inner North East (32%)

Inner East (20%)

8%

I feel comfortable cycling in the city centre

Inner West (12%) Outer North East (5%)

Under 25 (9%) Female (5%)

Base: all respondents (8169), subgroups varies

Page 75: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

75

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Leeds’ Neighbourhoods

Q5 Thinking about your current travel around and between Leeds’ neighbourhoods, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Higher level of agreement from

Lower level of agreement from

50%

Accessing local services is more important to me than travelling to the city centre

65+ (69%) Inner South (40%)

Disabled (63%)

Under 25 (40%)

35%

The distance to travel when changing between bus and or rail stops or stations is acceptable

Inner West (41%)

Inner South (32%)

Under 25 (46%)

Disabled (30%)

39%

I feel comfortable cycling around my local neighbourhood

Outer East (53%)

Inner South (24%)

Under 25 (46%)

Female (31%)

65+ (33%)

42%

My neighbourhood is pedestrian friendly

Outer South (53%)

65+ (32%)

Under 25 (65%)

45% I feel confident changing between different types of transport to get to my destination

65+ (54%) Disabled (38%)

33%

It is easy for me to use different types of transport for my local journeys

Inner North West (38%)

Inner East (24%)

65+ (45%) Disabled (29%)

73%

Public transport reliability is a problem for me. When using public transport I worry I will not make it to my destination on time

Inner West (81%)

Female (76%)

Under 25(80%)

65+ (61%)

Base: all respondents (8169), subgroups varies

Page 76: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

76

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Looking to the future – our transport strategy

Q6 Transport is a fundamental component of what makes a liveable city. Thinking about our future transport strategy to what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Higher level of agreement from

Lower level of agreement from

98% It is important that everyone can access our transport system

95% Transport should help create an attractive place where people want to live and work

Inner North East (97%)

Inner East (90%)

92% Transport should support the growth of our economy

Outer North East (96%)

Inner North West (89%)

91% Transport should have a positive effect on people's health and wellbeing

Inner West (93%)

Inner East (84%)

86% It is important that transport has less impact on the environment

Inner North West (94%)

Outer North East (83%)

Base: all respondents (8169), subgroups varies

Page 77: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

77

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Looking to the future – our transport strategy

Q7 Thinking about your experiences of travelling to or through the city centre and looking to the future, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Higher level of agreement from

Lower level of agreement from

78% Through car traffic should be directed away from the city centre

65+ (88%) Under 25 (73%)

Male (82%) Female (74%)

Disabled (74%)

78% More people should travel to the city centre by public transport

Inner North West (89%)

Outer North East (73%)

Disabled (71%)

76% The purchase of land and property to deliver transport improvements on narrow key transport routes should be considered

Inner East (84%)

Disabled (69%)

Male (84%) Female (67%)

71% I would use a Park and Ride service if it was quicker, cheaper and more convenient than parking in the city

Outer South (77%)

Disabled (62%)

65% More priority should be given to creating a pedestrian and cycle friendly environment in our city centre

Inner North West (85%)

Outer East (53%)

Disabled (57%)

56% We should take away road space from cars and give priority to public transport on main routes in to the city centre

Under 25 (60%) 45 to 64 (53%)

Inner North West (75%)

Outer East (46%)

Base: all respondents (8169), subgroups varies

Page 78: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

78

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Looking to the future and investing in transport

Q8 Please rate the following statements separately on a scale of 1 to 5. When thinking where to prioritise spending money on new transport infrastructure across the Leeds district, the Council should focus investment on…

Higher level of importance from

Lower level of importance from

76% Main routes approaching Leeds city centre Outer South (82%) Inner North East (71%)

Outer North West (81%)

Male (79%)

25 to 44 (79%)

64% Cross city journeys including those not going through the city centre

Inner North East (70%)

Female (67%)

63% Regional journeys and connecting Leeds to other cities

65+ (70%)

57% Local journeys in and round adjoining neighbourhoods

Female (64%) Male (52%)

65+ (64%)

BME (64%)

Disabled (65%)

44% Movement within the city centre Inner South (55%) Outer North West (34%)

Under 25 (55%)

BME (50%)

Disabled (50%)

Base: all respondents (8169), subgroups varies

Page 79: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

79

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Looking to the future and investing in transport

Q9 Please rate the following statements separately on a scale of 1 to 5. When thinking where to prioritise spending money on different types of new transport infrastructure across the Leeds district, the Council should focus investment on…

Higher level of importance from

Lower level of importance from

74% Schemes to reduce congestion at busy junctions

Inner West (79%)

Inner North West (64%)

Outer South (80%)

Outer West (78%)

Female (77%)

73% Schemes to improve the capacity of and access to the rail network, for example new stations

Outer North West (79%)

69% Alternative types of high quality, high capacity public transport schemes for example tram or bus rapid transit

Male (72%) 65+ (66%)

Under 25 (78%)

66% Schemes to improve bus journey times through changes to the road network

Female (71%)

BME (72%)

56% Schemes to create quality and safe pedestrian and cycling friendly areas

Inner North West (75%)

Outer East (40%)

Inner North East (70%)

65+ (51%)

Inner South (63%)

Under 25 (59%)

25 to 44 (59%)

BME (66%)

52% An increase in Park and Ride options around the city

Outer East (58%) Inner North West (41%)

Outer South (56%)

Under 25 (42%)

Female (55%)

Base: all respondents (8169), subgroups varies

Page 80: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

80

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Looking to the future and investing in transport

Q10 Delivering new transport infrastructure takes time and costs money. With the promise of an additional £173.5m from government for public transport improvements, we need to make sure that any changes to the road, bus or rail network are safe, provide improvements to journeys and that people have a chance to have their say.

Higher level of support from

Lower level of support from

61% A combination of the above approaches Outer West (66%)

Female (70%)

26% Focus our transport plan on delivering longer term improvements for future growth with a large-scale public transport project on fewer key routes

Outer North West (30%)

45+ (21%)

Male (32%)

14% Focus our transport plan on delivering earlier improvements in the short term across the city even if these schemes are smaller in scale

Inner North West (18%)

25-44 (11%)

Outer South (18%)

Base: all respondents (8169), subgroups varies

Page 81: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

81

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Appendix C Open Ended Questions and responses

Q12g Please provide any further comments on your priorities for transport investment.

Theme Topic Count Column N (%)

Bus More reliable bus service 630 14

Cheaper/ better value for money (Bus) 370 8

More frequent bus service 320 7

More bus routes 223 5

Improve bus priority on roads 220 5

Improve bus stock / bus stop facilities 160 4

Clean/ comfortable 129 3

Overcrowding issues, e.g. on board/ at stop, etc. 81 2

Expand evening and weekend services (Bus) 75 2

Bus routes to avoid City centre 62 1

Review bus stop locations 30 1

More cross-City bus services 27 1

Disabled / pushchair access - specific to bus 27 1

Bus laybys to stop the build-up of traffic when stopping 7 *

Chinese crawl bus/ elevated buses 5 *

Increase bus speeds 4 *

New Investment

Invest in tram system 743 16

Expanded Metro rail service 403 9

Investment in new technologies, e.g. electric/ eco-friendly vehicles/ zero emissions

257 6

Invest in underground system 243 5

Increased capacity on rail 234 5

Rail link to the airport 230 5

New stations on existing lines 164 4

Investment in infrastructure 158 4

Rapid mass transit system - not specified 137 3

Invest in monorail/ SkyTran 90 2

Improvements to existing stations, e.g. extended platforms, facilities

80 2

Investment in trains/ rolling stock 78 2

Develop high quality interchanges 52 1

Improve connections to key destinations 46 1

High speed links to other cities 32 1

Electrification of rail routes 27 1

Trolley bus 16 *

Water transport 4 *

Public Transport Provision

Expansion of Park and Ride facilities 403 9

Improve journey times/ more express services 332 7

Better connections with surrounding areas 316 7

Greater promotion/ encouragement to use other modes 269 6

Fully integrated public transport 261 6

Page 82: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

82

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Reliable public transport 253 6

Improved journey times 176 4

Expand evening and weekend public transport (General) 146 3

More frequent rail service 126 3

Just improve the current provision / no new large infrastructure e.g tram needed

118 3

Longer term vision for transport solutions needed 104 2

Criticism of public transport companies putting profits before service / strikes

100 2

Disability friendly 88 2

Improve customer service, e.g. driver training 86 2

Real time information, e.g. on board/ at stop/ online/ app based 86 2

Frequent public transport 70 2

Avoid all routes coming into the City centre 59 1

Improve safety on public transport, e.g. CCTV, lighting at stops, visible staff presence

56 1

More reliable rail service 50 1

More choice of public transport generally 48 1

Clear/ uncomplicated/ easy to understand network 47 1

Better connections between different services 46 1

All routes into the City must be looked at 43 1

Restrict timetable changes 28 1

Road Network/ Vehicles

Tackle traffic congestion, e.g. congestion charge, car share 476 11

Restrict access for cars 241 5

Investment in roads 230 5

Improve traffic management, e.g. phasing of lights, etc. 194 4

Maintain/ improve provision for car users 174 4

Increase parking provision 129 3

Improve road maintenance 116 3

Reduce parking charges 88 2

Motorcycles/taxis to use bus lanes 80 2

Improved signage 55 1

Measures to reduce speeds in certain areas 37 1

Criticism of road works, e.g. disruption caused, etc. 34 1

Criticism of taxi drivers, inconsiderate driving, parking, etc. 27 1

Get rid of bus lanes 11 *

Increase road speeds 2 *

Sustain-able modes

Improvements to cycling facilities 823 18

Improvements to pedestrian facilities 327 7

Criticism of cycling improvements / waste of money 312 7

Segregate pedestrians and cyclists 50 1

Pedestrianise the City centre 46 1

Bikes on public transport 12 *

Criticism of pedestrian improvements / waste of money 2 *

Ticketing Cheaper/ better value for money (General) 326 7

Page 83: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

83

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

More competition to force a better service and value for money 122 3

Oyster card/ contactless ticketing system (General) 93 2

Simplified/ one-standard ticketing system 67 2

Oyster card/ contactless ticketing system (Bus) 56 1

Improvements to ticketing 39 1

Free public transport 35 1

Cheaper/ better value for money (Rail) 8 *

Other General

Criticism regarding money wasted on previous schemes, e.g. tram/ trolley bus, redesign of road network

160 4

Comment about consultation process 110 2

Better planning/ consideration of current traffic issues when building new housing developments, office blocks, etc.

89 2

Other - not coded 82 2

Put public transport back into the control of LCC 57 1

Tougher regulation of operators 43 1

Comment not relevant 10 *

Incorporate surrounding areas 7 *

Facilitate simple and effective movement of people 5 *

Develop hierarchy of users 5 *

Base Respondents who provided a comment 4545

Page 84: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

84

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Q13a Please provide any further comments

Theme Topic Count Column N (%)

New Investment

Improvements to rail services/ network/ facilities 341 15

Implement tram system/rapid mass transit 262 11

Improvements to ticketing, e.g. affordability, fare structure, value for money

163 7

Implement underground/monorail system 138 6

Better links to the airport 93 4

Improve connections between public transport services 57 3

Utilise/ build on existing infrastructure 54 2

Greater funding/ investment needed 47 2

Improve facilities for disabled users, including visually/ hearing impaired, mental and physical disabilities/ illnesses

27 1

Use of latest technology, e.g. apps, charging points, Wi-Fi, visual maps

28 1

Improve access to facilities 8 *

Better links to key destinations, e.g. hospitals, etc. 2 *

Public Transport Provision

Improvements to bus services/ network/ facilities 386 17

Criticism regarding money wasted on previous schemes 148 6

Develop comprehensive public transport network across the City 124 5

Develop multi-modal transport network, e.g. integration with different modes

83 4

Integrate with surrounding areas, e.g. transport links with neighbouring towns/ cities/ outskirts of Leeds, etc.

67 3

Criticism regarding emphasis/ money spent on cycling network, .e.g. Super Network

60 3

More competition between operators to force a better service and value for money

57 3

Implement/ extend bus priority measures 56 2

Encourage modal shift away from cars 53 2

Consider/ prioritise all major routes into the City centre 44 2

Criticism of HS2, e.g. unnecessary, waste of money 14 1

Road Network/ Vehicles

Reduce car use in City centre/ tackle congestion, e.g. restrict access, reduce speeds, Park and Ride

262 11

Improve road network/ capacity 152 7

Develop road network in line with new developments/ More joined up approach between transport and town planning

45 2

Improve/ maintain/ review parking provision/ charges 42 2

Maintain/ improve provision for car users 29 1

Allow taxis and motorcycles to use bus lanes 16 1

Clear and comprehensive signage of road network 3 *

Sustainable Modes

Improvements to cycling facilities, e.g. cycle lanes, priority at junctions

208 9

Improvements to pedestrian facilities, including pedestrianisation 88 4

Focus on delivering sustainable transport solutions 27 1

Greater regulation/ enforcement of cyclists 10 *

Page 85: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

85

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Concerns regarding joint consideration of cyclists and pedestrians, i.e. segregation required

8 *

Other General

Longer term vision for transport solutions needed 421 18

Consider needs of all users, e.g. commuters, residents, visitors, etc. 206 9

Deliver several small scale joined up schemes 197 9

Other - not coded 188 8

Creative/ imaginative/ innovative ideas needed - Need to think big/ bold, etc.

164 7

Reduce environmental impact of transport network 152 7

Short term thinking needed on the Transport System 120 5

Deliver one or two major projects with significant benefits 94 4

Comment not relevant 88 4

Learn from experiences elsewhere, e.g. nationally/ internationally, etc.

63 3

Comment about consultation process 57 3

Leeds behind counterparts/ action needed now 53 2

Seek funding from regional and national partners 53 2

Change in political power needed/ criticism of local/ national governance

21 1

Revert to public ownership 11 1

Mitigate negative impacts of major schemes on existing transportation network

7 *

Base Respondents who provided a comment 2323

Page 86: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

86

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Appendix D Young Persons Survey

Page 87: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

87

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Appendix E Stakeholders and Workshops Attendees

Page 88: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

88

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Quality information

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Catherine Farrugia

Senior Consultant

Fiona McCorquodale

Data Manager

Thomasin Stuart Associate Director

Christine Johnson

Associate Director

Revision History

Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position

1 5th December

2016

Edits requested by client

TS Tamsin Stuart Associate Director

2 6th December

2016

Edits requested by client

TS Tamsin Stuart Associate Director

3 7th December

2016

Edits requested by client

TS Tamsin Stuart Associate Director

4 8th December 2016 Edits requested by client

TS Tamsin Stuart Associate Director

5 9th December 2016 Edits requested by client

TS Tamsin Stuart Associate Director

6 16th February 2017 Additional information added by client

TS Tamsin Stuart Associate Director

7 25th April 2017 Edits requested by client

TS Tamsin Stuart Associate Director

Page 89: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

89

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

Prepared for:

Leeds City Council

Prepared by:

Thomasin Stuart Associate Director T: 0161 927 8248 E: [email protected] AECOM Limited AECOM House 179 Moss Lane Altrincham WA15 8FH UK T: +44(0)1619 278200 aecom.com

© 2016 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved.

This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM.

Page 90: AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 1 Transport Conversation Main R… · AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation 4 Current modes used Most respondents (84%) stated they travelled to work,

AECOM Leeds Transport Conversation

90

Prepared for: Leeds City Council

aecom.com


Recommended