| The tram debate - have your say |
|
This page exists as an archive. If you would like to discuss
this or other local topics or issues with other visitors to BBC Nottingham
website, please visit our new message
board.
13th
August 2002
Mr Willoughby from Jim
Mr Stephen Willoughby – I’m glad you can join us. We already have
the chairman of BACIT so now with the chairman of BCBRA we should
have some serious debate. It has got a bit tedious lately with the
entire running coming from the pro-tram lobby and I agree a lot of
rash untruths from people masquerading as the anti tram lobby. Hopefully
the record will now be put straight. Regarding meeting you I shall
decline as I did when Steve Barber invited me for a drink (I don’t
know if he was paying). The £250,000. Do you not remember at your
last meeting in College House School your treasurer commented on the
cost of the public enquiry but said not to worry as you may have the
backing of a large multi-national organisation? I was there as were
several members of BACIT (I am not a member). They have minuted it
on their web site. Was the treasurer correct? How are these negotiations
go! in! g on? Who is the backer? Will you now make a statement? (remember
NET are monitoring this site). I am surprised that you claim Green
credentials. During the fuel protest you were most vocal and collected
signatures for a petition. It’s interesting to note that the only
effect of that campaign was to increase the profit margins for the
oil companies & garages. You are concerned for your business; I can
see why, 1m car journeys off the road per year a lot originating from
Chilwell would seriously affect your car & petrol sales. However,
I wish you’d just say this and stop trying to make out it will be
detrimental to everyone else when it will not. I’m sorry but for you
who promotes motoring to claim the tram not to be environmentally
friendly I find hard to swallow. There is overwhelming evidence that
the daily pollution caused by motorists especially commuters is damaging
our health. The tram creates zero local air pollution and very little
noise, especially when compared to ! th! e thousands of daily car
journeys it will remove.
Jim
Beeston |
13th
August 2002
Reply to Steve Willoughby of BCBRA
So BCBRA are lobbying for hydrogen fuel cell buses now are they? Earlier,
according to their web site, it was trolley buses - presumably they
feel they need to be seen to be pushing alternative to trams. But,
of course, NEITHER of these is a complete alternative. Its true that,
like trams, hydrogen buses and trolley buses emit no pollution at
point of use (although hydrogen buses do cause pollution in the production
of their fuel). I would certainly like to see hydrogen buses replace
their diesel equivalents. But either of them answers the problem of
congestion. They are still buses - they will not attract more car
drivers to public transport - and they still use road space. In contrast
trams are shown to increase the use of public transport. Eg in Sheffield
and Croydon around 20% of tram passenger trips would have previously
been made by car - thats alot of car ! journeys taken off the road.
Trams also have mostly off road running, freeing road space for the
cars so loved by some of the BCBRA members. And trams have better
braking, more room for pushchairs, and, unlike buses, will carry elderly
people in shopmobility-type electric scooters - and many other advantages
that have already been mentioned in earlier postings.
Mark Ramsey
Chilwell |
13th
August 2002
Tram a Waste of Money?
I'd just like to point out (in case you hadn't noticed) that I made
a second posting a few days ago, but it ended up in the 'Nottingham
- Best City?' section for some bizarre reason. And in reply to G Bennett
- the overhead assembly has been greatly improved on trolleybuses
over the years, it is less obvious, far more reliable (especially
with the inclusion of trolleybuses that have motorised raising/lowering
of the contacts) and the batteries are also greatly improved, which
means they can travel for longer without a direct power supply (and
some even have small diesel generators for longer distances). Others
have commented on the appearance of trolleybuses being less appealing
than trams - I can't imagine what trolleybuses you've seen, but the
ones I know about look almost exactly like trams. Check out the bottom
of this page for proof: http://www.tbus.org.uk/innovation.! htm Note
the Renault and Bombardier ( a name that should be familiar to pro
and anti-trammers alike) models in particular.
The Insider
Nottingham |
|
12th August 2002
A few replies
Steve Willoughby, how does changing the motive power of buses alter anything regarding
road traffic congestion, especially in the peaks? Insider and Outsider give an
answer – more roadbuilding. If Outsider’s friends do not conform to orthodox BCBRA
policy, perhaps they could leave and form a breakaway group - Blitzing Cities
By Roadbuilding Absolute. Suppose I suggest a new road along Chilwell Valley (one
might have been built 20 years ago). And whilst we are at it, road widening along
Chilwell High Road involving the demolition of all the shops there, followed by
demolition of Wilford embankment for a new road there, restoration of vehicular
access over the Trent at Wilford, etc. Dave B., you are concerned that Chilwell
should not be invaded by riffraff coming in by tram. But if the present bus services
are fantastic, aren’t burglars using them right now? Thought for the day -! just
where do the tram objectors think they are going to be two years from now?
G. Bennett
Wilford |
12th August 2002
Arnold - Orbital and Radial RADIAL
Local authorities can safeguard existing roads or land for future tram routes,
so that no major road improvements or planning permission for buildings would
be allowed to obstruct the route. There is no such safeguarding for a tramline
along Mansfield Road to Arnold. The A614 is not an overloaded inter-urban highway,
and any tram direct to Arnold would have to share the existing carriageway. Without
special priority at light-controlled junctions, the trams will be no faster than(bendy)buses.
The City Local Plan safeguards a tram route along the ring road from the QMC to
Sherwood, thus serving the City Hospital. It is possible a guided-bus could be
introduced here experimentally. I presume either mode would use the central reservation.
The Gedling Local Plan shows no continuation of this route, but there are no legal
or logistical problems about that. Gedling Council is conducting a feasibility
study into passenger trains or trams on the old Gedling colliery rail route. A
ring road tram route would I presume run to Arnold town centre via Daybrook Square
and the Civic Centre. A branch to Bestwood could be considered. Perhaps Top Valley
and Rise Park could be served by a branch off Line One. The possibility of an
Arnold-Gedling tram also occurs to me, to extend an orbital. The old railway trackbed
from Gedling to Basford via Daybrook (for Arnold) has long been destroyed by housing.
Called the BACK LINE, it closed in 1960 because of mining subsidence in Mapperley
tunnel. A tram could run along Arnot Hill Road, then alongside, but segregated
from, the A6211. A long strip of playing fields is available. The trams would
require powerful motors to climb up Mapperley Plains – no wonder the railway had
to tunnel! New housing on the Gedling Colliery site is intended for the future,
so any City-Netherfield-Gedling tram should at least be projected this far.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
12th August 2002
Re: The Insider's loooong article
The Insider seems to be in a position where he can do something to help our wonderful
city. (But he does seem to be a jinx on all his friends and colleagues - boy oh
boy do they have some bad luck!) So what are you doing, Insider, apart from posting
anonymously to a public website? Lobbying against a £5 fee to drive through the
city centre, or campaigning for the workplace parking tax? I'm glad you're in
transport.. we might get some answers! Myself? I do voluntary work at one of our
top visitor attractions to ensure people who come here get more out of their visit.
And as for hitting someone with the chessboard - quoting your qualifications doesn't
make you the winner either! Best wishes
Mike Butler
Nottingham (of course!) |
12th August 2002
Tram - Willoughby’s nonsense
For Mr Willoughby to claim that the Chilwell route has a detrimental effect, economically
and environmentally, is bound to generate suspicion that anti tram people are
not telling the truth. Why meet with BCBRA again? One would simply hear the same
old nonsense which has long since been disproved. Instead, tell it straight! Your
company selling cars and petrol is bound to fear a tram. It won’t fear hydrogen
buses because a bus is a bus and it won’t attract car drivers and middle class
people. Hydrogen buses do emit pollution indirectly – you can’t claim that trams
just displace the pollution and then not acknowledge that hydrogen buses do the
same. Trams bring about a bigger reduction both by being more efficient, and by
being attractive to car drivers. What’s more track beds for trams are easier to
build than bus roads, unless of course you are suggesting that the bus! es! will
run over existing roads all the time, which makes them even less attractive. All
in all however, Mr Willoughby’s reply was very weak which is good for the future
of transport round here. Note that in June the city council was named 'Transport
Local Authority of the Year', beating off competition from 90 other local authorities
to win the accolade.
AW
Nottm |
12th August 2002
Jim in Beeston
Message to Jim in Beeston I don't know who you are but from your messages you
seem to think you know a lot about me. Perhaps you would like to meet with me
and other BCBRA members to discuss what we really think. Having read the messages
on this forum today for the first time it is obvious that this emotive issue has
produced a lot of rash untruths to be bandied around. For you interest, Jim, my
company does not make "huge profits" nor are we a multi national company. Nor
do I have any idea what you are talking about when you mention some big multi
national giving £250000 to fight our cause - though it would be very welcome.
We are a small local business providing a local service and employing local people
- and all we ask is that we be allowed to survive. BCBRA are a group of local
residents and businesses who have formed together because we see the tram and
its chosen route as having an enormous and detrimental impact on our lives and
on our businesses. The more we looked into the tram as we did our research the
more fearful we became. These fears were not just economic but also environmental.
As an environmentalist yourself you will no doubt be interested to hear that we
have been lobbying for the installation of trams to be replaced by investment
in Hydrogen buses. These buses emit zero pollution and are considerably less expensive
than trams. They are also far more flexible, less unsightly and quieter. The technology
is available now, but of course for political reasons grants are not yet available
(unlike for trams). In fact the only reason trams are even being considered in
our city is a political reason and the sooner people open their eyes to this the
sooner we can stop this appaulingly costly system being implemented. Steve Willoughby,
BCBRA
Steve Willoughby
Chilwell |
12th August 2002
Phoenix Park Extension
I went to look at the possibility of extending the Phoenix Park branch of line
1 under the motorway & into Broxtowe. The Great Northern Railway alignment still
exists under the motorway and there is a bridge, I estimate 10m wide with ample
height for at least a double track tramway. It is now completely disused and overgrown
but easily serviceable. The approaches don’t seem to be any problem with ample
room for the tramway to change level. I understand that the Broxtowe plan allows
for substantial housing and commercial development to the West of the M1 near
to this bridge. A tramway should be built before development starts. This could
also feature another park & ride site to service commuters using the A610 from
Derbyshire and so relieve the pressure on the Nutthall roundabout. As the developers
would largely if not entirely pay for this low cost extension, I think serious!
consideration should now be made.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
12th August 2002
What a waste of money
Could someone please tell me why on earth Chilwell needs a tram, its as much use
as putting an ash tray on a motorbike. Bartons buses run through every five minutes
and are rarely full. Could the reason be that county council have not wasted enough
council tax payers money recently and that Mr Warner did not run up enough expenses
on his recent trip to his ideal idea of a country Russia! Chilwell and the surrounding
area is a reasonably affluent area and by providing more "public transport" it
will only give the riff raff element more choice as to a getaway after commiting
yet another burglary. Would we not be better in spending the money in a frivalous
manner and provide an extra police person or two. I know that the council would
have thought about this long and hard but because there is a labour majority it
could not be seen to be coming up with some thing like common sense. Finally,
Dr Palmer seems to have taken his role at the Houses of Parliament a little too
seriuosly, with taking both sides of the argument about the tram recently he is
beginning to resemble the local scenery. (more faces than big ben)
Dave B
Nottingham |
10th August 2002
In reply to Gary
Yes its a deliberate ploy by the government Public transport kills very few people,
and wont make them any money, but the reduced polution will stop them having to
spend on treating all the chest compainst and road kill. So my advice to gary
is You could get run over by a bus tomorrow (or a baby eating tram next year)
so go on have a fag. As its clearly too late for you to stop banging your head
against the wall as the damage has obviously been done
AH
Nottingham |
9th August 2002
NET monitoring
NET have confirmed to me that they are monitoring this forum. They will not comment
here but as I indicated you are all free to ask them questions (tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk).
It's good to see insider and outsider so eloquently putting forward their sides
of the argument. Are the BBC also monitoring this? Would they like to have a radio
debate? I'm happy to volunteer, is anyone else?
Steve Barber
Beeston |
9th August 2002
The Insider
"Car accidents account for 0.03% of all deaths in the UK, and the government makes
an obscene amount of money from measures to reduce this figure (e.g. speed cameras),
while smoking is attributable to 25% of all deaths, and the government does very
little to reduce this figure and makes £millions in the process through taxation."
At last!!! I can stop beating my head against a brick wall I am among others who
can see this governments cynical money spinning policies
Gary
NG4 |
9th August 2002
Reply to Insider
INSIDER is, of course, on the right lines (no pun intended) with his comments
about trams but he doesn't go nearly far enough. There is, of course, a very simple
solution to all this nonsense about trams solving road congestion. The following
six point plan should immediately be adopted throughout the UK: 1. All public
transport - buses, trams, trains etc. should be abolished. 2. The money generated
from no longer subsidising loss making public transport and from selling off all
the vehicles and infrastructure etc. should be used to build more roads and widen
existing ones. 3. More car parks should be provided in all towns and cities. Existing
bus and rail depots and stations should be turned into multi-storey car parks.
The former public transport staff could be employed to do this work. 4. Only cars
and taxis would be allowed on the roads during the day (definitely no cycles).
All freight traffic would have to operate at night, with the exception of certain
priority loads - e.g. fuel deliveries to petrol stations and new cars to car dealers.
5. Road tax and fuel should be substantially reduced in price to make motoring
cheaper so more people can afford to drive. 6. Anyone who doesn't want to drive
would use taxis. I know a few members of the anti- tram group BCBRA and they seem
to agree with the above, although they don't seem very keen to go public and say
so. I think they are being unneccesarily cautious. I suggested that they should
re-name their organisation so as to more properly define exactly what they really
stand for, and call themselves the "Buy Cars Build Roads Association"
OUTSIDER
Nottingham |
9th August 2002
Reply to Insider
Insider, in summary you appear to be saying that that trolleybuses are better
than trams because laying track on existing roads is a nuisance, with traffic
and public utilities diverted. You also make the reamrkable assertion that a lot
more roadbuilding in cities will improve people's quality of life. With tram building
on-street, there is the concept of BETTERMENT. The pipes, sewers and cables of
public utilities diverted are replaced by fresh fittings better than the old.
The new fittings have a full life, with less frequent and cheaper maintenance.
It is like saying that if the tram were not built at all, the road would eventually
have to be dug up anyway for new infrastructure of the public utilities. Insider,
think about the greater disruption in building new roads. One argument in favour
of diesel buses and against trams is that trams cannot swerve to avoid obstacles
such as jaywalkers, whilst buses can. But this does not make trams more dangerous.
Trams have a predictable and visible path, being restricted to their own track.
This is why trams can run in areas where there are heavy pedestrian flows, even
pedestrianised streets, with safety. A trolley bus has limited ability to drive
round obstacles because of the catenary – it is neither fish nor fowl! Articulated
or bendy-buses do of course take up more room on the roads, but like trams have
bigger capacity than a diesel double-deck bus. A bendy bus can take up to 150
passengers, and a tram even better at 200. The emergency triple-braking system
on a tram is superior to the braking of a trolleybus. And isn’t the catenary of
a trolleybus system less reliable and more visually intrusive than for a tram?
Trams do have a bright, modern visual image on the streets. Aside from cost, this
is one reason why the old railway tunnel north of the Victoria Centre was not
pursued, with the Light Rapid Transit feasibility study 13 years ago. A trolleybus
remains a bus, not attractive enough. I don’t doubt the virtue of clean-fuel technology,
especially for cars, but it is still too experimental, futuristic and not commercially
viable. Improving air quality in cities is certainly important since most air
pollution nowadays is caused by vehicle exhaust emissions. I have already commented
on bus lanes and busways in the public transport chapter of speakout. Bus lanes
have limited scope in large urban areas, need junction priority at traffic signals,
are not difficult for motorists to trespass, and psychologically often produce
resentment amongst motorists because of visible carriageway rationing. Road widening
may be required, easier said than done. Speed improvements essentially mean dedicated
busways are required as well. Busways are costly, and would take the same controversial
routes as off-street tramlines in Chilwell or Wilford anyway, with more environmental
impact on landtake, farmland, landscape, open space, woodland, wildlife, noise,
and proximity to housing. It is essential for the buses to be much faster, punctual
and reliable than the present bus network, in order to encourage motorists to
use their cars less, especially through park-and-ride. Even with trolleybuses
on dedicated busways, the tram still scores better! in at least three ways – city
centre penetration/speed, cross-city linkage, and less impact from brand new routes
away from existing roads. Insider, your calculations for the future on population
and car ownership are simplistic and misleading. It is true that two-thirds of
all households own at least one car. But this proportion has changed little in
the last thirty years. Are we to let public transport wither, increasing social
divisiveness? Insider, you appear to be undervaluing urban congestion from private
motoring. You do not take account of car USAGE as opposed to pure ownership. I
have already illustrated the point myself. In the last 20 years the number of
car journeys where a parent takes their child to school has gone up NINEFOLD,
adding to peak period congestion. 70 per cent of ALL car journeys are less than
5 miles and 45 per cent are less than two miles. We should try to use cars less,
and combine non-work journeys, or cycle or walk more often! I am appalled at your
remarks about “a pathetic attempt to keep everything centralised”. It is government
planning policy to consolidate existing settlements and not promote out-of-town
or edge-of-town development any more. Regional shopping centres like Meadowhall,
Sheffield or Bluewater, Kent, are no longer favoured. They stunt trade in nearby
existing town centres. Perhaps you do not appreciate what you are saying about
more road-building. Forty years ago Professor Sir Colin Buchanan was commissioned
by government to estimate future road traffic growth and what its implications
would be. The masterpiece produced was TRAFFIC IN TOWNS, HMSO 1962 (otherwise
called the Buchanan Report). Buchanan was no car-worshipping chauvinist, but he
remarked philosophically that the car was an extension of the living room, and
also said: “we are nourishing a monster of great potential destructiveness… and
yet we love him dearly”. His predictions about the number of cars on the roads
of the UK by 2010 (30 million) were overestimate since he could not have foreseen
the 1973-5 world energy crisis. He made the point emphatic that British towns
and cities would have to be COMPLETELY REBUILT to accommodate the car circulation
and parking that would be required. In other words, the built heritage of the
urban environment would be destroyed. Civic design would be degraded under tarmac
and multi-storey car parks. Hurrah. Tell it to people living in Oxford, Cambridge,
Stamford or Bath. Especially Bath, a World Heritage city that once had trams and
will have some new ones, because its traffic problems are so acute, and more roads
would be impossibly destructive. Amongst large industrial cities, consider Leeds
with its revolting inner motorway box. Better than this, the city will have three
new tram routes within the next five years. How about Birmingham, where until
recently the ugly inner orbital forced pedestrians into the rabbit warrens called
subways. Brum will have three new tramlines as well within six years, digging
up the city centre yes, and out to the airport. Leicester may one day have trams,
but I hope she never has a “proper” ring road or butchering spaghetti junction
with church-over-cutting like Derby at its Nott! ingham Road end. Here in Nottingham
Maid Marian Way opened 40 years ago – Professor of Architecture at Nottingham
University David Ling once called it the ugliest street in Europe. Hooray for
slicing through the historic east-west axis of streets between the Market Square
and the Castle. Insider, your ideas for roads in someone else's backyard would
only allow cites to thrive at the philistine expense of degrading civic design,
and make them not worth visiting. There is no charm about the appearance of a
multi-storey car park or an urban motorway. Do come back to Nottingham for future
shopping, after the tram and the new Broad Marsh Centre are built.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
9th August 2002
Reply to Linda and PAS
The tram is not going to be a white elephant, Linda. The objectors are a small
minority with a loud voice and not enough rational thought. The opening of Line
One will democratise the trams for many continuing sceptics and apathetics. Hope
you enjoy using it. In answer to PAS, the Beeston-Chilwell tram, via the NET preferred
route, can cater for park-and-ride on the A52 because the Chilwell extension is
very cheap to build at £12 million per mile and has a run of only 8 minutes. The
extension has good intermediate traffic potential from the north Chilwell suburbs
because the trams will be at least ten minutes faster to the city centre off-peak
than buses, and with much better timing advantage in the peaks. It is no good
local objectors saying trams are unnecessary. The 3.5 mile double-track only Midland
main line from Beeston to Long Eaton would not have the capacity for track sharing
with a tram, and there is little opportunity for widening, unlike the immediate
approach to Midland station. Nor can the main line from Beeston to Nottingham
be widened for a tram, as the Beeston objectors have already found out.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
8th August 2002
Notingham is getting better!
Having lived here for 12 years, I think Nottingham is a pretty good place to live
and its getting better. The city and county councils (and the districts in the
county’s area) do very well compared to others in the UK, and work very well with
each other. For instance, Greater Nottingham’s transport plan is highly regarded.
You can learn about it on www.thebigwheel.org.uk . Nottingham, Notts and Newark
& Sherwood (and Leicester) do very well on environmental matters and are leaders
in this country. It is no surprise then that we are getting the tram, bringing
us up to the level of civilised countries. As for PAS, he misunderstands heavy
and light rail duality. The Newcastle to Sunderland line has very few heavy trains
running on it per hour, so the metro is able to use it. The line out through Beeston
can’t even cope with the demands from heavy rail, that’s why the GNARDS plan for
services to Ilke! ston were abandoned. One of the very reasons why a tram is needed
is because that rail line is at capacity, according to the E Midlands N-S M1 multi
modal study. The lightly used line out through Wollaton would be OK for light
and heavy sharing though (or even being completely taken over by light rail, assuming
the hourly Sheffield train can be squeezed through Beeston). That would give a
light rail (tram) service to Ilkeston. But the Chilwell line will still be needed
to serve Beeston and Chilwell, sorry PAS. Never mind you could always sell up.
It seems that houses near to the proposed Chilwell tram route are selling quickly
despite a few silly anti tram posters around!
AW
Nottingham |
8th August 2002
Heavy & light rail
PAS to answer your proposal to have an alternative to the Beeston / Chilwell line
to go along the railway, there are problems: This is a very busy section of track
with 125m.p.h. inter city trains and 100m.p.h locals. It would be impossible to
run another 6 trams an hour with stops, running at a maximum of 50m.p.h. If another
dedicated track is laid alongside all we get is an inferior system which does
not serve the Q.M.C., University, Beeston centre, Chilwell Road, Broxtowe College
the old peoples complexes and the major residential areas. Duallity may be useful
on some of the less well used lines such as the Trowell loop and the freight lines
up the Erewash valley but not the Trent valley line.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
8th August 2002
Imagine A Better World...
In reply to Mr./Miss. Insider: You suggest make room for more cars. Where shall
we put the new roads? Perhaps we should knock down houses along Derby road maybe
to make a 3 laned motorway branch off the M1 into Nottingham? How much would that
cost in comparison (bearing in mind one has to buy all the property and pay off
everyone else for losses on their house prices, extra noise and pollution, etc)?
This ignores the social cost, who wants to live beside a motorway? As well as
the jams moving to where the motorway ends and the other roads start. Having a
look at into city motorway routes such as in cities like Bristol and Birmingham
might change your mind. Or maybe you think that the roads can cope with double
the amount of traffic as you seem to suggest. Have you actually ever ventured
out in a car during the rush hour? Right now is not a good time to do that homework
since there are a lot of works going on, but as anyone who is in their car at
these times will tell you, the roads are full, and it takes ages to go a few miles.
A small incident can mean an 30 mins to an hour's delay. There is a very good
example in the UK of what happens when you build new roads to take the extra traffic,
the M25. That's 3-4 lanes of motorway, and was built around 20 years ago, and
is full, jammed and clogged during the rush hour, as are the roads it was meant
to divert traffic from. So what about the fuel cell idea. I welcome any way of
making cars greener. Using your _assumption_ of mass produced cars in 2010. That's
2010, 8 years from now which we have to suffer, which asthma suffers (a high percentage
of attacks caused by pollution) have to put up with, 8 years of increasing traffic
and accidents that go with it. And you still overlook, that it might be another
10 years beyond that when enough people have switched their current cars to the
new ones. A tram might indeed move pollution production elsewhere, but the point
is it's out of the city away from the people who choke on the fumes. And it's
easier to make power generation greener (alternative power, increasing efficiency,
better control of byproducts, planting trees to deal with the extra CO2) than
dealing with millions cars. The problem most motorists face is there simply isn't
a good enough transport system to make them want to switch. Few of us wants to
sit in jams. Nottingham's other major problem is the links to other cities are
poor (underfunded, slow, overcrowded and too expensive) by rail. Maybe once a
tram is there to take people out of the cities, high speed transport links can
be built (such as high speed hover trains running alongside the M1 so it would
be possible to do Nottingham - London in an hour) to connect Nottingham with the
south and north. Your response seems to be of the sort that says 'I own a car;
it's my right to own a car; I will use a car if I want'. Maybe it's time to consider
others? Nottingham is going to have a tram whether you like it or not, whinging
about other solutions doesn't help. Energy would be far better focused on making
sure the tram is built, networked and run efficiently.
David
Nottingham |
8th August 2002
Worst City in the Country?
Lynda where do you get the impression that there are so many dissatisfied, dispirited
people in Nottingham? A minority like to moan about the tram but as is reflected
on this forum the majority want the tram. PAS - I've drawn NET's attention to
the debate here, I would like them to comment but they say that they have a policy
not to contribute to community forums. You can of course contact them tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk
Steve Barber
Beeston |
8th August 2002
Response to Insider
In response to Insider’s completely uninformed and bigoted opinions. Out of town
shopping: very few people from Nottingham go to Meadowhall. Those that do go there
because they can use the shopping centre and then go by tram to the city centre.
Out of town shopping centres can never be as good as city centre locations because
they don’t have the variety of shops and other services. More cars: We already
have too much traffic on the road. Doubling the number of cars is completely impractical.
Also, with more roads, people would use those cars more so the result would be
more than double the traffic. Demonising factors of cars: There are others, not
just pollution (multiple aspects – global warming, as well as local environmental
and health impacts) and congestion (and its consequential economic damage). For
instance there’s the traffic accidents which kill or injure people and speeding
traffic whi! ch splits communities and prevents children playing. Braking: Trams
can brake faster than other vehicles for reasons including the fact that magnetism
can be used, as well as the regenerating of electricity back into the system.
Trolley buses: A nice idea (I would support them where there is no choice other
than on road running) but trams are faster, provide easier access and egress (no
need to line up with the kerb), and a more attractive to car drivers and the middle
classes. An ordinary bus is not going to attract people whether it has a diesel
engine or a fuel cell. A bus is still a bus. It still gets stuck in traffic jams
or you have to build separate roads or guided busways for it, which involves more
impact than tram tracks. A bus’s best hope is as part of an integrated transport
system feeding into trams etc. Fuel cells: The technology is still extremely expensive
and limited. And it does pollute! How do you think the hydrogen produced for use
in the fuel cell? Using! electricity but less efficiently than a tram would use
it. Some fuel cells use hydrocarbons in which case they are still contributing
to global warming! Single deckers: Such trams and bendy buses etc have a major
advantage over double decker vehicles in that the driver and everyone can see
each other and what’s going on, so people don’t cause trouble or smoke etc. on
the upper deck as they do now. Driving: Not everyone can drive, afford or use
a car e.g. children, elderly, the disabled, drug users (illegal and prescription)
and drinkers. Cities: Those that force the use of the car prosper less well than
those that offer public transport. That’s why London does so much better than
elsewhere in the UK and why continental cities fare much better than anywhere
in the UK. I suppose America prospers but then I have found their public transport
to be often better than the UK’s. Otherwise they are very much disliked for their
arrogance in polluting the world and wasting its resourc! es. Its not a dirty
thing to live in cities, quite the opposite in fact. With western lifestyles,
living in densely populated areas is much more sustainable. Conclusion: Judging
by the monumental numbers of errors and misunderstandings in his submission, it
is no surprise that Insider listens to a 'certain radio station' – its just the
sort of uninformed nonsense I’d expect from the type of person who listens to
it, although I would have thought Insider might be more suited to the even more
downmarket 'national radio station'. Insider thinks that learned people are liars.
He might want to imagine what we think about him.
AW
Nottm |
8th August 2002
A better world
The road lobby are at it again! Insider starts off by accepting the tram then
goes on to the trolleybus - which is an expensive and less useful alternative
then comes on to his real agenda - PROMOTE THE CAR. I'm sorry we can all see through
you, the road lobby, garage owners, multi-national oil companies all at work once
again.
Jim
Beeston |
8th August 2002
Imagine a better world
In reply to the insider. Has the insider spent too long inhaling fumes from his
chosen form of transport as he obviously does not populate the same environment
as me. Car growth has increased at a faster rate than the population and even
the Conservative government realised that if you build a road it attracts more
traffic such that due to growth most motorway improvements are already beyond
the expanded capacity when they are opened. There are plans being investigated
to widen the M1 to five lanes each direction, and that will need a new road to
link to Nottingham. Where should that go, along a previously identified transport
corridor perhaps (a discarded tram route for instance)? Tarmac over West Bridgford
If out of town shopping is the answer what effect will that have on the small
shops (like the ones that used to exist in Sheffield before Medowhall). And lets
all move out of towns and cities and live in the countryside, how dare they have
rebuilt the lace market in Nottingham to repopulate the city centre. Lets build
on the green belt. If the Car is the answer and we should have our city designed
around accommodating the car what does the Insider think of Coventry city centre
(Utopia? Particularly the ring road). I expect he is disgusted at what they have
done to Birmingham in the last few years they have actually made the city centre
habitable. Stop focussing on the 30 ft of tarmac in front of you and open you
eyes and look about you and try breathing some fresh air it may clear your mind.
AH
Nottingham |
8th August 2002
Reply to insider
Insider you seem to a very confused person. You start off by accepting the tram
then propose an inferior system before suggesting that the car is the answer to
our problems. Your arguments in favour of the trolleybus are flawed. You propose
tarmaccing the green corridor through Chilwell (“purpose built roads”). I find
that environmentally unacceptable and expensive. It would be a haven for joy riders.
The formation would have to be considerably wider than the tramway and there would
be more noise. Let’s see you sell that to Clumber Ave! You must be in love with
your car, to drive all the way to Sheffield (I invariably get held up somewhere
en route) to do some shopping. I get the bus or cycle into Beeston or Nottingham,
zero stress and I must say now that car lovers such as yourself find it more difficult
to get there it is a much more pleasant environment. – I’ve not noticed any reduction
in shoppers though. Roll on the tram when getting there becomes even easier. Trams
are green. The pollution levels are considerably less than either a bus or a car.
Furthermore as you say the smaller amounts of pollution are not concentrated where
people breath, around schools etc. All this new technology may be as wonderful
as you claim but I have my doubts. Anyhow it is nowhere near viable yet. Trams
are. Also as new technology and greener methods of electricity production come
into play trams can make use of this immediately. The whole concept of doubling
the number of cars on the road fills me with horror. Even ignoring the pollution
aspects we have noise, danger & stress. Already 10 people every day are killed
on the roads; do you want to see 20? I don’t. You conclude by saying, “Imagine
a world where transport is cheap and fast and flexible” I have seen such a place
– Switzerland with it’s trams and proper integrated public transport system, I
suggest that you go there.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
8th August 2002
The future's bright!
What a ridiculous rant from the ‘insider’. Of course, like most rants, it is riddled
with inaccuracy and GCSE misinformation. So lets put him right: Trams will consistently
outperform buses at stopping (and will bring £5 million of accident savings);
the trolley bus in Nancy, France has been a total failure because the system has
no history in operation anywhere else (whereas Nottingham’s tram is running excellently
in Nantes); for a segregated trolley bus you need to build segregated roads (which
cost more than ballasted tram track); bendy buses are about access for all! (disabled
and elderly people can’t climb tight stairs!); fuel cells could be used in Nottingham
and probably will be used on buses; trolley buses have a much smaller capacity
to carry people and cannot travel as fast; pollution at power stations is easier
to clean and is infinitesimal compared to the amount! already produced (and in
the future, power will increasingly come from renewable sources [solar, wind etc.]);
the growth in road traffic is not about the number of people living in the UK,
but about the numbers of journeys made by people in their cars each year – that
will rise by 50% in the next 25 years! That is unless we do something about it
– like build a proven, reliable, regenerating, accessible and punctual…………..tram
network to build on Line One!
Andrew
Beeston |
8th August 2002
tram
Some interesting, intelligent discussion in this forum in the last few days. I
hope for our benfit that both NET and the County council have been presented with,
and are assimilating, these ideas and arguments. I was not aware of duality of
light rail with heavy rail. Now surely that makes for a really cheap alternative
to the Beeston-Chilwell extension, which can continue on to Long Eaton.... with
the associated increased cost benefit ratio.
pas
Chilwell |
8th August 2002
Worst City in the Country?
I didn't realise there were so many dissatisfied, dispirited people in Nottingham.
It really is an appalling situation. Who, then, keeps voting for this council?
Why are they not voted out when it is obvious they are not in the least interested
in the feelings and opinions of the people? They are too interested in trying
to raise money to pay for another white elephant, namely the tram system. What
a truly inadequate shower they are!
Lynda
Nottingham |
7th August 2002
Ilkeston
This may be slightly off topic but there has been a proposal to open up Long Eaton,
Trowell, Ilkeston & Wollaton stations for heavy rail. Has any progress been made
on this? I heard of congestion problems through Beeston - is this true? In Sunderland
light & heavy rail are mixed on the same track. This had originally been proposed
for line 1 of NET but the technology was not available when the contracts were
let. It is now available so tram running along the Trowell loop becomes a possibility.
I wonder how the journey times would then compare.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
7th August 2002
Imagine A Better World...
1) Okay, let's face it, we're getting a tram whether we like it or not. But imagine
a tram installation that didn't require months of pipe-moving and track-laying,
imagine a tram that that could effortlessly drive around obstacles, that was lighter
and stopped faster... in short, imagine the trackless tram. I'm not old enough
to remember the trolleybus, but I don't have to be. There are manufacturers out
there who build viable trackless trams right now, and they're just as 'sexy' as
trams (Btw, who in their right mind thinks a tram is sexy? seek psychological
help at the next available opportunity!) For that matter, has anyone seen those
ridiculous bendybuses? All the seating capacity of doubledecker, but it takes
up twice the room on the road! Brilliant! Just what Nottingham's congested roads
need! Anyway, the only arguments I've seen on here AGAINST a trackless tram a!
re! a) it's shorter length [probably not true of modern ones, and even if it is
you just put more on the road!] b) longer stopping distance [are you sure about
that? a GCSE-level knowledge of physics would seem to contradict that - in your
experience, what has greater friction, metal-on-metal or rubber-on-tarmac? [clue:
bicycle brake pads are not made of metal...]] c) they would have to sit in traffic
like everything else [wrong! trams won't sit in traffic because they have purpose-built
lanes and roads, and have traffic signal priority - so would a trackless tram,
and it would be here by now because you wouldn't have to dig up all the roads
and cause utter misery for everyone.] 2) How many times have you read a comment
like this: "Go to Sheffield and see the trams there and you will want a tram in
Nottingham". Guess what? I've been carried on every inch of track in Sheffield
and I still don't want trams [or if I must have them, I want TRACKLESS trams!]]
3) I'm so sick and tired of the chaos the tramworks are causing! (which would
be reduced greatly by trackless trams...) These days I approach shopping in a
totally different way. I hop on board a special bus that picks me up from directly
outside my house, which whisks me at immense speed to Sheffield's Meadowhall,
and it's waiting for me the moment I'm finished. I call this special bus 'a car'.
Anyone find it a tad ironic that because of my home city installing a tram, I
(and no doubt other people too) use a car to go to the outskirts of another city
that already has a tram? 4) "Trams are green". Yes, they are, though of course
they merely reduce the pollution and move it somewhere else. Imagine, if you will,
another option, where electricity is generated from stored hydrogen, and the only
exhaust emmision is water. We're talking about fuel cell technology of course.
It's as green as a tram (if not more so). This is not fantasy. The major car developers
(Toyota, Daimler-Crysler, Ford and Honda, to name a few, are all planning to release
fuel cell vehicles by 2004. They think they will be mass-produced by 2010. Fuel
cell buses are being used RIGHT NOW in London, Reykjavik, Stockholm, Amsterdam,
Luxembourg, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Barcelona and Porto. These are all verifiable
facts (don't take my word for it, go to the DETR's website and see for yourself).
5. Now here comes the final big leap of imagination. Remember, fuel cells cars
will be mass-produced by 2010 (okay, let's be pessimistic, let's say 2020). Remember
that fuel cell technology is totally NON-POLLUTING. Where does this logically
lead us... suddenly, in the near future, we have removed the major demonising
factor surrounding car use - pollution. Which cities will thrive in those circumstances?
Will it be those that have short-sightedly tried to keep everything centralised
in a pathetic attempt to ape London (I don't care how many times Trent FM tells
me I live the 'world's best city', I'm not buying their propaganda - it isn't
even the best city in the UK!) or will the thriving cities be those that have
provided multi-lane motorways leading to big car parks and nice indoor shopping
centres? Think about that. Of course pollution isn't the only demonising factor
surrounding cars - there is one other major problem, that being congestion. Let's
deal with that o! ne! : a) car ownership is currently 65% at least. It can only
grow as high as 100% - does it sound like an impossible task to accommodate double
the current number of cars? not to me it doesn't, especially if money is properly
invested in road systems and not wasted on trendy short-term solutions. % car
ownership is not the full story of course. The population size does not stay static.
Once again, a mere GCSE-level knowledge (this time of demographics) will enlighten
you. Developed countries such as the UK all display the same population trend
- population size levels off, then starts to fall. It's a fact. (e.g. No. births-deaths
in 1950: 902,000-645,000 (growth=257,000; No births-deaths in 2000: 679,000-608,000
(growth=71,000). (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ukinfigs/default.asp) It's estimated
that our population will peak in 2030 (with an increase of around 15% compared
to now), then start to fall back again. So you see, the absolute maximum number
of cars that could ! be! on the roads in 2030 is not much more than double the
current level. Any claims you hear that 'building roads is not an aswer, because
the number of cars will always increase is simply A LIE. A city, or even a country,
that plans for this instead of trying to force people out of cars will prosper
both financially and in terms of quality of life. Dare to imagine a world where
there is a sensible public transport system that runs on time and a world where
there are good roads that can carry pollution-free, guilt-free motorists to modern
shopping facilities (and *everyone* can use their car if they want to). Imagine
a world where transport is cheap and fast and flexible, and people don't have
to huddle in stupidly dirty, overpriced and overpopulated areas like London and
Nottingham. I think that's a better world, don't you?
The Insider
Nottingham |
6th August 2002
Hundreds of reasons for a tram
An article in tonights Evening Post, page 9 begins "Hundreds of 999 calls were
made by asthmatics as pollution levels in the city reached high levels." Without
the tram it's only going to get worse. We owe it to our children to do something
and stop being selfish, insisting on driving our cars wherever and whenever.
Jim
Beeston |
6th August 2002
Ilkeston trams
In addition to the trams being quicker than buses in the peaks, they should also
be desirably faster off-peak as well. The present off-peak bus timing from Ilkeston
to Nottingham along the A609 with Rainbow One is 35 minutes. A tram from Bardills
to the Old Market Square via the NET preferred route would take 33.5 minutes,
so any extension of this route to Ilkeston cannot surely work. AW, your remarks
are very interesting. The trams on routes up Woodside Road, Wollaton Vale and
then across farmland, or via Bilborough/Strelley to Ilkeston, would have to be
fast, so a 24 feet wide berth adjacent the carriageways and street crossing priority
are essential. A direct run to QMC is enabled. A Kimberley extension of Line One
is a winner. SB, I could not agree more with Section 106 Agreements (developer
contributions to public works, such as tram building, or for off-site mitigation).
Build the tram, school, and a fresh M1 park-and-ride site at Kimberley before
the new housing and business park they would serve. Extending the Kimberley tram
route further however, to Ilkeston via Awsworth and Cossall on-street, looks too
expensive and slow. When Nottingham Victoria station opened in 1900, the fastest
steam trains on the Great Northern Railway from Ilkeston via Kimberley did the
run in 14 minutes. By 1964, when the passenger service ended, the last diesel
trains took 25 minutes. Three years later the local stations on the Erewash Valley
line closed. Ilkeston has had no passenger trains since, and following the opening
of the Robin Hood Line in 1993-5, vies with Coalville as the largest town in the
UK with no direct rail passenger service. As I have said, th! e ! present off-peak
bus takes 35 minutes to Nottingham, ending up exactly where the trains once did.
A century of progress? Could the tram be extended from Kimberley along the Great
Northern trackbed? Some new bridges are required e.g., over the A610 Kimberley-Eastwood
by-pass. Most of the railway embankment in the town has long been removed and
replaced by a 50 feet wide strip of public open space. The lattice Bennerley viaduct
is a listed building, but it would be appropriate to restore it to the use for
which it was built. The only serious impediment appears to be a small modern housing
estate at Bennerley on the trackbed, and at least a dozen houses here would have
to be demolished to make way for the tram. This is no light matter! But at least
a tram on the Trowell-Radford rail loop would outpace the bus from Ilkeston. The
tram route follows the A609 corridor. It would revitalise an existing under-used
railway asset as done in Manchester, Newcastle and Croydon. With rail conversion,
costs are reduced and tram speeds kept up. At the Nottingham end a Hartley Road/Bentinck
Road connection to Line One at the Forest is exactly what I have been thinking.
The alternatives would be to take the tram further down the Robin Hood Line, either
all the way to the rail platforms at Midland station (dead-end problem), or otherwise
link up with the Beeston tram at Kings Meadow (circuitous). But if Line One has
no more capacity either, fresh on-street entry to the city centre might be the
answer for the Ilkeston tram.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
5th August 2002
Tram to Ilkeston
There is another option for taking the tram to Ilkeston and that’s via Wollaton
Vale. This would link Ilkeston with the QMC and university. The new line would
branch off the Beeston line at the Beeston end of the university and run up Woodside
Road. It would cross the A52 at Priory Island and run up Wollaton Vale all the
way to the Balloon Woods 5 way junction. Then it could run via the M1 Trowell
services and a new Trowell / Ilkeston rail station (on the Erewash line) into
Ilkeston (via Furnace Road and Green Lane?). Nearly all of it would be off road
(both Woodside Road and Wollaton Vale feature acres of unused space) but it would
go through reasonable populated areas like north east Beeston and parts of Wollaton.
It could also take traffic off the A609 Ilkeston Road. As regards the Stapleford
route, the M1 MMS maps were a bit vague and I think they really meant extending
the pr! op! osed Chilwell line from Toton Island (Stapleford south) to Bessell
Lane (Stapleford west) and then up the Erewash rail line, which is too far around.
Certainly taking it to Bessell Lane would be great for Stapleford, it would put
Stapleford’s shopping area on the tram network. I would support Ilkeston via Kimberley,
then with the Wollaton Vale s line there could be an Ilkeston loop! By the way
full marks to those who have spotted yet another Ilkeston route as follows: off
line 1 at Bentick Road near the Forest park and ride. Along Hartley Road, and
New Road. Across the Radford rail junction and for a short way parallel to the
rail line. At the ring road / Beechdale Baths flip over to the Beechdale Road.
Then Wigman Road to Bilborough and Strelley (lots of nice but under-used dual
carriageways). Then across country and via the M1 Trowell services and as above.
Along with the Wollaton rail and Stapleford street routes, I make that about six
tram options to Ilkeston. What’s the! big problem? Just as with a route to Long
Eaton, its in Derbyshire, and that’s a different place!
AW
Nottingham |
|
3rd August 2002
Phoenix Park to Kimberley
This extension to line 1 should be built straight away. There exists (I believe)
a bridge under the M1 which can be used. There is to be a lot of housing and business
land development in the area. the tram should be up & running before a brick is
laid on these developments. The finance can largely be got from the developers
(at present they must contribute to the road infrastructure). If the trams is
in place first then people use them to get to & from work before they buy a second
car. The same should apply before any further development on the Army site at
Chilwell.
S.B.
Beeston
in reply
3rd August 2002
Phoenix Park to Kimberley
S.B. (Steve?) suggests that people don't buy a second
car but use the tram. You'll have all the wrath of Mr Willoughby and his BCBRA,
with the Tories too and anyone else he can con brought down on you. You're threatening
his huge profits! He'll get a multi-national oil company to nail you. You can't
go around making rash (even though they make sense) statements like that.
Jim
Beeston
|
3rd August 2002
Cross-city Gedling to Ilkeston
Since it takes many years to plan tram routes, further possibilities in Nottingham
may as well be investigated now in outline, with cheap feasibility studies. After
the first three tram routes are running by 2007, an extension of Line One from
Phoenix Park to Kimberley looks the next prospect. The route is almost entirely
off-street for fast running, and the only major engineering a bridge under the
M1. The trams would avoid the M1/A610 bottleneck, and enable extra park-and-ride
for both roads. The land for the route, and accompanying expansion of Kimberley
town itself towards the M1, are already safeguarded by Broxtowe Borough Council.
In other British cities with trams, there are various examples of them integrated
with or replacing railways, or routed on abandoned rail trackbeds. Trams can penetrate
city centres more effectively than rail or bus. Gedling Borough Council are interested
in the restoration of train services on the old colliery railway to Gedling village,
or a having a tram there instead (Gedling’s tram plea, Evening Post, July 23).
I suggest a tram would be better value for money. It can have far more and cheaper
stops, a much higher frequency of service, and can be extended on-street at either
end. Thus Sneinton could be served, assisting urban regeneration. A tram to Ilkeston
is another long-term possibility. If the Liverpool to East Anglia trains were
diverted via Trent junction, the Trowell to Radford rail link could be given over
entirely to the tram. At the city end, a link on-street through Radford would,
as in Sneinton, revitalise the area. There are two further ways of getting trams
to Ilkeston. The M1 multi-modal study suggested extending the Chilwell NET preferred
route on-street through Stapleford, with a branch to the M1 service area at Trowell.
The other tram route to Ilkeston could be from the Kimberley route I have mentioned
above, via Awsworth on-street and entry to the town from the northern or Cotmanhay
end. I have a feeling these two Ilkeston routes would not be viable however, with
tram speeds uncompetitive compared to buses to the city centre. However, the M1
Trowell service area could otherwise be served by a branch off the converted railway
line from Radford I have suggested above.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
2nd August 2002
Rain rain & more rain
Enjoying the wet summer? At least we in Beeston & Chilwell will soon feel better
as we make our contribution to stop global warming.
Jim
Beeston |
2nd August 2002
Follow-up to Realist of Chilwell
Following on from Realist of Chilwell’s contribution, in the last year or so I
have seen, amongst other gems, the tram described as ‘a creeping cancer’ (Post
letters, 10 September 2001) and NET compared to Stalin (BCBRA website). I simply
don’t see this emotive and bellicose approach being reciprocated by those in favour
of the tram.
David
Wilford |
2nd August 2002
Who will use the tram?
Reply to Sue: Studies from other tram systems show that some car drivers *will*
use the tram. For example, in the first year of Croydon Tramlink 19% of all trips
were made by people who previously made the same trip by car - saving up to 4m
car journeys per year. As a result of this, Croydon was the only London Borough
to report zero traffic growth last year. A survey in Sheffield in 1999 showed
that 22% of trips would have previously been made by car. Towns and cities in
Britain and abroad show the benefit of a tram system - why should Nottingham be
any different?
Mark Ramsey
Chilwell |
2nd August 2002
Tram advantages
Sue obviously has not heard that a big reason for having the tram is that it is
attractive to car users and the middle classes, unlike buses. While we’re at it,
here are some more reasons why trams are good (particularly compared to buses,
whether they be diesel, LPG, trolley (electric) or futuristic fuel cell): Trams
can carry more people; Cause less pollution (less asthma, less ill-health, thus
huge hidden financial benefits); Cause lower greenhouse gas emissions (more hidden
benefits); Emit less noise; Last longer; Have a sense of permanence; Are more
reliable; Can run on or off road; Where running off road the track bed is cheaper
than building a road; Can accelerate faster; Can travel faster; Can stop more
quickly; Give a much more comfortable ride; Have low floors for easy access; Have
more doors for easier access; Can operate better in wintry conditions; Are more
accessible ! for the elderly, infirm, wheelchairs, buggies, electric carts and
bicycles; Are safer than road vehicles (for passengers and pedestrians - the huge
hidden financial benefits); Are cheaper to build than underground or metro systems;
Bring about regeneration and gentrification of run down areas; Can give a city
centre an advantage over others re inward investment; Have easy to understand
routes and timetables. And there are more reasons, that I haven’t got time to
address.
AW
Nottingham |
2nd August 2002
Reply to Sue of Nottingham
See Mark Ramsey's posting of 18 July 2002.
David
Wilford
1st August 2002
Who Will Use The Tram?
I think those who currently use the bus will use the tram and those who use their
car will carry on using their car! Sue, Nottingham.
Sue
Nottingham |
1st August 2002
TRAMS TO CHILWELL
DAMNED IF THEY DO, DAMNED IF THEY DON’T ! One of the amazing things about those
opposed to the tram coming to Beeston and Chilwell, is the way in which they will
manipulate any issue to try and show how harmful or useless the tram will be.
We’ve already been told that it will be so noisy that it will keep us awake all
night (despite there being no proposed service during the night), yet at the same
time be so quiet that it will creep up on us, unawares, and kill us all! But the
most amazing turnaround is now to be found on the website of BCBRA (the group
opposed to the tram). Back in April, their newsletter stated: “The tram will terminate
at Midland Station. Is this where you want to go? How long will it take you walk
to your final destination? Is 20 minutes from Beeston Square to Midland Station
plus time on foot to complete your journey enough of an improvement to justify
the disruption?” Despite the fact that everybody (except, it seems, BCBRA) already
knew that the tram will not terminate at the Midland Station but will continue
into the City Centre and along Line One, what is now clear is that whoever writes
their Newsletter doesn’t talk to their webmaster. For their website now offers
the following new reason for opposing the tram: Beeston & Chilwell will lose out
to Broadmarsh The Chilwell Extension to Nottingham Express Transit’s Beeston line
will just be a conduit for sucking punters into the massive, forthcoming “Meadow
Hall” sized Broadmarsh redevelopment. The Park and Ride at Bardill’s Island may
as well be renamed “Broadmarsh Car Park.” The Broadmarsh shopping centre in Nottingham
will be undergoing an immense rebuilding programme that will result in a huge
increase in its footprint, both physically and commercially. Add to this the fact
that the Chilwell tram will be running directly to a station at the heart of the
complex and it’s not hard to see that a commercial imbalance between Broadmarsh
and outlying shopping areas will be created. The tram may indeed be a good thing
for The City of Nottingham but Beeston and Chilwell are bound to loose(sic) out
commercially in the final analysis. When the commercial aspect of a community
is affected adversely, other aspects of that community are usually affected adversely
as well. So there we have it. Back in April the tram was a bad thing because it
wouldn’t take us to the shops in Nottingham. Now it’s a bad thing because it will.
There’s just no pleasing some folk! Add to that the fact that at certain times
over the past 12 months, we’ve been told by the antis that the Chilwell trams
will be no good because: a) Nobody will use them so it will be a waste of money.
b) They will so full from Bardill’s Island that it will be impossible to get on
in Chilwell. c) There won’t be any stops in Chilwell. d) There will be too many
stops in Chilwell. The good thing about all this is that it certainly provides
us all with lots of entertainment. Keep it up you antis. I can’t wait for the
public enquiry!
REALIST
CHILWELL |
|
31st July 2002
Political parties & policy
I see Steve Barber wants to get New Labour & the Greens on board. Well Steve you
and your Gold Credit card carrying, Chardonnet swilling champagne socialist buddies
at BACIT should have NEW labour in your pockets - I'm not so sure about OLD Labour
though. The Greens though;- First send the tram as far away from Lower Road as
possible, across fields - convenient for sheep and cows but of no other use and
you'll convince them.
Jim
Beeston
and in reply
31st July 2002
Political Parties and policy
Jim - you seem to consider yourself to have a remarkable knowledge of the political
affiliation, credit ratings & drinking habits of BACIT. Do you work for MI5? Assuming
it is you who recently wrote to the Nottingham Evening Post We don't have a member
called Jim on Middle St so you must have worked hard to get this (largely incorrect)information.
For your information (to pass on to your bosses) there are supporters of all 3
main political parties in BACIT. We have amongst our membership many councillors
and the local M.P.. However, most are just ordinary people who are concerned about
the environment and public transport to the West of Nottingham. I don't know their
credit rating as the only condition of joining is that you support the tram coming
to Beeston & Chilwell, membership is free but we accept donations. Again I can't
give you the definative answer on our dri! nking habits but I personally go for
the beer in the Victoria now that Shippos is no more!- see you there? I would
like to enrol Green party support, I used to support them and have voted Green.
Unfortunately the local Greens for some reason do not appear to want the tram,
as you know this is contrary to their national policy. Jim do I know you? Is Jim
your real name? If you, or anyone else, wants to know more or join us see http://www.bacit.org
or email me if you fancy a pint! info@bacit.org
Steve Barber
Beeston
and in reply
31st July 2002
Not in my back greenhouse
The Broxtowe Greens are opposed to the Beeston tram because one of their committee
members lives on Lower Road, and is on the anti-tram pressure group committee
there as well. I have known the chap for several years, and we are still good
friends!
G. Bennett
Wilford
|
31st July 2002
Time Wasters
Talk of Turkeys voting for Christmas. The worst possible outcome is for a project
to be put on hold. It means uncertainty for businesses (do I take the risk and
expand now in the hope that the tram will come and improve my trade) and means
that the 3 houses seriously affected in Gwenbrook Ave will be difficult to sell.
So why do the Tories and some of the anti tram brigade want this? Shelving the
line to West Bridgeford will cost the residents and traders there dearly.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
29th July 2002
Timewasters
NC, which local council do you mean? Rushcliffe Borough Council supports a tram
in principle for a route to West Bridgford town centre. The Council also raises
no objection in principle to the Clifton-Wilford route, provided that there are
environmental safeguards and that the impact on the Wilford embankment dwellers
is minimised. The County Council have of course said similar. The latter are,
as transport authority, joint promoters of the trams with the City Council, whilst
the Borough Council is a consultee. At least one county councillor in the Bridgford
area is anti-tram. The idea of putting proposed Lines 2 and 3 on hold, whilst
Line 1 is monitored for traffic performance for a few years, is the latest excuse
from various tram opponents. It would only make sense if Nottingham were the first
city in the world proposing trams. Why hang fire? It takes years to plan tram
rou! tes, and Line One isn’t open yet to monitor. There is no good reason right
now for aborting preparatory work on the two proposed routes – let NET continue
with the detailed schemes, Environmental Statement, Statement of Case for a Public
Inquiry and submission to Secretary of State. By the time SOS deliberates, Line
One will be in operation. If it is a flop, the other two routes could be quietly
shelved and never implemented. We all know the opposite will happen, that Line
One is going to be a great commercial success, and the same will apply to the
other two lines four years later. We all know Lne One in operation is going to
democratise the trams, strengthen lukewarm supporters of today and convert many
lingering sceptics or even some present objectors. The tram opponents cannot tell
the truth, convince NET or (most of) the politicians, or dump the tram on to inferior
alternative routes, modes or technologies. They are reluctant to fight a Public
Inquiry because the! y know their evidence is not adequate. The objectors are
stalling for time and it is slowly running out. NC, you really should consider
that the trams do benefit people who don’t want to use them. This is what cost-benefit
analysis is all about, covering third party costs/benefits or externalities. Thus,
as well as CW trams providing faster trips in the peaks than buses to and from
town for the customers, motorists will have quicker journeys over Trent Bridge
– and not just Clifton/Wilford people either. It is easy for a mob of opponents
at anti-tram meetings to sneer at this. Roll on the Inquiry.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
29th July 2002
Trams cost
I suppose to take the Tories argument on overrun to it's logical conclusion, one
must look at the cost peojections by the original company for Beeston & Chilwell.
1900 prices! I see that the Broxtowe Liberal Democrats have now seen sense see
http://www.broxtoweliberaldemocrats.info/, click Enter, then Policies, then Trams.
New Labour next? Then who knows even the Greens?
Steve Barber
Beeston |
27th July 2002
The 60 million was an estimate made back in the 1980s when the tram was first
proposed. Unsurprisingly this increased with inflation (remember that from the
Conservative administration?) whilst route modifications etc lead to an estimate
around 200 million prior to construction. As far as I know there are no overuns
on this, but you really shouldn't be surprised the Tories are trying to rubbish
the project with halftruths. Future lines will be funded partially from local
sources, but the model will be similar to Line 1 with risks transferred to the
private sector.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
26th July 2002
Trams
I have had several responses to my last e mail.My concerns are not so much for
Line 1 but the next two proposed routes where costs will fall on local council
tax payers if the line does not run at a profit.To quote from Rushcliffe Conservative
Association 'In Touch' literature ' You may know that costs for the first line
rose from some £ 60 million to £ 167 million'. This equates to an oversspend of
178 %. Rushcliffe Conservative Association includes councellors voting on the
next phase of the line. Clearrly we have two vastly different views on how line
1 is progressing,one (NET) advising spend to budget,one ,the local council advising
a 178 % overspend. Two parties involved in the same project giving totally different
views. How are we the public to know which is correct ? While there is this level
of ambiguity over a line, which is still under construction, I cannot see how
the project can proceed further until a complete post implementation review has
been undertaken on Line 1. The cost benefit cases for the next phases do look
suspect and local councellors must question these in detail,especially those who
will fund a project which will have no benefit to their residents.
NC
West Bridgford |
24th July 2002
Costs
NC wrote ".. the costs overrun as significantly as we are lead to believe on Line
1..." So lets have the question about overun on cost from the horses mouth; "Line
One is on schedule to open in November 2003, on time. Budgetary implications are
a risk for the private consortium building Line One and not the councils. If the
project were to overrun on cost the consortium would be liable. We believe, however,
that the project is running to budget.” Colin Lea NET. So where is this malicious
rumour coming from that line 1 is over budget? IT IS NOT. How many times do we
(BACIT) and NET have to shout that before it sinks in? Please keep to facts everyone.
Steve Barber
Beeston Notts |
|
|
|
|
