| 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.
|
|
21-August-2002
Nottingham Trams - Maths
You're right - my calculations were rubbish. If nothing else, I hope
this shows I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when I obviously am. Your
arguments in this matter clearly show I am wrong, but this is the
first time, and I've raised many points and issues... My calculations
were so wrong, that attempts to merely half them are not adequate.
Instead, I've totally re-worked the formula. I won't take up valuable
space here (you can read it at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/theinsider/
if you want to check it) The results are as follows: If we assume
that every tram loads and unloads its full capacity of passengers
at every stop(i.e. every passenger travels only one stop), then the
total capacity is 564 million passengers per year. This is the network's
total potential capacity, and NET's estimate of 11 million passengers
per year represents 2% of total capacity. If we assume that every
tram loads and unloads a full complement of passengers only at two
stops per direction (i.e! . ! everyone who rides the tram goes the
full length of Line One, in one direction) then the capacity figure
drops to 26.2 million, making NET's 11M estimate 41.97% of total.
These represent the maximum and minimum possible capacity figures.
The real figure must lie somewhere between these extremes. If we assume
that the average passenger travels half the length of Line One in
one direction (i.e. they travel 25% of the total distance) then this
gives a total capacity of 52.4 million pa, and NET's 11million estimate
represents 20.99% of total, which means an average loading of 42 people
per tram, all seated. If NET stick to their promise of tram fares
being 'similar' to bus fares, then this means the tram will generate
approx £8.8 million per year (this takes no account of concessions
of any kind) according to my calculations. This means the tram should
pay for itself in 27.72 years, assuming nil running costs. Can anyone
tell me how this accords with NET's own estimates, an! d ! what their
running costs will be? AW & Steve Barber: If you give fuel cell buses/trolleybuses
the same advantages that trams enjoy (e.g. segregated roads and signal
priority) what do you get? A cheaper and more flexible version of
the tram! AW: I am 'linked' to all forms of public transport in Nottingham,
not just buses.
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
Tram – sums
JC gets the half story right when correcting Insider’s sums.
But its wrong to say that the same number of buses would have to be
removed. Don’t forget that a bus can only carry around 40 to
75 depending on its size, as opposed to a tram’s 200 (or more
with extra coaches). In fact, buses won’t have to be removed
from the roads at all, as there will be a need for feeder services
etc. – remember the tram is designed to increase public transport
patronage. When the Beeston and Chilwell line is built, there will
still be a need for services along the Derby Road. By the way, I think
the only way to see trolley buses in this country is to go to the
Black County Living Museum in Dudley, www.bclm.co.uk . I love them
but they are simply aren’t as good as modern trams, even in
their modern form (www.tbus.org.uk), and building tracks is easier
than building roads! For a quick look though, the best bet is the
Low Countries. In response to Mrs Shires, I! can say that the ring
road will hopefully be eyed up for a future tram route (it appeared
in an early brochure published around ten years ago). There’s
room for a route on or close to it all the way from the Mansfield
Road to the Wilford Bridge and it would provide a very good service
to both main hospitals.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
trams
I still do not see what the problem is with getting line one up and
running and seeing what overall effect it has on the current traffic
level, pollution, noise, road safety, patronage etc etc over a period
of,say,3 to 5 years. Surely,if the system is going to prove to be
as good,efficient,safe and environmentally friendly as is being stated,
then everyone's tram worries will simply disappear-all the tram fanatics
will be proven correct and all the sceptics will be proven,well,sceptics.
It seems ludicrous to throw plaudits at such a massive scheme before
any part of it is even completed or running. Assessing the true viability
and environmental impact and actual cost of line one first could save
hundreds of millions of pounds should the scheme prove to be a white
elephant. I am sure that the council/developer arguement of "well,
we won't get our full share of government cash if we dont push ahead
now" ceases to be an excuse as any government/developer would willingly
fund a! ll! such future developments if proven without doubt to be
that successful and beneficial to both user and environment. Once
the system on line one is up and running you would,of course, need
independant assessors to monitor effects otherwise bias would creep
in.
paul, chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
Trams & Mr Willoughby
Just popped into a internet cafe in Spain to see how the tram debate's
going. It seems like the antis are now completely worn out. Their
arguments are discredited and they must now know that they haven't
a leg to stand on. Mr Willoughby if you're out there I still await
a reply to my question about the multi-national backer. In case you've
had another memory lapse I repeat --- 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?
Jim, Beeston & Granada |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
Tram – Insider’s bad maths
It is probably best for Insider to hide his identity given the rusty
arithmetic he has exposed us to. He has forgotten that trams run in
both directions, so I make the overall capacity (by his logic) at
42%. But his logic is also wrong - he has also assumed that all the
people will be on a journey at the same time. If someone gets on in
town and gets off in Basford and another gets on in Bulwell and gets
off in Hucknall, then they can effectively occupy the same seat. Thus
most people will get a seat if 31% of capacity is in the form of seats,
especially in off peak times, as usage will peak in the rush hour.
I was on the Sheffield trams the other day off peak and as always
there was quite a lot of passengers but they all got seats. I have
ridden there many times buts its only been in the rush hour that I
have had to stand. His other arguments are fruitless – a hydrogen
bus is a bus. A bus is a bus. The journey from your seat to the exit
will still be hair-raising whet! he! r the bus is being powered by
diesel, hydrogen or electricity. I believe Insider is linked to the
bus business and is protecting minority interests.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
Trams
Trams run from 6 am to midnight - 18 hours. They will run 364 days
a year (not Christmas day). Every 6 minutes = 10 an hour or 180 a
day. Two directions = 360 trams a day or 131,040 trams a year. 200
people max on each tram (although higher figures are possible) = 26
million passengers a year with 200 people in a tram! Not 12 million!
This of course is slightly inaccurate as it doesn't take account of
a rediced Sunday service or lesser off-peak frequencies - but it shows
how the anti-trammers can't even get their basic sums right!
ARTY, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
Trams - Response to Insider
The numbers you quote should be halved as the trams will travel in
both directions and not just out of the station (an easy mistake to
make) ,however, this still leaves a high average number of personnel
per Tram at 44 % average capacity and 88 passengers per tram. The
assumption of transfers from existing Public Transport is approximatley
50-60 % or 44 to 53 passengers on every Tram. What this means in practice
is that the equivalent number of bus journies (340 per day ) will
also need to be cancelled to make the benefits case work .
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
Trams Insiders failed maths
Insider unfortunately you forgot two factors a) the trams run in two
directions, your calculations are based on one only, b) people get
on and off part way along the journey. Your assumption is that everyone
gets on at the city to fill each tram to capacity, no-one gets on
anywhere else and the trams rum back totally empty - go back to school.
If those who promote hydrogen buses would like to run a trip to see
them I will happily go along if other commitments permit. It's hardly
surprising that Croydon is the "holy grail" as it is an excellent
example of what can be acheived. It has some faults (no park & ride
sites) but Nottingham is taking the good points and improving on them,
just as Croydon did when developing their system. We shall meet the
project engineer who oversaw everything to the point when contracts
were let, he is probably the best qualified person in this country
regarding tramway systems and it's gratifying that the Leader Of Notts
County Council recognises this and so will attend. It's a shame you
can't come but of course with your "ample experience" maybe you would
gain little? We shall post a full report. May I re-assure Mrs Shires
about times Croydon Tramlink (The Holy Grail) was able to report:
"The service is reliable too - over 99% of scheduled km's are operated.
In addition, correct headways, the time between each tram is achieved
98.6% of the time." I challenge any bus company to report similar.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
20-August-2002
bus times
my husband had to wait 50mins for a bus today to come to the hospitall
to fetch me home.we dont have a car he waited from 9-45 to 10-50.
he was waiting for the 53 bus this is not the first time this bus
has been late It is bad enough being in hospitall without worying
about family not being able to get in.I just hope when the trams start
to run(which by-the way are not a new idea ever heard the saying what
goes around comes around) they run on time.
mrs s shires, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
20-August-2002
Nottingham Trams - Replies
Thank you to Mr Babrber for his kind invitation, unfortunately I must
decline for the following reasons: 1) It would compromise my anonynimity
2) I already have ample experience of riding trams 3) I don't dispute
most of the benefits that trams can bring [and you're hardly going
to show the downsides, are you?]. I assume, since you're doing this
in the spirit of full and fair education, you'll also be organising
trips that educate everyone on the subjects of 1) alternative electric
vehicles (including cars), 2) fuel cell development and use (e.g.
the buses in London) 3) modern trolleybuses 4) all the other reasonable
factors, arguments and objections raised. But again, thank you for
the offer, it would have been interesting. If I can spare the time,
I'll visit Croydon myself sometime (I notice Croydon seems to be the
holy grail where pro-trammers are concerned). To re-iterate, I am
NOT anti-tram per se, see "Imagine A Better World (Try Harder)" in
the "Nottingham - Best Ci! ty" section. There really do seem to be
some strange figures bandied about as regards passenger figures. Perhaps
the pro-trammers would like to clarify them (your arguments thus far
have been noticibly light on facts where this issue is concerned).
NET states that 11 million passengers will ride the tram every year,
and that trams will leave the city centre every 6 minutes. If we assume
that the tram operates from 6am to 11pm (correct me if I'm wrong),
this means that in any given day, 170 trams will pass any given stop
on Line One every day. Each tram can carry 200 people (62:138 seated:standing
ratio) Assuming the trams always run on time, 7 days a week, 365 days
a year (I'm being generous to the pro-trammers here), this gives us
a 100% capacity figure of 12,410,000 per year. This means that NET's
passenger figures assume that the trams run at an average of 88.64%
of capacity, or 177.3 passengers per tram (which means 115 of them
are standing, btw). If they're corr! ect (88% average capacity seems
ludicrously optimistic to me), G Bennett has an approx 1:2 chance
of sitting down and enjoying that book he likes to read while riding
public transport. Or, to put it another way, 66% of the time, he will
have his head in someone else's armpit (ride the London underground
if you want a taster), rather than his book (sure, you can still listen
to Radio 4 on your headphones, but car users can enjoy it on a 4-speaker
surround stereo, seated, and without the armpits). If NET's predictions
are wrong, this has the financial implications covered by other contributors.
In response to Betty, you can find fuel cell (hydrogen) buses on trial
in London, Stuttgart, Hamburg, Luxemburg and Stockholm, from late
next year. Modern trolleybuses can be found, or can soon be found,
in: Vancouver, Fribourg, St Etienne, Athens, Lyon, Grenoble, Seattle,
Riga, Shanghai, Salzburg, Arnheim, Soligen, Cordoba, Esslingen, Naples,
Genoa, Guangzhou, Lausanne, Linz, Bolog! na, Bern, Quito, Napoli,
Mexico City, Moscow, Modena and Sao Paulo.
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
20-August-2002
Crowded trams
Dane makes an interesting point: The anti-trammers are claiming that
NET have their figures wrong for patronage but Dane claims that on
his/her hypothetical journey from Clifton to Chilwell Road he/she
will probably have to stand both inbound and outbound. If this is
to be the case then clearly NET will have their figures wrong - far
too pessimistic and as in Manchester extra trams will have to be ordered.
One by one the anti tram arguments are collapsing. I also see that
he/she is now trying to backtrack on making the unfounded claim that
a member of this group is a hypocrite. Dane what are your experiences
of trams? Why not take up the challenge and come to Croydon on 14
September. I'm sure that after that we shall all be in a better position
to present our arguments and the level of debate will rise.
S.B., Beeston Notts |
|
|
|
|
|
20-August-2002
Tram –time, comfort and health
I am puzzled by Dane’s, S William’s and other recent contributions
to this debate regarding journey times and the supposed comfort of
one’s own vehicle. Driving time is often completely wasted time,
as well as being very stressful. I have long enjoyed the advantage
of public transport in the fact that it allows me to read. I can make
and receive phone calls and text messages without endangering other
people’s lives. I can use my laptop or palmtop. If I want audio,
I can use my portable audio devices (I have even found that radio
will work on a bus, once you know how). If people supposedly see car
driving time as well used and cite the opportunity to listen to music,
why then do most people have only a lowly cassette player in their
cars when CD, MD or MP3 is the norm at home, on the PC or on portable
audio? I have also noticed that those who are daft enough to be so
pro car and talk about freedom of choice are also those who listen
to downmarket local! c! ommercial radio stations (the tabloids of
the airwaves) – there’s no wonder that they are ill-informed!
Furthermore, walking to the bus / tram stop of the station is not
wasted time, it keeps you healthy. I always laugh at the car driving
crowd who drive to the gym to keep fit. By the way, if you want to
know whether you have a healthy weight, divide your weight in kilograms
by the square of your height in metres. That gives your body mass
index (BMI). E.g. A man of 6’0” (1.83m) weighing 82 kg
(13 st 1 lb) then BMI = 82 / (1.83 x 1.83) = 24.8. The healthy range
is 20 to 25. If its over 25 you’re overweight, and according
to the DoH the average BMI for most age groups is now over 25, which
means we all need to take some regular exercise every so often, and
walking to public transport is just the right sort. When my BMI was
over 25 I had a variety of health problems which disappeared when
I lost the weight. Mind you my back ache was caused by a co! mb! ination
of being overweight and sitting in the awkward position that even
a car with the best designed seats inflicted upon me. Roll on the
tram with proper seats, not the buckets and bathtubs they call seats
in cars.
AW, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
20-August-2002
Tram users & non users
Dane comments that (s)he could "step out of my house and into my car,
sit in relative comfort, have a cigarette, listen to my own choice
of music and be at work in less than 15 minutes". This assumes that
the roads between Clifton & Beeston are not clogged up with traffic.
If the tram is running in 5 years time they won't be, without the
tram the way conjestion has increased over the past 5 years I wouldn't
fancy that journey. As you pointed out if you caught the tram you
would "... probably standing, into Nottingham..... ... probably standing,
to Beeston..." the tram will be well used by people who would otherwise
be clogging up the roads. Dane you have just stated a reason for the
tram from a non-users point of view. Keep up the good work!
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
20-August-2002
Trams,trolley buses and hydrogen buses
I’ve been following your tram debate with some interest recently,
particularly as I live in Chilwell near to the proposed route. I’m
not a tram expert but I do try and take a lively interest in what’s
happening. I also believe that one should come to a conclusion based
on facts and one’s own experience, not on what other people say, so
I’ve recently spent four days travelling on trams at Manchester, Sheffield,
Croydon and the West Midlands (I retired recently so I have the time).
My conclusions overall were that each of these systems seem to work
very well. They ran frequently, punctually and were well patronised.
They were very smooth and quiet, were light, airy and very comfortable
to ride in with excellent views through the large windows. The acceleration
was at times exhilarating. I spoke to a number of people on all the
systems and they seemed to have no complaints at all. Many of them
told me they still had cars, but preferred the tram when travelling
into the town centres. In particular, I noticed a number of elderly
people in electric wheelchairs, or those little buggies which we are
seeing much more of these days. They were very enthusiastic, as it
is impossible to get these into cars or buses, and before the trams
came they were unable to get out and about very easily. I think this
is a very important point that seems to have been ignored by those
opposing the tram. As someone who is “getting on in years” I can appreciate
how important this might be to me one day. I was also surprised at
how cheap the fares were, as I had read in a leaflet by the BCBRA
that tram fares everywhere were high. Well, they were cheaper than
on our buses locally! In Sheffield I travelled all day for just £2.70.
I have noticed that some of those who don’t want the tram say we should
have trolley buses or hydrogen buses instead. I remember the trolley
buses in Nottingham but that was a long time ago and no doubt the
modern ones are much improved. I’ve never travelled on a hydrogen
bus. I’ve now sampled four modern tram systems but I’d like to compare
them with modern trolley buses and hydrogen buses. I have asked a
few people but those I’ve asked don’t know where they operate. Perhaps
one of those people who advocate them instead of trams could kindly
post a message here listing the towns and cities that operate trolley
bus and hydrogen bus systems. I’ll then take a trip and sample them
for myself.
Betty, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
19-August-2002
Invitation to Insider and all contributers
Insider you want the well informed populace to be able to make it's
own mind up. Well we offer you all the opportunity to become better
informed. Please accompany us to Croydon on 14 September for a conducted
tour around their system. We shall look at A) The effects on housing
especially where the tracks are close to residences. B) The effects
on businesses, Tramlink runs along a narrower street than Chilwell
Road with family run shops. C) The effects on the elderly and less
mobile. I'm pleased to say that many have taken up our offer including
residents of Chilwell whose houses will be severely affected, residents
of old peoples homes in Chilwell and the leader of Notts County Council
(Mick Warner). The cost is £18, travel by rail for details see http:www.bacit.org.
Places are limited. Thank you Dane for commenting on my magnimosity,
the journey to & from Berridge Road really is a pain at present -
roll on the tram it really will improve the quality our our lives.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
19-August-2002
Some replies
DANE – I agree with Stanley’s replies, and would add further comments.
I see nothing wrong with trams having feeders, whether in the fashion
of park-and-ride, connecting hopper buses or tram branches/extensions.
Yes, the Chilwell extension does strengthen the economic case for
the Beeston QMC route, and so much the better. The conduit or limited-stop
expressway argument against the trams is a red herring. It is quite
invalid for people to argue against a tram on the basis that some
or any of the traffic comes from outside the area where objectors
live. These “outsider” people have a right to work, shop or leisure
in Nottingham, and it is a pity they could not be canvassed in the
recent public consultations. Let them contribute to the vitality of
the city, better than fostering regional shopping centres like Meadowhall.
INSIDER – There is currently a wealth of information on the websites
for and against trams. There are the two reports NET submitted to
the Councils, October last year and April just gone, the former with
appended reports prepared by the anti-tram pressure groups in Beeston
and Wilford. There are such documents as the Local Transport Plan,
Local Authority Development Plans, the Environmental Statement for
tram Line One, etc., etc. How many tram opponents have read this material?
How many of the rest of the population are even interested? The politicians
and public servants are wise and good, making comlex decisions on
our behalf. This is the professionalism we call indirect democracy.
Most of them believe trams are better than the alternatives. There
is a great deal of obedience, deference and respect to authority by
the public. The man propping up the public bar does not know better.
The local tram objectors have a vested self- interest, but still have
the right to! p! rotest. In a few years time Nottingham people are
going to be moaning we ought to have had the new trams years ago,
should never have got rid of the old ones in the first place, can
we please have more tramcars in service, more lines?
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
19-August-2002
Tram – Chilwell cost benefits
Dane obviously doesn’t travel by bus from Chilwell when he makes
his criticisms of the cost benefit ratio of NET line 3, with and without
it going to Chilwell. If he did, he would realise that much of the
additional revenue, of taking it to Chilwell, comes from the fact
that lots of people travel from Chilwell to Beeston. Try catching
the NCT 36 sir! Its also true of the Barton’s 5 and Connect
5 services, which just goes to show what a draw Beeston is. He would
also see that people use services like the 13 / 13C, 18 and 32 to
get from Broxtowe College to Chilwell one way and Beeston the other
way. The tram going as far as a park and ride is an extra bonus and
I see no harm in this, why does Dane see it negatively? Re Laurie–
this is the first person I have ever heard who claims that upon seeing
trams elsewhere they are against them! Normally everyone is overwhelmingly
persuaded as to the advantages of the tram. There’s no accounting
for folk, I suppos! e. As for Insider, yes, I think that people haven’t
been able to be properly informed about the tram. If they had, there
simply would not be any opposition to it at all. I have noticed that
as people get more of a chance to learn, the opposition declines.
AW, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
19-August-2002
Tram Debate
In reply to Stanley of Basford,Chill out man. I did not make a "ridiculous
demand" that S.Barber scrap his van. I know that S.Barber needs his
van for his line of work. I merely made a light hearted remark which,
hopefully, illustrates the futility of spending £100's millions on
a new transport system that will NOT force drivers to ditch their
vehicles,(as most pro trammers presume will happen). I did not think
for one minute that S.Barber would be straight on the phone to McIntyres
to find the scrap value of his van, and I would hope that he has the
intelligence to grasp the meaning of what I was trying to say. Drivers
will not ditch their vehicles in preference to riding on a tram, I
know I won't. I live in Clifton and work on Chilwell Rd in Beeston.
If I were to travel to work by tram I would have a 5 minute walk,in
all weathers, to a tram stop, a possible 6 minute wait for a tram
and a 21 minute journey, probably standing, into Nottingham. I would
then alight this tram a! nd wait possibly 6 more minutes for a Beeston
tram and a 21 minute journey,again probably standing, to Beeston.
A total journey time of 1 hour. Alternatively, I could step out of
my house and into my car, sit in relative comfort, have a cigarette,
listen to my own choice of music and be at work in less than 15 minutes.
No competitiomn is there?This just reiterates what I said in my last
letter, the tram is not there for the people of Nottingham.It provides
very little alternatve over car travel for people going from A to
B in our City. My only gripe is that my car journey to work will be
made longer with the arrival of the tram. University Blvd / Queens
Road junction will be a nightmare when all traffic has to stop every
3 minutes or so to let a tram pass over this junction. There is absolutely
no argument that can convince me that Nottingham needs a tram system.
Nottingham just isn't big enough as a City, as Manchester, Sheffield
and the Croydon connurbation, to warrant a t! ram system. The money
spent on the tram would have been better spent by widening the A453,
putting another road bridge over the Trent and giving us a proper
ring road, all of which will have to be done in the next 20 years.
Nottingham's roads are bad now, but nothing compared to how badly
congested they will be when we have trams and cars vying for the same
road space. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Replace lunatics
with Nottingham City & County Councils and asylum with Nottingham
and it brings everything into perspective.
Dane, |
|
|
|
|
|
19-August-2002
Trams
Thanks for the responses from AH & AW neither of which have answered
the question : How do you turn £ 94 million into £ 69 million in 3
years (the construction period of the tram ,which needs to be in place
before any benefits can accrue). You can’t unless you are funding
at 40 %. Next Question : Is 40 % a sensible rate to use for such a
major project ? Personally I think not. I have not commented on the
benefits side which is clearly subject to much subjectivity ,except
that if the immediate costs which are hard rather than soft numbers
are potentially so far out ,what hope is there for the rest ? A £
25 million write off in 3 years is clearly significant to the overall
case . Answers please to the specific question not generalities on
the wonderful overall model used which we are supposed to rely on.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
19-August-2002
I was about to reply to Dane, when I read the excellent reply from
Stanley of Basford, which says much that I intended to. What seems
clear to me is that many of those who oppose the tram are obviously
so wedded to their cars that they are unable to comprehend the basic
principles of transport - that there are different modes, each having
their own strengths and weaknesses. We’ve all met the car bore
– that’s the one who never travels anywhere other than
by car, who talks non-stop about his (or her) pet, spends all his
(or her) spare money on it, and who, if they could overcome the logistics
would drive it upstairs to bed ! Cars are very good for some journeys,
but not all. Planes are great if you want to go to Spain, but not
much good for nipping down to the Supermarket for the weekly shop.
Trains are by far the best way to go from Nottingham to London, but
not much good for a summer evening trip out to a country pub in the
Vale of Belvoir. For both the supermarket and the pub, the car gets
my vote. But for a journey into Nottingham for work, shopping, the
theatre etc, the car is definitely the worst form of transport. That’s
exactly why the tram is being proposed along the route chosen. It
will serve a number of centres of employment en-route, besides the
QMC, University, Beeston, Chilwell and the Park & Ride site at Bardills
Island. The latter will be excellent for those living in Toton, Stapleford
and all points to Derby. NET has quite rightly chosen routes to the
west of Nottingham – that’s where the M1 is. Most people
coming to Nottingham by car from the north or south use the M1, coming
off at Junctions 24, 25 or 26, so the planned Park & Ride sites will
be well placed to reduce the number of these cars going into the city.
Dane and those like her should try and understand that the tram is
primarily intended to reduce the number of CARS going into the city?
And what if some of those who will use the tram are from outside our
area – they’re still going to keep coming, and in increasing
numbers, tram or no tram. So I say well done NET in doing something
positive to reduce traffic levels in the city down. As a car owner
myself I will continue to use it for many journeys, but definitely
not for going into Nottingham. The tram will win every time.
Angela, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
18-August-2002
Trams
I have found the debate on this site to be very informative. I had
not made up my mind about the trams but from looking at your site
I see much in support of the proposals. The anti-tram arguments are
powerfully put but they seem based on emotion and fear. The argument
that it is only “outsiders” who will use the trams seems nonsensical
and full of prejudice and designed to whip up the worst possible instincts.
The pro tram arguments by contrast seem well researched and rational.
B Faber, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
18-August-2002
Nottingham Trams - Reply to G Bennett
I agree entirely, democracy is not just about counting heads, it should
be about allowing a well-educated and well-informed populace to decide
for themselves what is best for them. Do you really think that the
people of Nottingham have been given a fair, impartial education as
to the nature of the trams and their alternatives? If not, were we
in a position to make a decision?
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
17-August-2002
Car Use & the Tram
Some of the contributors seem to believe supporting the tram = banning
the car. Take the ridiculous demand made by Dane that Steve Barber
sell his van following the tram's opening to Chilwell. People will
still need cars for certain journeys, the key is to USE THEM LESS!
There are two types of car journeys that cause the most damage to
the environment: very short trips and trips in congested conditions.
Reducing the first type relies on our own consideration: do we really
have to drive the 400 yards to the newsagent's -maybe we can walk?
The second type includes exactly the trips that will be served by
the tram. Some trips will probably still be better by car, but NOT
ALL as is presumed to be the case now! Some suggest we develop more
Meadowhalls instead of making trips into town. These edge of town
developments have been the result of our car worship, and part of
the relentless concreting over of the greenbelt. It's rather ironic
that one of the anti-tram's concerns is the construction of the narrow
tramway on greenbelt, considering the desire to serve cars has been
the one of the reasons for its erosion. A final point to those who
criticize the extension to Chilwell as benefiting outsiders only.
The substantial increase in benefit/cost arises because: (i) the extension
is cheap; (ii) it allows service to Beeston from the west; and (iii)it
increases the catchment area of the tram to the west. Sure some of
the users will from outside Nottingham, but if they're going to Nottingham
would you rather they congest our roads instead? As I've said before,
I struggle to understand those who accuse the tram of not serving
Chilwell. It goes from the major housing estate through the town centre,
to the university (many of Beeston and Chilwell's residents are students),
to the main hospital (many of the residents are elderly) and on to
the city centre. Now tell me Dane, what route WOULD serve Chilwell?
Stanley, Basford, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
17-August-2002
tram debate
Is the Nottingham tram really for Nottingham and it's people, or is
it purely a scheme to get many non Nottingham citizens into our city
centre for commercial reasons only? The more I look at the facts and
figures available the more sceptical I get. Take the Beeston via QMC
line. 3.0 million (predicted) passenger journeys per year, with a
benefit-cost ratio of 0.61,(below Government acceptance). This takes
into account all of the 1000's of journeys we are told people will
make to the QMC by tram, but still leaves a very low benefit-cost
ratio. Now add the Chilwell extension to the equation and a very different
scenario arises. With a predicted 2.1 million passeger journeys a
year,( which is two thirds the amount of Nottingham to Beeston and
back, taking in the QMC on route), we now have a benefit-cost ratio
of 1.14,just within Government acceptance. how, if Nottingham-QMC-Beeston
only has a patronage figure of 3 million can the Chilwell extension
be expected to have a patron! age figure of 2.1 million? Is it because
it is a densely populated area? No, it is because there is a park
and ride at the other end, which will be fed by junction 25 of the
M1, Just like line one will be fed by junction 27 at Hucknall and
Junction 26 at Cinderhill, and the Clifton line will be fed by junction
24. All of the proposed routes reach out towards the M1,that's why
there are no proposed routes for the east of the city, no motorway
to feed them.This just makes me think that the tram and it's routes
have been designed to bring outsiders into Nottingham, and not there
for the tax payers of Nottingham.
Message for S.Barber.How very magnamimous of you."You catch the tram
dear and I'll take the car".Well done, keep the little lady in her
place.
Dane, |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
Some replies
O. ALDRIDGE – shuttle buses or hoppers would be useful to serve
major tram stops and transport interchanges. The tram routes along
Chilwell valley and Wilford embankment are ORIGINAL, with good intermediate
traffic potential.
S. WILLIAMS – For the second time (I recall one of your letters
to the Evening Post) you claim Mr. Bates of NET has stated in public
that the trams will not reduce peak period congestion. When? Where?
People are not going to have to stand for long in the trams since
they are quick, and whilst it would be ideal if all had a seat, it
is better for people to stand in a tram on the move than be stuck
in a peak hour bus queue in the pouring rain, waiting for overcrowded
buses. But if there is standing room only, this endorses the trams
for traffic, so we need MORE services and routes.
DANE – I laughed instantly with your mention of my name –
Drew, Barber and Bennett. I am deeply flattered and will buy you a
pint if we ever meet.! ! I know one councillor who cannot drive, represents
and sympathises with certain tram objectors, and yet has never seen
trams him/herself in the UK or abroad!
INSIDER – democracy is not just about counting heads, as some
think. The public need to be properly informed about issues. Most
tram objection is nimby, or uninformed or misinformed. The Public
Inquiry is the right approach, like a law court, with a high standard
of evidence. Shortly after this procedure for Lines 2 and 3, Line
1 will open and provide enlightenment for the people by experience.
Right now the tram objectors are still producing tripe in debate,
and can get away with it, as one recent letter from a Wilford objector
to the newspaper shows. No amount of nimby protestation is going to
make the Queens Drive route better than Clifton-Wilford. I suggest
we have a local public referendum on whether the Council should make
the sun go round the earth.
MR. EDITOR – some postings to this website ! ha! ve been repeated,
probably respondents double-clicking their submission. Please resolve.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
Trams & cycles
David. Interestingly Croydon now has the lowest rate of cycle accidents
in any London borough - why? because the roads are safer with fewer
parked cars and the traffic has not grown at the same alarming rate
as elsewhere. Instead of moaning have you contacted NET to press for
bikes on the trams? You obviously haven't observed the intricate system
to drain the groove, now being installed in Nottingham. It will not
fill up with rain water. Have you tried riding along where the tracks
are? It is not a great problem - the cars are. If the money were merely
spent on maintaining the roads we would see no improvement - unless
you are proposing a new road into Nottingham through Chilwell valley
as nearly happened 30+ years ago.
S.B., Beeston Notts |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
Reply to S Williams
S Williams makes some points that have been answered again and again,
plus some new spurious ones. Answering in order: (1) taxes on vehicle
owners are are actually less than the estimated total cost of vehicle
use - ie when you take into account hospital costs for injuries and
deaths, pollution cost to health, etc etc.- the idea that governments
make a massive profit from taxing car owners is nonsense. (2) S Williams
suggests we lobby the government to encourage a reduction in car ownership
- surely a reduction of ownership will be encouraged by a reduction
of use, and that will be encouraged by having better public transport
that car drivers will use - like the tram. (3) when did Neil Bates
state that the tram will not resolve peak time congestion - I've asked
this before without reply. And what do you/he mean by "resolve" anyway
- clearly the tram will not clear peak time congestion, but it will
make a difference. (4) the tram is not only to serve the park & rides
but for the people en route too - without them it wouldnt pass the
cost-benefit ratio threshold and wouldnt get built. (5) of c! ou!
rse tram lines would be built if there wasnt funding available - neither
would road changes/upgrades, or other public transport initiatives.
(6) S Williams asks if people will use the tram where "it does not
go where you need to be" - probably not, but the tram does follow
the most common journey (into city centre). Statistics show that some
car drivers *will* use trams who wouldnt use buses - surveys in Sheffield
and Croydon found that 20% of passenger journeys would previously
have been made by car.
Mark Ramsey, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
Trams on the Cycle tracks;
Im wish to say that the trams are going down routes that have been
cycle tracks for at least 23 years. They will not carry cyclists with
abike. The areas that they wish to put the tram,is in the way of traffic,
As a cyclist I would have to cycle in the middle of the tracks as
the,line is able to get a tyre down, also people in wheelchairs And
ladys with high heels will trip and fall. The tracks are filling up
with debry and when it will rain the tracks will be full of rain water.
The net people do not consult on the route,The engineers are just
in it for the money. The money that is being spent on the tram could
have been better spent on maintaing the existing stateof the roads.
david clark, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
Various tram replies
Wow this forum is starting to really take off! To answer a few questions
where my name has been mentioned: Mr Williams the roads were built
for cars - so the Romans invented cars? Chilwell Road was in fact
designed with a tram in mind at the beginning of the last century.
Dane I'm going to scrap my van I probably will because at present
we need a car & a van, my wife to get to work at Berrige Road and
a van for my business. Once the tram is running the Berridge Road
journey is replaced by the tram and a car with trailer will suffice
for my business needs. Insider thank you I wish that I shared your
optimism that we have already won.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
Cost benifit analysis
In response to JC who seem to imply the financing of the tram is run
by Andersons. The rules for cost benefit analsis (COBA) are very tightly
controlled and specified by the civil service and by the government
taking into account various parameters. There is substantial difference
between cost benifit and rate of return which JC discussed and confuesed.
The rules for use of COBA for the tram to establish cost benifit will
be similar to those used for new road schemes etc which I think take
into account improved travel time reduced accidents, demand forcasts
(all of which tend to be put in conservatively). For the tram it is
clear the project shows a good cost benifit from JCs Data because
it will bring excellent economic benifit. On the funding in general
it can be argued weather PFI is the most economic method of funding
for the government, as over the 30 years it can cost more than paying
up front. But what it does do is reduce the apparent govenment spending
on the books (which is why the tories and this government like it
so much).
AH, beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
Cost benifit analysis
In response to JC who seem to imply the financing of the tram is run
by Andersons. The rules for cost benefit analsis (COBA) are very tightly
controlled and specified by the civil service and by the government
taking into account various parameters. There is substantial difference
between cost benifit and rate of return which JC discussed and confuesed.
The rules for use of COBA for the tram to establish cost benifit will
be similar to those used for new road schemes etc which I think take
into account improved travel time reduced accidents, demand forcasts
(all of which tend to be put in conservatively). For the tram it is
clear the project shows a good cost benifit from JCs Data because
it will bring excellent economic benifit. On the funding in general
it can be argued weather PFI is the most economic method of funding
for the government, as over the 30 years it can cost more than paying
up front. But what it does do is reduce the apparent govenment spending
on the books (which is why the tories and this government like it
so much).
AH, beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Nottingham's Tram
This is getting as bad as a TV 'discussion' programme - you know the
ones, where people shout at each other and no-one listens? Both the
pro and anti-tram lobbies have valid points and good arguments (mixed
in with emotive nonsense, of course), but neither side is taking any
notice. Steve Barber writes, "If this is the best that the anti-tram
lobby can come up with then we shall soon have our tram!" - Steve,
it really doesn't matter what anyone writes or says, you're getting
your tram regardless. You've already won. Don't make the mistake of
thinking we live in a democracy. The only thing that can be done is
to prevent the construction of further tram routes if Line One is
a flop - and it won't be. Both of Nottingham's Council's have a stake
here, and they will not allow it fail if at all possible - and when
it comes to road schemes designed to force people out of cars and
into their pocket-lining trams, they can do as they please under a
'green' or 'anti-congestion' ba! nner. Alternatively, they can just
launch some more 'consultation' meetings with the public at which
the public are told what will happen, end of story. By all means debate
and discuss, but don't think for a moment it will make any difference.
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
THE TRAMS
I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT THEY ARE GETTING THE TRAM NET,
I LIVED IN THE LACE MARKET FOR 7YEARS BEFORE MOVING TO FLORIDA LAST
YEAR AND THE CITY REALY NEED THE NETWORK , IT WILL PUT THE CITY ON
THE MAP AS A MODEN CITY. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP B******G ON SHOULD GET
BEHIND THE CITY AND HELP IT MOVE FORWARD TO ONE OF THE BEST CITYS
ENGLAND HAS. OR MOVE?????????????????
MARKY MARK, TAMPA FLORIDA |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Public Transport in Notts
Don't expect NCT to serve the public interest - that's only a small
part of what they're about. Remember the recent, massive overhaul
of timetables and bus stops? Do you really think that was to improve
the service? It has a lot more to do with the fact that NCT was only
one year away from operating at a loss, and these measures were designed
to get them safely back in the black again. I imagine most subsequent
changes are motivated along similar lines.
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
16-August-2002
THE TRAMS
I THINK PEOPLE SHOULD BE HAPPY THAT THEY ARE GETTING THE TRAM NET,
I LIVED IN THE LACE MARKET FOR 7YEARS BEFORE MOVING TO FLORIDA LAST
YEAR AND THE CITY REALY NEED THE NETWORK , IT WILL PUT THE CITY ON
THE MAP AS A MODEN CITY. THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP B******G ON SHOULD GET
BEHIND THE CITY AND HELP IT MOVE FORWARD TO ONE OF THE BEST CITYS
ENGLAND HAS. OR MOVE?????????????????
MARKY MARK, TAMPA FLORIDA |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Tram – cost benefits
JC of West Bridgford gives us an account of cost benefit analysis
which simply does not make sense. At the risk of sounding like I’m
talking rubbish, which inevitably can occur when attempting to respond
to rubbish, here goes: The fact is that an IT project in the Child
Support Agency is a very different thing to a tram system. There is
as yet no proof that the government will have to bear the cost of
the computer project failure but as someone who is highly experienced
in IT project issues I can advise him that the state of the IT industry
is very poor in general, with projects often failing or running very
late, whereas the NET tram proposals are solid and well managed –
the opposite end of the scale in fact. There’s no risk for tax
and rate payers. As for the rest of JC’s claims, there is seemingly
a confusion between rate of return and benefit. The benefits of the
tram will be huge – both direct and hidden. And I suspect that
not all the hid! de! n benefits have been taken into account by NET.
The costs of maintaining the status quo are huge, especially the hidden
costs, e.g. health, accidents, congestion, etc. I dare not comment
any further as I think there is hardly anything of merit in what JC
says. I somehow doubt that his ramblings hold any weight against the
considered calculations of both private and public sector professionals.
Considering the very conservative accounting principles used, I see
no problems at all with the financial aspects of the tram –
it is likely to be much more successful than predicted.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
tram debate
Drew,Barber & Bennett, this sounds like a legal firm representing
NET doesn't it. Or could it be just a group of self opinionated people
with plenty of spare time on their hands and nothing better to do
than to try and force their opinions onto other people? Question for
S.Barber: If you are so concerned about the effects the internal combustuion
engine is having on the atmosphere would I be right in thinking, that
when the tram is up and running, you will be scrapping your van,(which
I presume is diesel and therefor produces much more pollution than
a petrol engine), and moving all of your tools and buiding equipment
around on a tram. No? I didn,t think so. Hypocrite. Am I also right
in thinking that all of the Coucillors and Civil Servants vying for
this tram project won't be using it either, except after having been
seen on it's inaugeral trip for line one, and then back to their luxury
cars, essential for their job, as mine is for me.
Dane, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
trams
I have not read this forum for quite some time as there seemed to
be a few very sad regular contributors ( you know who you are )who's
only aim is to remove car users from the roads and replace them with
trams. I have to respond knowing that anyone of importance, involved
in the transport decision making process will not be taking any notice!!
Lets clear a few things up. What were roads built for cars and other
road users, or trains that are called trams? Why have our roads been
so neglected and under funded despite the massive revenues raised
off vechile owners in taxes. who is responseable for this? Why is
the government happy to keep encourageing car ownership, so keeping
its coffiers full, yet now does not want us to use them as much? If
and its a massive if car usage could be reduced, which then may lead
to a lower demand for cars, what will the car industry do, what will
the government increase taxes on insterd to recoup its possible losses
on road taxes? All you anti ! ca! r people and I suspect you make
up a fair percentage of the pro tram brigade, have got to lobby the
government to encourge a reduction in car ownership, rather than keeping
on penalising the motorist for wanting to use their car, having paid
all their taxes for doing so. A tram, as stated by Neil Bates, will
not resolve peak time congestion. It is only being built to move people
form the outside of the City into the centre as quickly as possible
at everyone elses expense.We would not even be discussing trams if
it were not for the massivs funding up for grabs! If you think you
will drive, or penalise people out of their private, comfortable,
clean,air conditioned (if you are lucky),very convienient, with your
own choice of music and refreshments, even when in a trafic jam! and
hard earned for cars,onto a tram, possibly stood up for the whole
of the journey, with all your shopping and children, that you have
had to walk up to a quarter of a mile to catch in the cold wet winte!
r ! and it does not go to where you really need be but you could catch
another tram or a bus or a taxi, I think you are all badly mistaken
or have been very badly informed indeed.
S.Williams, Stapleford |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Trams reply to O Aldridge
O Aldridge is once again regurgitating many of the old failed arguments.
Here we go again: There are a few private boundaries in question and
the owners will receive good compensation. My understanding is that
where the property is seriously affected an offer is to be made to
buy that property. What evidence do you have that additional businesses
will go bankrupt? Our evidence is the opposite. There are fewer empty
shops on the part of Radford road now subjected to tramworks than
on the part away from the tram or on the busy (lots of passing trade)
Alfreton Road. We have a quote from a small family run business on
Church St Croydon (narrower than Chilwell Road with tramlines), which
starts “The shopkeepers on Chilwell Road have nothing to fear…” I
suggest that you come with us on 14 September to Croydon to meet this
gentleman (contact info@bacit.org or visit http://www.bacit.org for
more details). There is no proposal to turn anything into a one way
system. The remark about! the garage is totally ridiculous, as I don’t
know where this garage is? The tracks will not pass directly outside
Willoughby Garages besides, the tram is every 10 minutes how often
does a car pass? Every 10 seconds?. Regarding the bus lanes you seem
to despise them but then say they will be of no use so they could
be taken away isn't that what you want? – you are obviously very mixed
up. A lot of consultation has gone on which resulted in additional
stops being proposed and the route moving off Cator Lane. A small
bus service will carry a small number of people and have no impact.
Trams in other cities are working and will soon work in Nottingham.
If this is the best that the anti-tram lobby can come up with then
we shall soon have our tram! Steve Barber chair BACIT
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Nottingham Tram System / Road Transport
The tram will run accross many private boundaries and make a mess
of many properties. Nobody appreciates a Tram running feet away from
their house. Businesses in Beeston will go bankrupt because the tram
will be running down the main road, turning it into a one way system
which will put the shops out of business along with garages and car
dealerships who will be left with no / restricted access (would you
visit a garage if you had to do battle with a tram everytime). The
road is already too narrow for buses and cars to pass safely. The
tram system will also reduce the amount of people travelling by bus
which means the bus lanes installed on the A52 which are already under
used and cause more traffic jams and pollution will be of absolutley
no use. I am for green power, no pollution and public tranport but
it appears that no one has listened to anyone that lives or works
within range when they have stated these facts. Why not invest in
a small bus shuttle service to use! t! he bus lanes already installed
and give easy access to Nottingham for everyone instead of installing
trams with 99 percent of the population will have to drive in order
to get on.
O Alldridge, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Trams
The cost benefit cases put forward by NET need further detailed investigation
before any additional money is put into the Trams. Without going into
too detailed an explanation of how Net Present Values work and also
without questioning the validity of the benefits calculation I would
like to concentrate on the simple aspect of cost.NET advise that the
capital cost of the CW route will be £ 93.9 million and the construction
period is 3 years.This in their cost benefit case is discounted to
£ 69.1 million, a £ 24.8 million difference.This is impossible unless
you are funding the project at a rate of 40 % ,which clearly is rediculous.
If NET are funding at this rate I would certainly like to invest,
to put it another way (as the calculation works the other way as well)
by investing £ 23 million per year (compounded for years 2 & 3)over
the next 3 years I would receive £ 94 million back, great give me
the form! This would be the most oversubscribed project ever !!! This
does not! m! ake sense COME ON COUNCELLORS ASK THE QUESTION !!! I
don’t want to fund the £ 20 million hole and given the cost
is the easy bit of the calculation the rest is highly questionable.
In the responses please don’t give me any public/private initiative
with the private sector bearing the risk,we have seen how well this
works this week with the Child Support Agency having to foot a £ 50
million bill under one of these supposed schemes.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Some replies
Elizabeth Watson - the tram will take 27 minutes to travel from Hucknall
to the Old Market Square. The info is on the NET website. Do be careful
about the telly or newspapers, since they can make some mistakes,
a slip of the tongue or pen perhaps. Mark Wilkins - I believe about
7 million passenger JOURNEYS per year is the break-even point for
Line One, not the famous 10 plus or 11 million. Well, 10-11m has been
calculated by expert consultants, you know.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
14-August-2002
Tram – or trolleybus?
Mark must have joined this debate very late because trolley buses
were dismissed a long time ago - and I say that as a trolleybus fan!
Trams carry more people, more smoothly with better accessibility and
are somewhat better at attracting people from their cars. Nevertheless
in some locations, where there are long stretches where there isn’t
room to get tracks through, trolley buses would be great and I would
support them if trams couldn’t be done. As for ten million passengers
(actually journeys) per year that’s only 200,000 journeys per
week. Assuming five return journeys per commuting passenger, that’s
only 20,000 passengers per week. I reckon the projections are severe
underestimates!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
15-August-2002
Trams reduce accidents
I heard a frightening statistic in the pub the other night. Apparamtly
1 in 17 of us can expect to be killed or seriously injured on the
roads. That means that nearly 2 children in each class or a whole
class in each school can expect that fate. No wonder teachers are
disillusioned – what’s the point? Locally we’ve got flowers on By-pass
road, an accident board on Wollaton Road & a semi permanent shrine
on Woodside Road. Thinking back to the last BCBRA meeting I remember
someone claiming that Manchester trams had killed 10 people. That
sounds bad too – but wait a minute doesn’t BACIT claim to check out
all these claims? Let’s see what their web-site says “... their have
been six Metrolink related fatalities over its life. All have been
suicides. ...If this is a fair reflection of anticipated railway experience,
then Metrolink would appear to have reduced the number of lives lost."another
BCBRA lie laid to rest. Also a report from Croydon “Overall road accidents
of all types ! fell as well, with 11% fewer people hurt, the lowest
for 20 years” It’s clear to me then that trams reduce road accidents
so if the anti tram lobby succeed then this carnage locally will continue
and I’ll take out shares in the local undertakers.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
14-August-2002
Trolleybusses
Mark as has been frequently pointed out on this discussion group a
trolley bus has only one asset above a diesel bus - it produces zero
local air pollution. It gets held up in traffic just the same, it
is as rough and slow and car drivers will not use it. Unless of course
you propose to build a new road for them into the city - that would
be more expensive more intrusive, noisier and take more space than
the tramway. Joy riders would love it! Hydrogen busses are the same
as trolley busses that is an inferior non-solution.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
14-August-2002
Ask NET
Taken directly from http://www.bacit.org: Have you got a question
you would like to put NET? Want to know more about the trams themselves,
the route, the public enquiry or the timetable of events? Well, here
is your chance. E-mail your questions to AskNET@BACIT.org and we at
BACIT we distil them into the five or ten questions that reflect what
people most want to know. We will send these off to NET around the
end of August, early September and then publish their reply verbatim
on the web site. So please ask
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
14-August-2002
Times from Hucknall
Elizabeth I think you answered your own question "if there are not
any roadworks" however I would add "or other hold ups". The tram will
not be held up by other traffic to the extent that cars and buses
will. You will not have to find a parking space. Your journey time
is predictable. It will be cheaper than taking the car in. From Hucknall
you would probably be quicker by train if Nottingham is your destination.
However if your destination is short of Nottingham or you join elsewhere
then the tram will probably be the best way.
S.B., Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
14-August-2002
Tram – Hucknall journey
I suspect that when Elizabeth gets from Hucknall to Nottingham in
20 to 30 minutes that she is breaking the speed limit and jumping
red lights, even in the middle of the night. She probably also illegally
parks outside whichever city centre building is her final destination.
Furthermore even if the tram takes 40 minutes (somewhat of a rounded
up figure I think), it is free time to write, read, make a call, listen
to one’s personal hifi (with non leaky headphones of course),
use your laptop PC or examine one’s shopping. Whereas driving
it’s a great deal of stress, while also causing ill health and
increasing the risk of death and injury. And does one count the time
spent filling up with petrol, taking the car for the extra servicing,
washing it, fumbling around for change in the car park, going out
of one’s way to give other people lifts, calling the police
when the vehicle is broken into, swapping details with the driver
you had a bump with? People wo! rship their cars so much that they
don’t realise the time they waste. So which journey really is
the shorter? I suppose a car journey might cut short a life or bring
forward the demise of the environment! Roll on the tram!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
13-August-2002
Trams in Nottingham
My Dad, who is old enough to remember, wonders why Trolley Buses couldn't
have been implemented instead. No tracks at all, and so no disruption
of traffic while laying them. Also not fixed in where they travel
so rigidly. Where on earth did they get that 10 million figure for
people using the new trams; sounds like a figure plucked out of the
air to me. Presumably, if they don't make that figure, they'll be
running at a loss. The whole lot sounds a bit like a BIG mistake to
me.
Mark Wilkins, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
13-August-2002
Midlands today report on the trams on Tuesday
It was mentioned in the report on tonights Midlands today that it
will be expected to take about 40 minutes to travel from Hucknall
to Nottingham, on the new tram system. As a resident of Hucknall I
would like to comment that if there are not any roadworks, it takes
only twenty to thirty minutes to do the journey, so why should be
take a tram?
Elizabeth Watson, Hucknall,Notts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
