| 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.
|
|
24-August-2002
Trams Emission & Manchester
To reply to P. Sterling: Here we go again more anti-tram suppositions
without any basis in fact. I have done some research into the carbon
dioxide emission (a greenhouse gas) emission by car & tram. I have
the calculations using government & Bombardier supplied figures. Basically
the emission per passenger Km by tram (with regenerative braking)is
38.3g and by car (friction braking, 1.5 passengers in a Ford KA) is
108.7g. In other words the car produces over 2.8 times as much pollution.
First argument dead. I am a native of Manchester and left there feeling
I was deserting a sinking ship long before the advent of the trams.
I have since been back and can't recognise the place. The city is
booming especially along the Altrincham, Eccles and Bury corridors.
There has been much mention recently of how run down Gorton (Commonwealth
Games) has become. Guess what - the tram runs to Altrincham, Bury
& Eccles and believe it or not the next phase includes a line through
Gorton. You obviously know very little about trams and maintenance.
They are very expensive to build but have low maintenance costs and
of course last a very long time. The Manchester trams (with which
you are so familiar) are now 10 years old and showing very little
sign of wear. The Rainbow buses to Long Eaton are about 7 years old
and becoming less reliable with rougher riding. they will need replacing
before their 10th birthday. As shown above the energy costs are tiny.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
24-August-2002
trams
i think with the tram system going to bring alot of trade to hyson
green and bring people in to nottingham thats not been to the city
before even thoe nottingham has always been agreat city i know that
the road works for the tram are a pain but just think when its up
and running those people thats moan about it and start using it and
getting home early because they are not stuck in traffic will take
all the stress back of the tram and think it is a good idea . but
you will still get the moaning but if we were all the same in thinking
it would be aboring life
sanders, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
24-August-2002
Tram – planning issues
JC offers a baffling viewpoint on the subject of local planning which
seems to have very little bearing on the Wilford tram issue. I am
no expert on these matters but here are a couple of helpful points:
Firstly, I believe the concept of structure plans and local plans
is fairly new. Thus JC might refer to the apparently retrospective
nature of reserving the embankment for rail usage, although it’s
a far-fetched interpretation. Secondly it has been recognised since
the 1970s by those in the know that allowing use of former trackbeds
for other purposes, where they are difficult to reverse, is extremely
damaging to the economic, social and environmental prospects of Britain.
My personal opinion, no doubt shared by many, is that it is foolish
to buy a house built on a former trackbed, as the authorities may
just decide that they want to re-use that very valuable national asset,
especially if much of the rest of it remains in place. Lastly, I am
not convinced that EU fundi! ng was used in Wilford and further whether
the tram would somehow negate the effects of such funding. I can say
this however: despite all the nonsense said about the EU, it is hardly
likely to stand in the way of the tram is it? In fact, in some places
it provides funding for just this sort of investment project. Somehow
I think that paying back money is unlikely, and even if it was paid
back for a small project, it would be money well spent, wouldn’t
it, given the benefit that the tram will provide.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
24-August-2002
tram
tram and pram. Hey, A.W. i suggest that you do a house swap with Jules.
You have got no right at all telling people what they should be grateful
for. Can't any of you people respect others views?You all seem to
take things so personally and you all seem to have a stock of 'put
you downs' for any arguement (however valid ).
paul, chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
25-August-2002
Who is going to operate theese trams city transport struggle to run
a bus service
Chris Stewart, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
24-August-2002
Manchester trams
Honestly P. Sterling what a load of rubbish. I suppose the fact that
Manchester and in particular the Salford Quays area is one of the
country's commercial boom areas is pure co-incidence? You would have
us believe that Manchesters trams have strangled the city. Then why
is a massive expansion planned & the only complaint I ever hear from
Mancunians is that the tram doesn't come near enough to their houses.
Steve Thanks for the comment about Bramcote! Yes George (husband)
& I often go to the naturist swims at Bramcote. If I see you in the
bar I'll buy you a drink! Next one end of October
Stephanie, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
24-August-2002
Manchester trams
Honestly P. Sterling what a load of rubbish. I suppose the fact that
Manchester and in particular the Salford Quays area is one of the
country's commercial boom areas is pure co-incidence? You would have
us believe that Manchesters trams have strangled the city. Then why
is a massive expansion planned & the only complaint I ever hear from
Mancunians is that the tram doesn't come near enough to their houses.
Steve Thanks for the comment about Bramcote! Yes George (husband)
& I often go to the naturist swims at Bramcote. If I see you in the
bar I'll buy you a drink!
Stephanie, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
Trams
In response to Stanley I have lifted a quote from the NET report of
October 2001. “The Nottingham Structural Plan ,adopted in November
1996,identified an indicative network and has a policy (5/3 (f)) which
specifically provides “protection against the development of
land that would prejudice the retention or appropriate development
of the rail network””. This to me seems like the retrospective
application of policy when housing had been built around the old Railway
Line and EU funding obtained to develop the local facility (does any
of this have to be repaid ?). Interestingly enough although this report
is referred to in the April NET report the fact that it was not adopted
until 1996 is not mentioned again , I wonder why ?
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
Wham bam thank-you TRAM
P Sterling, thank-you for the opportunity to easily knock down all
the silly anti tram arguments that keep going round and round: * Trams
DO result in much less energy use, lower emissions and lower pollution.
A tram carries typically 30 to 40 (and up to 200) people whereas a
car 1 – 2 (up to 5) people and yet a tram emits barely more
than a Ford Focus. A tram can also run on green electricity. * Manchester
trams ARE quiet and in any case they are ten years old and the tracks
don’t have the sound deadening that Nottingham has (look at
the black bed the each rail is embedded in, next time your in Nottm
– or see NET’s website). * Nottingham is already the envy
of other cities, e.g. you ought to here what people are saying in
Leicester. * The system won’t be a bad investment, and even
if it is it’s the private sector consortium that must bear the
losses – that’s the deal. * Yes, the workplace parking
levy will be used to finance p! ublic transport projects. I have yet
to meet anyone who works in the city centre who couldn’t otherwise
get there by public transport or park and ride (I’m sure there
are some who need to park there but their employers will surely cover
the costs). * I love the new parking meters because they mean I can
get an on street parking space on those occasions when I need one!
* Businesses are moving here precisely because of transport policies,
which are cited as the best in the country. Nottingham’s inward
investment is phenomenal and is likely to continue.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
Wilford
I am native to Wilford. My ancestors have lived here since 1841. My
grandmother was the first person to live next to Wilford embankment
in 1914 on Wilford Lane, when the Great Central main line was a thriving
railway. My mother’s cousins also lived immediately next to
the railway and brickworks, at the bottom end of Ruddington Lane.
Many thousands of people in this country live right next to working
railways without any discomfort, including electrified lines in intensive
use in south-east England. The tram objectors along Wilford embankment
do not care to mention the railway, because doing so instantly exposes
their campaign for the fraudulence it really is. How can the objectors
seriously expect anybody to believe they are going to suffer hardship
from tram noise? The present generation of embankment residents do
not recall the railway, but this is no excuse. The trams will be quieter
than the steam trains, and the tram company will provide landscaping
and bunding. There were no trees and shrubs on the embankment slopes
whatever when the railway was operational – but instead there
were huge telegraph poles at 60 yard intervals bestrewn with heavy
cable, far more intrusive than the tram catenary will be. The objectors
whinge about a 50 tonne 108 feet long tramcar. Forty years ago a coal-carrying
windcutter would speed up the embankment bound for Annesley, smoke
belching, pistons hissing. The oscillation of the empty wagons could
be heard from Wilford crossroads, one quarter-mile away. And nobody
in the past complained about living next to all that! It is government
planning policy to safeguard disused railway routes for possible reuse
as new railways. The embankment is a derelict eyesore, a wasted resource
and brownfield site. The tram objectors along the embankment are obviously
anxious about the value of their homes. But there is no evidence from
other cities that trams produce mass devaluation of properties alongside,
even those very close. The submission of the pressure group to NET
in the public consultations, as documented in the NET report to the
councils, says it all. The group conclude with reference to their
“right” to the continued enjoyment of the settled expectations
of their locality. In other words, even though Wilford embankment
is not the private property of the people who live alongside, public
authority is supposed to have some sort of moral duty to protect their
present comfortable privilege of free private amenity. The only environment
the objectors care about is the one next door to where they live.
The leader of the Wilford tram objectors has accused NET of producing
fiction by inflating traffic forecasting and underplaying costs, but
ha provided no evidence to prove his point. He has also claimed, quoting
a Yorkshire court case, that the trams are unsafe for road users,
so all works on Line One should be suspended. This recent squalid
episode sounds like an attack on the trams in general. However, the
Wilford tram objectors will not oppose the trams outright for as long
as they think they can dump the Clifton route onto Queens Drive. Yet
the NET report clearly shows this route is inferior to Clifton-Wilford
by every commercial criterion, and negative under cost-benefit analysis.
It is quite true that several wildlife bodies raised objection to
the CW route in the recent public consultations. But the wildlife
of the embankment or Iremonger’s Pond is not outstanding. The
land is not good enough for statutory designation. There are no nature
reserves here, and no protected species either. All the wildlife habitat
can be replaced for the tiniest fraction of the cost of building the
tram route. If necessary, compensatory works can be implemented off-site.
This is often done for major developments of all sorts where full
on-site mitigation is not possible. What is looming up are negotiations
between NET and the wildlife bodies, and indeed with the Environment
Agency as well, since they are concerned about flood defences and
flood storage at Wilford. There is no point in prejudging the Environmental
Statement NET will prepare. Wildlife is the only sensible constraint
on the Wilford tram, and all other arguments against it are nimby
rubbish. The tram objection is a selfish disgrace, full of snivelling
hypocrisy playing the wildlife card. The objectors should stop behaving
like spoilt children. Since their homes will rise in value because
of the local use and convenience of the tram, what’s the point
in continuing this daft campaign?
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
Trolley buses and hydrogen buses
Thanks to INSIDER for finalling clarifying matters. So there are no
trolley bus or hydrogen bus systems operating in this country, only
some experimental vehicle to go on trial "from late next year". I
seem to remenber about 20 years ago reading about a super-efficeint,
oil-fired, non-polluting steam-powered bus on trial somewhere. That
was going to solve all our pollution and traffic congestion problems,
so we were told. That never came to anything. Perhaps that's why the
real experts (as oposed to all we amateurs), who have to put their
money where their mouth is, prefer the tried and tested technology
of modern trams.
Betty, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
Tram various replies
Sanders has given two good reasons for the tram - congestion & driver
stress level. The bus company's and their drivers do sterling work
but there is simply too much car traffic and it's getting worse. Insider
admits that the hydrogen bus is not yet ready, (it won't have much
impact anyhow) the trams are. Another route into town is needed and
another road would be environmentally & financially unacceptable.
Thank you insider for pointing out that some of the anti tram objections
are a little contradictory, I'd go further and say that they are all
based on fear of the unknown and emotional clap-trap. Stephanie, if
it is you who comments on the underdressed discussion group, I'm afraid
that the tram will not help you to get to Bramcote Leisure Centre,
but we may see more of you there (click on "the boards" / underdressed
& go - top right hand corner"
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
tram system
a couple of years ago i went to west croydon visiting family and they
have got the tram system they said its good idea because it cuts down
the congestion and croydon seems to get a bit more congested than
nottingham ithink so anyway . ithink the the tram system is going
to improve nottingham in many ways its going to take some of the pressure
of the public service sector and congestion on the roads so . sooner
the works carried out the better then we will know if it worth it
sanders, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
Tram and pram
Jules may have thrown the rattle out of the pram (got upset about
temporary disruption in Hyson Green) but the good news is that the
pram will glide effortlessly onto the tram(!). Tut, tut, such ingratitude
:-) . Jules, you are privileged in getting the first Nottingham tram
line paid for by the rest of us through our taxes, and yet you don’t
want to put up with a bit of disruption – does it perhaps use
up five minutes of your time each day? The irony of the point that
your partner has to go round the block to fill up with petrol is amusing!
Think of the wonderful transport system you will soon have. Low floors
and a level entry means easy boarding for the infirm, disabled and
those with children in buggies – no having to step up, the gap
with the kerb will be tiny, like getting into a lift. And that is
just one of many advantages, and it will bring about big improvements
in your area. The tram works aren’t so bad. I actually made
my way to Hyson Gree! n Asda when the road to Long Eaton Asda had
roadworks. The disruption at Hyson Green was much less, so I made
a longer journey to your area instead.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
23-August-2002
False Notions
* Trams are not "green" they simply divert polluion to the power stations.
* They are not efficient. Moving these heavy monsters along must cost
much more fuel per passenger mile than cars. * They are not quiet.
Try to sleep in the middle of Manchester. Impossible with all the
screeching noises from the trams let alone the rail maintenance. *
Trams will not make Nottingham the envy of other towns. Nottingham
council is merely apeing other cities . ie We must have trams because
they do. * Trams are not a good investment. We will be left with an
expensive infrastructure to maintain, that will fulfill only a fraction
of Notts. transport needs. * To finance this they will make you pay
to park at work, even though public transport is not a feasable option
for you. When you then park on the roads, they will cover them in
yellow lines and spend all the money collected from the new parking
charges on enforcement. * Final result:- Businesses will refuse to
locate here and traders will move out.
P Sterling, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
bus services
i think the bus companys in nottingham have accualy come in line with
the times by working with the tram system and doning the bus up like
painting different on other routes well done to the bus companys its
alright people moaning about late buses but it is ahard job this day
in age.its not the drivers fault or companys its the congestion on
the roads and road works which start all at once thats why they can,t
get drivers because of the stress level.
sanders, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Nottingham Trams
Betty: If you go to London to ride the fuel cell buses, I'm afraid
you'll be dissapointed. As I mentioned in my reply to you, they'll
be on trial "from late next year" (It is an emerging technology, afterall
- not like these old-fashioned tram-thingies we keep hearing about
8-)) So you should be able to sample the delights of Nottingham's
trams before the hydro-buses. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge,
there are no trolleybuses in the UK. Stephanie: You're correct that
some anti-tram objections are a little contradictory, though it's
a simple way of looking at it (a tram is noisier on a curve than a
straight, for example). Trent Buses are indeed a private company,
and as such are free to compete with the tram if they want to, though
it would be madness, as they wouldn't enjoy the priviledges the tram
would, and I doubt any subsidies from NCC would be available (as they
are for some of their routes). Greg Lock: I'm glad I'm not the only
one who finds Mr CGB's ! rants rather tiresome.
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Tram – Wilford waffle
Given that Greg Lock’s claims in a public forum have been allegedly
proved completely false I find it surprising that he now pops up on
this forum. Isn’t he the man who claimed in the Evening Post
that line one was over budget and behind schedule? Even NET went public
to point out that this was completely untrue. Wasn’t it you
Greg who appeared on TV claiming that no-one would ride the Wilford
tram after 9 pm because it passes through the Meadows and passengers
would ‘get shot at’ – or was that just one of your
friends? Greg, we love sparring with a nice man like Insider but the
thought of having to check every detail of your claims fills me with
dread. I am inclined not to believe all that stuff about wildlife
organisations being against the tram. It would be a very narrow view
of the environment that they’d be taking if they completely
opposed Wilford’s dog dirt corridor being re-used for something
that had a very broad envir! on! mental benefit. I think you may have
misunderstood the wildlife organisations’ input. Of course they
will mention that there may be a small negative effect on wildlife
but they also know that such views will be weighed up within the big
picture. Just because a specialist organisation raises a minor point
it doesn’t mean to say that overall it’s a wrong thing
to put a tram along the embankment. Besides, they weren’t there
objecting when your house was built, were they? This is what its really
all about isn’t it? You are (mistakenly) afraid that this will
devalue your home. I simply don’t believe that you support public
transport (if you did, you’d have chosen a place to live with
better public transport, not amongst the worst in Nottingham). Its
too much of a coincidence that your house backs on to the tram route.
If ENT was not anti tram then it would genuinely see that the Wilford
embankment route is the best route to reach Clifton.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Tram: former GCR line through Wilford
Greg, You hit the nail on the head by saying the railway was closed
long before the houses were built. Why don't you think it was developed
at the same time as the rest of the estate? It was protected so that
it could be used for the very purpose that is now proposed. Compare
this section of the former GCR with that north of Carrington. Wildlife
will colonise any wasteland if it's left long enough, but that's not
a good reason to leave brownfield sites derelict.
Stanley, Basford, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Clifton via Wilford Tram
It’s a great pity that G Bennett of Wilford feels the need to
resort to insulting those that do not follow his narrow-minded thinking.
He has in the past produced some apparently well-informed material,
but it seems that he now has so little confidence in his arguments
that he has to dismiss his opponents (neighbours and possibly even
friends, incidentally) as “a bunch of complete loonies”.
It has been a common ploy to describe those who dare to question any
aspect of the proposed routes as “anti-tram”, but now
G Bennett takes this a stage further and labels us “tram-haters”.
Such sweeping generalisations are simply not true, and are merely
a feeble attempt to discredit some very specific and extremely valid
opinions. The members of ENT have always made it abundantly clear
that they are not anti-tram, but are opposed to one specific section
of the Clifton via Wilford route – that which runs from the
Toll bridge to Ruddington Lane and beyond via the disused railway
alignment and other open countryside. It is true to say that it was
once a mainline railway, but that ceased to function some thirty years
ago, long before Compton Acres and many other adjoining houses were
built. It is also likely that most residents of older properties along
the route moved in well after the line closure. Since the closure,
the embankment has become a precious wildlife haven and a pleasant
amenity for those who care to use it. Its use as a tramway is being
opposed strongly by well-respected environmental groups such as Nottinghamshire
Wildlife Trust, the RSPB and English Nature, to name but a few. We
are not “tram-haters” or “car-lovers” just
because we dare to question NET’s plans. Many of us walk and/or
cycle regularly and wish to see improvements and new developments
in the public transport system. We believe that these things are important
for the environment, but we do not see the point in destroying part
of it to achieve them, especially when alternative options are available.
Greg Lock, Compton Acres |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Nottingham Tram System
I think we ought be very proud that Nottingham is going to have a
Transport system that brings us right into the 21st Century! Yes,
I see the disruption currently in the Nottingham City Centre as the
tram lines are being layed. But it's going to be worth it and envey
of other East Midlands Towns & Cities. I live in Beeston, and I can't
wait to see this up and running in Nottingham and eventually to Beeston.
Any chance to get out of my car, and let someone else do the driving
is brilliant! Let all get behind this wonderful project that can only
do good for the local environment and air pollution! Well done 'NET'
Martin Davies, Nottingham (Beeston) |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
The anti campaign a summary
To summarise some of the anti-tram points made: 1)Trams will be so
noisy that they will keep old people awake but they will be so quiet
that children (with better hearing) won't hear them coming and get
run down. 2) Trams will be so overcrowded with standing room only
so no-one will use them. 3) Very few people will divert to them for
various reasons & because of this massive (non) divertion the buses
will all stop running. To clarify the latter point Mr (now Cllr) Jackson
stated in a public meeting that Trent buses are a private company
and so will not compete with the tram as private companies do not
compete!!!! 4) Let's wait 5 years or so. Everyone (especially traders
on Chilwell road) are finding this situation of being in limbo intolerable.
Come on everyone let's have some sensible debate not just this confused
jibberish. Do you think the people of Nottingham are stupid?
Stephanie, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
The Tram and the disruption it is causing.
I am fed up of all the disruption caused by this flaming tram. If
Nottingham City Councillors think it is so wonderful, then they should
come and live in Hyson Green and have to put up with the disruption
and chaos. I have real problems getting in to the city centre to go
to work, my partner has problems trying to get to work as he has to
go round the block everytime he wants to go to Asda to fill up with
petrol. I just wish the people who are all for the tram lived in Hyson
Green. You think it's so wonderful? Then it's about time people started
seeing it from the resident's point of view!! And if you ask the residents
of Hyson Green no-one wants the bloody tram in the first place!!!!
Jules Snell, Hyson Green, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Trams, trolley buses and hydrogen buses
Thank you INSIDER for answering my query about where I can go and
sample modern trolley buses and hydrogen buses. However, I don’t want
go an a world tour – only a day trip!! You’ve given a long list of
exotic (and not so exotic) places where trolley bus run (or will shortly
run) but not a single one in this country. Can I assume therefore
that trolley buses don’t run anywhere in this country? From everything
I’d read here I assumed they were quite common. However, I see that
at least London has Hydrogen buses. Good. I’ll get my Senior Railcard
out and jump on a train to London. Perhaps INSIDER would be good enough
to clarify exactly where in London they run. London’s a big place.
Over which routes do they operate, how often etc etc. I don’t want
to go all that way and be disappointed. Thanks in advance.
Betty, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Tram – ten lines
Paul of Chilwell clearly thinks he lives in the developing world with
his logic that we should wait for line one to be running for five
years before building the other lines. Has he ever been to a civilised
country? Or is he one of those types of people who prop up the bar,
waxing lyrical about inferior foreigners but has never really travelled
enough to realise that he is the one who is behind the times? No wonder
Britain is slipping behind other countries in most aspects of life.
There are hundreds of tram systems that we can learn from, we don’t
need to ‘wait and see’. There’s a well known philosophy
that you can judge the quality of a society by its transportation
system. Frankly, lines two and three aren’t enough, there ought
to be about ten. So to restore some sanity to this debate, can we
have contributions from as many people as possible so we can compile
a top ten of tram and light rail routes for Greater Nottingham. After
all, this is ! th! e sort of debate now going on in Croydon and Sheffield
as angry locals realise they were left out of the original scheme.
Your suggestions please for tram lines (or even a trolley / guided
bus route where you can’t squeeze in a tram, that’ll keep
Insider happy!).
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Tram replies to Insider et al
Insider, congratulations on admitting that you were wrong. You seem
to have worked out some other figures now, you are of course perfectly
entitled to produce these at the public enquiry but I think that you'll
find that NET have spent a bit more time preparing their figures.
So far on other systems the figures prepared have been slightly on
the low side. It must be remembered that patronage builds up once
the system is running and the rate of this build up is a difficult
thing to estimate, Croydon underestimated. Sure if fuel cell busses
have the same advantages as trams they will be NEARLY as good. However
the environmental and monetary cost of this would be considerably
higher. Effectively a road would have to be built along the green
corridor in Chilwell valley taking much more land. This of course
would be noisier than the tram and would have to be constantly policed
to stop motorists. If this was to be done then it would unite me with
the residents of Clumber Ave etc in opposing it tooth & nail. Paul
to say let's wait until line 1 is running is as sensical as saying
lets wait another 2 or 3 years until Portsmouth's, Bath's or Edinburgh's
system is running. The fact is that Manchester, Sheffield, West Midlands
and Croydon already have systems up & running and are successful.
There were mistakes made, particularly in Sheffield, but we have learnt
from them. The fact is that trams work and the engineers now know
how to build a successful system. Please come with us to meet such
an engineer on 14 September see http://www.bacit.org but be quick
as places are running out.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
22-August-2002
Trams
Thanks to AW for the response but I really do not see how buses will
not be removed from the road if NET obtain the 50-60 % transfer from
existing Public Transport. Indeed I think I am being generous in my
calculation as some services are running so marginally that the loss
of a few passengers would make continuation of the route uneconomical.
The loss of income from between 5.5 and 6.6 million passengers per
year on Line 1 alone will have an undoubted impact on the bus companies.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
21-August-2002
Journeys by no tram and tram passenger loadings
DANE – Your journey-to-work is peripheral, with fast car timing
I agree, provided you avoid peak periods over Clifton Bridge. Of
course you are unconvinced by trams for your own commuting requirements,
but do bear in mind that most journeys to work, shop or leisure
are along major radials towards the city centre. Here public transport
flows are dense enough to be viable, at least in social cost-benefit
terms, and mostly under narrow commercial criteria as well. The
Beeston tram route will serve QMC, the most visited place in Greater
Nottingham outside the city centre. Dane, if you want to find a
bunch of complete loonies, look no further than the tram-haters
living along Wilford embankment, resisting a tram proposed where
a busy main-line railway once ran. They favour dumping the tram
on the hopeless unviable Queens Drive route, yet tell us how marvellous
the tram would be to serve business and retail parks there. If all
the workers and shoppers lived on Clifton ! estate and/or in the
city centre, a linking tram would be fine. As it is, their home
addresses are quite dispersed, so cars/car lifts will remain favourite
for them. Dane, you can give sound advice to the Wilford/Compton
Acres anti-trammers, and tell them how unsuitable Queens Drive is
for a tram to Clifton (or to Beeston). Your comments about Greater
Nottingham being too small for trams should really refer to heavy
rail. Towns smaller than Nottingham, like Portsmouth and Bath will
in future have trams, with an extensive system for the latter. The
A453 improvements are ring-fenced, as is Government money for the
trams, and neither transport measures are a substitute for the other.
INSIDER – You have got me confused with AW.
As others have pointed out, you have double counted with your calculations,
since you have equated PEOPLE and JOURNEYS. Also, let us not forget
so-called Line One is really TWO services, Hucknall-Nottingham Midland
station, and Phoenix Park-NMS. I suggest NET rename these just before
opening as the red and blue routes, or Byron and Phoenix. 11 million
journeys per year or 30,000 daily approximates to 15,000 passengers,
if for simplicity we assume one person = one round trip = two journeys,
outbound and return, and each customer makes only one round trip
daily. The Hucknall and Phoenix Park trams could each have a ten
minute frequency most of the day, but halved in the evenings, if
the services are comparable to other cities. Assuming however for
simplicity a 10 minute headway for a full 18 hours of daily operation,
this gives 6 x 18 x 2 x 2 = 432 trams for both services in both
directions. Dividing passenger JOURNEYS b! y tramcars in service
BOTH WAYS daily gives 70 passengers (flesh-and-blood people, not
journeys) per tramcar. Of course few passengers go the full journey
of the tramcar itself – though most will want to go to and
from the city centre stops. The figure of 70 passengers per tramcar
is thus the maximum loading of a tramcar for its full journey between
the termini, and I presume this will occur along Waverley Street,
before a city-bound tram disgorges most of its load, or straight
after a large city centre pickup for a tram in the opposite direction.
The loading per tramcar of 70 is a crude average, since up to 2/3
of all tram traffic will be condensed into the peaks, 5 hours daily
Monday to Friday, though most peak traffic will be uni-directional,
i.e., up to town in the morning, and return in the evening. For
those who wish to calculate, I suggest use of weekly figures, since
there are no peaks at the weekend (100 hours off-peak running out
of 125 total running time! per week). Average tramcar loading will
of course be much higher than 70 in the weekday peaks, and much
less in slack hours, especially Sundays. Thus there is an easy chance
for shoppers and leisure travellers most of the time to get a seat,
whilst for peak travellers about 10 minutes standing up between
the city centre and the Forest (or vice-versa) appears to be the
prospect. But the trams will be fast and reliable! For a constant
number of journeys calculated for a route by the NET consultants,
the more frequent the trams run, the lower the loading per tramcar,
whilst reducing the frequency means a higher loading per tramcar.
I recently read some propaganda from the Wilford anti-tram group,
attempting to ridicule NET traffic forecasting as unrealistic for
the Clifton-Wilford tramline. The leaflet showed figures for loadings
per tramcar that looked quite high. I suspect the pressure group
had disaggregated the consultants’ annual traffic forecast
figures by c! alculating on the basis of a low 20-minute frequency
for a full 18 hours daily, inflating the average loadings per tramcar.
If any of these anti-tram people along Wilford embankment are reading
my script, you think you are pretty clever don’t you? If you
are not reading this, then go and
G. Bennett, Wilford
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
