| 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.
|
|
02-September-2002
Residents parking near tram stops
There is one problem with residents only parking is that it will be
enforced by the brain-dead. It only takes once for your visitors to
get caught out (ie forget the little card in the window) and be fined
40 quid for the citys' coffers with absolutely no comeback, even if
there is 100% proof they were visiting. While it will guarantee your
parking, your visitors will end up paying for it. A great example
was when I was fined 40 quid in Swindon for visiting a friend in a
permit section that had a FIVE minute limit until 10pm (I didn't expect
something like this to be running at 8:30pm, let alone every five
minutes). A clear case of exploitation, rather than protecting residents,
who park ILLEGALLY on the pavement/no parking marked road on the other
side. The reason they get away with it is the police enforce that,
not the wardens, and I noticed the 'no parking or we tow you' sign
got removed. Perhaps if these systems were enforced properly and fairly,
I would have more support for them. So I would get something in writing
that you can claim money back for visitor mistakes before accepting
any such scheme in your area.
David, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
02-September-2002
TRAM Who needs enemies…?
Dear Greg Lock, I wish you would put a sock in it! Those of us north
of the river who are trying to save our community from the tram are
having a hard enough time with the pro tram crowd picking over everything
we say, without you over there in Compton Acres / Wilford firing off
your blunderbuss at anything and everything, here and in the Post.
Who needs enemies with “friends” like you? Don’t
forget you’re just defending a railway embankment. We are trying
to defend open space that has never seen a railway. And our homes
have been here a darned sight longer than yours have. At least on
our side of the river we have produced a shed load of noise reports.
Trams over your side won’t be audible over the sound of your
voice. Thanks a bunch, mate.
Chilwellian, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
31-August-2002
BCBRA website
I've been looking through the BCBRA web-site, http://www.notram.net
an excellent piece of fiction & comedy. Take the University Boulevard
site - it claims "now that the tram route has been decided" - but
it is far from decided and will not be until after the public enquiry.
It then shows a picture of a traffic jam with the caption "how much
worse can it get" my answer = a lot worse unless we have a tram. The
Fletcher Road page is entitled "Tramland, tramland, über alles!" and
then goes on about the jackbooted tram builders a gross insult to
those who suffered under the Nazis. The banner then comes up to say
that the trams will be full. If that's the case then they will be
popular so let's build them. No where can I find mention of the £250,000
which Jim claims they are to get, what is all this about?
Stephanie, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
31-August-2002
Parking and riding
PAS unfortunately our postings co-incided but as you can see trams
use less energy than buses. What is the primary source of hydrogen
for the hydrogen bus? It must be manufactured somehow and does this
process involve any emissions? You claim that people will drive to
the nearest tram stop - they don't currently drive to the nearest
bus stop. Another fault of the Croydon system is that they did not
provide park & ride sites with the result that parking near tram stops
became a problem. NET will provide many such sites so I don't see
commuter parking being a problem in Chilwell. The problem was soon
resolved with, as you propose - a residents parking permit scheme
- I wish there was such a scheme on Foster Ave outside our house!
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
31-August-2002
Trams lets be positive
Isn't it interesting that those who just shout no trams end up with
trams but no stops. Steve I don't know why you waste your time campaigning
for something to benefit all the nimbys, the Smythe-Wilberforces,
who I'm sure is real - I've met many like him on Cator Lane & Clumber
Drive. The genuine people who live in that area must be so fed up.
Fed up with their councillors, both Tory & Labour who are letting
them down - why aren't they campaigning for these stops? I wish BACIT
every bit of luck in getting us the best system and don't waste any
more time answering such rubbish as put out by JC, Greg Lock, Insider
and the other NIMBYS. - Still no answer from Mr Willoughby, there
must be something to hide.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
31-August-2002
Trams
Jim, you are only looking for 1 % of the amount I am looking for I
still have not had a credible answer on why £ 94 million miraculously
turns into £ 69 million in only 3 years ( a £ 25 million reduction
) in the construction period of CW (G Bennett you asked for evidence
of underplaying costs ). Nor has there been any coherent response
on the number of bus journies which will be stopped as a result of
the patronage moving from tram to bus.
JC, west Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
30-August-2002
Tram lets be positive
Thank you Jim for your compliments regarding the opposition. By constantly
shouting "no tram" and trying to prove their case with contradictory
spurious data the anti-tram groups are doing no-one any favours and
detracting from the main purpose of BACIT which as you say is to get
us a first class system. There are improvements that I would like
to see. For instance along the proposed route there are two obvious
places where there should be additional stops - Cator Lane & Nevile
Saddler Court. - Is it co-incidence that these two lacations are where
most of the anti-tram support lies? Central Beeston needs addressing
- I don't want to see ugly overhead wire supports as in Croydon (not
everything there is perfect) but more of a Victorian atmosphere as
at Laxey in the Isle of Man. We have some magnificent Victorian buildings
(2 churches, Oban House, the old Police Station now a chemist) and
some interesting specialist shops on Chilwell Road. If the trams are
thoughtfully introdu! ce! d and the stops are correctly placed then
people can be pursuaded off to spend money. We're not going to win
any competition with the Broadmarsh with an ultra modern look so let's
go for the "traditional value" "quality" Victorian / Edwardian feel.
Done properly Beeston & Chilwell will boom at the expense of West
Bridgford where they will soon wish they had never opposed the tram.
I would like to spend more time arguing positively for big improvements
and less time researching to correct some spurious piece of half -
baked rubbish put out by the anti-tram lobby. Has anyone else got
any positive suggestions? Remember NET monitor this site.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
30-August-2002
tram
To AW I said "relatively traffic free". Do you really expect the majority
of the users of the Chilwell extension to walk or cycle to the nearest
tram stop. Of course not, they will drive and park on-road (with all
its contraindications-residents parking permits-prehaps no bad thing)
to the nearest tram-stop for example Cator Lane and Eskdale. Secondly,
as Steve Barber pointed out the pollution figures for the bus are
not easilly forthcoming, this is an important issue if one is going
to argue in favour of trams over buses, the last thing we need is
more roads. To replace/displace the car on the road with a tram makes
enviromental, maybe not political, sense. I am actually pro-tram,
and like so many other correspondents want the "best" tram routes
i.e those with least environmental impact per se but with the greatest
residential, amenity, commercial and business catchement both present
and future, which are probably not the cheapest or easiest routes
to be developed especially when considering the alternative option
for the Chilwell Extension. But it is the long term enviromental not
short term moneterya gain that msu be considered.
PAS, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
30-August-2002
Bus / tram emissions
Brian Lomas of the LRTA (http://www.lrta.org) has pointed us to some
interesting data. see http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm59.htm an American
paper where the energy uses of various modes of transport are compared.
Table 4 is of particular interest, it shows a 50% greater use of energy
for the propulsion of buses over trams. It also gives the embodied
energy value which is the energy used in manufacture. The figures
quoted are for "light rail" which includes trams. I suggest that you
PAS look at this site and we would value your opinion.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
31-August-2002
The trams and amenity
The committee of the pressure group opposing the Wilford tram recently
arranged a meeting with NET officials, and this is reported on the
updated website of the group. One passage reads: “The homes that border
the nature trail have been purchased in the belief that the trail
was a permanent feature”. But the people living immediately alongside
the embankment have no legal entitlement to the amenity it provides.
A local planning authority can NEVER guarantee that any open land
shall remain status quo forever, either for the sake of immediate
neighbouring residents, or anyone else in the wider public. People
need not ask the council the question, since it is impossible to answer.
The tram objectors also talk about land searches. I don’t follow this
point. When a solicitor conducts a conveyance for a prospective purchaser,
he researches inter alia the planning history of a property for sale
– is there a valid planning permission for the existing building/land
use, etc. ! But this does not cover adjoining properties, extraneous
to the sale, and no liability can fall on the solicitor. The prospective
purchaser takes responsibility himself for investigating what the
future may hold for the local environment. And I stress may, since
as I have just said, the local authority cannot pledge any absolute
answer anyway. If people want to live next to open land, that is their
choice, but if the site has been previously developed and is in an
urban area, it is often a candidate for redevelopment.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
30-August-2002
Mr Smythe-Wilberforce
I have read this forum a number of times over the past few months
and have been consistently amused by the arguments used by the "antis."
None, though, had come close to Mr Smythe-Wilberforce whose attitude
is unbelievable! Maybe when the tram comes to Wilford, he will be
able to ditch his four cars and make a big tax saving! In fact, so
ridiculous and selfish is the apparent standpoint of Mr Smythe-Wilberforce,
I ask myself if his message is even genuine... it seems more like
a joke to me.
Will, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
A day on the trams
Just got back from a day checking out the Manchester tram. A few things
stood out from the day. 1) How quick and quiet the trams were. 2)
How well used they were. 3) How frequent they were. 4) Whilst visible,
how unobtrusive the overhead wires were. 5) How, in the city centre,
people quite happily incorporate the tram lines into the areas where
they walk and cycle. 6) The fact that wherever there was a tram/road
conflict the tram got priority every time. 7) The fact that I could
ride the whole system all day for £3. 8) Most striking of all, the
ease with which a young disabled boy in an electric wheelchair was
able to access not just the tram itself but the stations as well.
On the downside, one of the trams smelt as if someone had been to
the toilet in it. Also, the trams were pretty noisy around some, but
not all, of the sharp bends, something that will need to be addressed
where our tram will be running close to people’s homes. Overall the
day confirme! d the findings of Betty (20 August 2002 posting) who,
having followed this debate decided to go and find out about trams
for herself, and disproved many of the arguments put forward by those
opposed to a tram in Nottingham.
David, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
30-August-2002
Trams & Wilford
I paid good money to live a peaceful life in Compton Acres. How dare
someone now come and shatter the peace, pollute the air and invite
every druggie, boy racer & no-gooder from the Meadows into my nice
area with their wretched tram. If they build this confounded railway
then before long it'll be decided to run the London trains through
to Clifton and I'm told that they go everywhere at 125m.p.h. - call
that safe? And the cost. I already pay my road taxes (for 4 cars)
so I can take my car wherever I want. Why should I share the road
with trains, cyclists & pedestrians who pay nothing?
Gerald Smythe-Wilberforce, Compton Acres |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
Trams reply to Jenny
Welcome to the debate Jenny. Platinum card isn’t that even more bourgeois?
When I described Steve & his mates at BACIT as gold credit card chardonnet
swilling….. I was referring to the fact that they are too much in
with NET and the new Labour councillors. They are doing wonderful
work in showing the anti-tram groups for what they are and correcting
their lies and rubbish but are not doing enough to make sure that
we get the best system for Beeston & Chilwell. Perhaps now that they
have effectively seen off the opposition they might start getting
us what we want. A thought for you Jenny. This tram will be here for
a very long time, in fact when you are as old as your father (what
a thought!) the tram will still be running. Therefore we must get
it right. What do you and your friends think about the tram? where
should it go? after all it matters to your generation the most?
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
TRAMS TO CLIFTON
Refering to the proposed tram route to Clifton, Greg Lock says: "we
believe that there are alternative options that should be considered
to everyone's advantage" Well, hasen't anyone told him that the alternative
options HAVE been considered and found wanting and that is exactly
why the Wilford route has been chosen as being the best overall. What
Greg Lock really means is that an alternative option should be considred
to HIS advantage. A better example of NIMBYISM would be difficult
to find (even in Compton Acres!). I look forward to the tram coming
to Clifton (via Wilford)
Colin, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
Trams, accusations and credit cards
To the best of my abilities, I am not being insulting or patronising,
Greg, please stop accusing me of doing so. And I trying to avoid being
arrogant (are you confusing this with me making a difficult to refute
point?). Yes, I do feel that I am reasonably qualified to comment
on the issue of sustainable development, climate change and overall
environmental protection – shall I just say masters degree?
However, I am sure that the people from the many specialist organisations
could beat me in a pub quiz about environmental trivia. My point is
that it is detail. Like most people, I don’t care two hoots
about individual SSSIs. If I lived next to an SSSI and I was going
to lose it, without getting something fantastic like a tram to compensate,
I might just get concerned. If all the SSSIs in the country were under
threat, then perhaps I would care (in fact they are, from big issues
like global warming etc, but only things like the tram will mitigate
those). I am lookin! g ! at the overall issue. I would for instance
be interested in an overall policy which preserved hedgerows across
the country. But at the detail level I say: you can’t make an
omelette without breaking eggs. Interestingly, I could be persuaded
from my own selfish point of view that the route via the Riverside
retail and industrial area would be better. I might actually want
to go there (and indeed used to work in that area). What has made
me stick to the Wilford route is that the experts at NET (and Greg
is the one to go on about respecting experts) have opted for that
route using some very important criteria. Of course, the NET experts
take an overall view and appear to be perfectly conversant with the
over-arching issues of sustainable development which the ‘specialists’
don’t. If Greg was to stop using this and other fora to make
heated and unfounded statements ( and accusing other people of doing
it doesn’t mean you can do it yourself) and to s! ta! rt using
them to present some interesting facts then I might actually start
to listen and perhaps even take his side. Currently he is merely damaging
his own cause. By the way I have a What Everyone Wants account card
with a £500 credit limit – do I win a prize? (like a bottle
of Chardonnay?).
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
Tram & sustainable development
A.W. how right you are! The strength of the road lobby never ceases
to amaze me. They have our local Green Party right in their pockets.
I wonder how many of these nimbys & "Greens" have ever given the greater
environment any thought whatsoever. They make all the right noises
and re-gurgitate what they read in the Guardian etc. Environmental
issues are fine until it affects them and upsets their tiny cosy narrow
minded existance - then they become easy pickings for the big corporations
and oblige so easily with their silly hypocritical contradictory arguments.
Some of us can see right through you now and in time so will the everyone
else
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
C/W Tram Route - Reply to AW (and GB)
Thank you AW for an interesting alternative to G Bennett’s ranting
insults (please, GB, do not dismiss your fellow-citizens as “ignorant”
merely because they do not share your narrow point of view). No, AW,
instead of merely insulting those who dare to disagree with you, you
choose to patronise them. And it is done with a degree of arrogance
that is hard to believe. Not only do you know better than everyone
who dares to question any aspect of the tram developments, and all
of the media. You are also a better-qualified environmental “expert”
than professional members of bodies such as the Nottinghamshire Wildlife
Trust, English Nature, RSPB, CPRE, etc, etc. Your qualifications must
be truly awe-inspiring! Interesting to see your reference to the protesters
seeking to protect “their SSSI”. The essence of SSSI’s,
SINC’s, LNR’s and other designations is that the resource
in question is protected for the benefit o! f everyone, not just “them”.
Finally AW, you have of course fallen into the trap of dismissing
all protesters as anti-tram. I will repeat these points once more,
as the enthusiasts in favour of all the planned extension seem as
incapable of accepting or understanding contradiction as they claim
their opponents to be. We are not anti-tram per se. We are in favour
of developing public transport and the associated infrastructure.
We are merely objecting to one specific section of one specific extension.
We believe that it is not a valid price to pay, either in environmental
terms, or of impact on residents, for the benefits that will accrue.
We believe that there are alternative options that should be considered
to everyone’s advantage.
Greg Lock, Compton Acres |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
Steve you and your Gold Credit card carrying, Chardonnet swilling
champagne socialist buddies at BACIT. well Jim I'm afraid you're wrong.
Steve doesn't have a gold credit card he has a platinum one. I should
know I'm his daughter.
jenny barber, beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
29-August-2002
Tram – and sustainable development
While the Jo’burg World Summit is going on, it is worth explaining
what sustainable development is. It is not just about the environment,
as the media sometimes mistakenly convey to us. It is a three pronged
issue. It involves economic growth, social development and environmental
protection. Thus it is as much to do with increasing employment and
incomes etc, and with removing social exclusion, as it is to do with
protecting resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions (global climate
change) and protecting wildlife etc. You can’t fix one without
fixing them all. Some of the pressure groups, charities and environmental
organisations are a little out of touch, particularly when they apparently
resist admirable schemes like the tram. I contacted one organisation
and because they wanted to protect an SSSI (site of special scientific
interest) they were proposing that the money spent on the tram could
be spent on improving bus services. They completely misunderstood
! that car drivers, middle classes, the disabled and infirm are resistant
to getting on a bus no matter what fuel it uses. They had not thought
that a bus lane often means more road space which has a greater environmental
impact than track building. Unless climate change is addressed by
initiatives like the tram, their SSSIs are under threat anyway. It
all shows they are completely uninformed about sustainable development
as a whole. The government’s 1999 document ‘A better quality
of life’ describes how all spheres of life and government activity
should be influenced by SusDev. Organisations which fail to recognise
this will ultimately suffer a reputational problem. Some organisations
are so obsessed with one particular aspect of the environment that
they will damage the prospects of the environment as a whole, never
mind the failing on the big picture of sustainable development. It’s
the cute fluffy furry and feathery creature brigade that could do
th! e most damage. I love these creatures (and obscure flora too),
being a bit of a twitcher myself, but I give priority to the big picture
of the environment, and the even bigger picture of sustainable development.
The organisation I spoke to complained of their representations on
planning issues often being ignored. I am not surprised if they take
such a narrow view. My partner, who is a fan of flora and fauna, put
it into perspective. She said that these people live in their funny
little worlds and can’t put things into perspective. Perhaps
the Wilford anti tram minority should give this some thought when
they cite ‘environmental’ organisations as supporting
their NIMBY cause.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
28-August-2002
PAS figures
PAS: As I indicated earlier, to find the absolute figures which you
asked for would probably be a Phd. I have found out a figure for CO2
emission for line one of NET. (see earlier posting) This is derived
by dividing the total emission caused by energy production for; propulsion,
vehicle maintenance, lighting of the stops, lighting of the depot,
signalling, transmission losses and even the drivers tea machine!
by the total number of passenger Kms - thus empty seats and empty
running are taken into account. The figure for a car is not as comprehensive
and does not take into account transmission losses (fuel used by road
tankers) maintenance, garage forecourt lighting, traffic signals (I
shan't include street lights) etc. I have attempted to find a comparible
figure for buses but my requests for raw data to the manufacturers
have gone unanswered. Perhaps you or insider could help? I am unpaid
and so do this work in my spare time which, like tram emission, is
a rare commodity. ! Remember your figures must allow for the average
loading on a similar journey to line 1 to be at all meaningful. As
far as the construction and maintenance of the way is concerned I
think you would be advised to steer clear of this one as the energy
used to construct a road is far greater. The tram lines will last
in excess of 30 years - does a road surface used by buses last that
long? The trams will last longer than a bus (at least 3x)Remember
the trams are providing a new way into Nottingham & 60% of it will
be on brand new formation. Imagine the energy used and environmental
impact of a brand new road into Nottingham! I suggest that you go
& have a look at the chaos around Cannock & Brownhills to see the
alternative.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
28-August-2002
Tram BCBRA tactics
Before I went on holiday I replied to Mr Willoughby on this forum
and challenged him to make a statement about the £250,000 from a multi
national. Despite a reminder from an internet cafe in Granada, we
have heard nothing. I must therefore assume that something is going
on which Mr Willoughby & BCBRA don't want us to hear about. One can
only speculate. Is the money coming from an oil company who will lose
out with 1m fewer car journeys? Or is it coming from a car manufacturer
or perhaps a tobacco company? - the trams will be non-smoking. How
many of BCBRA's membership are aware of what is going on? Are the
so-called Greens on Lower Road aware of who they are supporting with
their noise reports? Come on BCBRA it's time to come clean - do you
have a major backer or was your treasurer making the whole thing up?
That would not surprise me either as you are all pretty good at creating
fiction.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
28-August-2002
Wilford - reply to Greg Lock
Greg, the fact that Wilford embankment was built to carry a main-line
railway, and that nearly every house on the Wilford side was built
long before it closed, is of the utmost importance in the Wilford
tram controversy. This is so for two reasons: (1). People are perfectly
capable of living next to heavy or light railways. The argument in
the Wilford case that the trams will be too noisy or visually intrusive
is worthless. NET will provide 24 feet wide bunding and tree screening
along the route of the demolished embankment south of Wilford Lane,
adjacent the housing. (2). As I have said, it is government policy
to safeguard derelict railway routes for possible reuse as new railways,
and this is replicated in the County Structure Plan. The campaign
against the Wilford tram is ignorant. Greg, are you saying that your
pressure group, mostly along embankment south, are ready to back a
tram down Ruddington Lane? Are you prepared to blow out your own flock
in Wilford villa! ge and Silverdale? As you know, in the recent public
consultations, because of the obstreperous attitude of your pressure
group last year, NET suggested two alternative routes in Wilford,
both along Ruddington Lane. I live on this road. It is certainly an
inferior route for a tram compared to the full embankment way, with
higher cost, lower traffic catchment and slower tram speed. At Wilford
crossroads there is a conservation area, and traffic queuing on R
Lane in the morning peak. Notwithstanding, with my reply card I gave
my first preference for a tram on the full embankment route and second
for a tram on the road where I live, provided Main Road, with its
two conservation areas and 12 listed buildings, were spared. But people
are not the best judges of a tram proposed on the road where they
live, or through open space beyond their own back garden. It is like
an estate agent who wants to sell his house, but is loathe to value
it himself, so he gets another agent to ! do it for him – but
not a patronising friend. NET have the impartial professional expertise.
If they say a certain road or open space is suitable for a tram route,
and another is not, then that is good enough for me.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
27-August-2002
Tram – questions answered
PAS, please read further down the debate pages and I think you will
find that your questions about emissions have been answered more than
once, and trams come out exceedingly well. (There is an alternative
explanation of course, in that you are exhibiting a classic trait
of an ‘anti’ - of asking questions rather than coming
up with answers. When you persuade yourself that your question has
not been answered - when reality it has - you can then perceive that
you are inwardly justified in adopting your stance. Hope I am wrong
on this but if that’s your game then I’m afraid it doesn’t
wash with most people!). I am sorry that you are likely to move away
from Chilwell – hang round till 2006/7 though to make a tidy
profit once it is being constructed. Stay till 2007/8 and I think
you will find though that the tram will make Chilwell even more green
and pleasant. Just visit any continental city with trams. The suburbs
that they run though are oft! en tranquil and pleasant, and its no
coincidence. By the way I agree about recycling. We reduce, reuse,
recycle and compost almost everything in our house, and have done
for years. Like with transport, Britain has a bad record on recycling.
Puzzled though about your comment about being ‘traffic free’
– that’s what the tram will help with!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
27-August-2002
Wilford
Thank you G. Bennett for a long and totally irrelevant history lesson.
You paint a very nostalgic picture, but it really is of no consequence
that steam trains used to thunder up and down the line. Are we all
to be made to suffer purely because you and your family had to put
up with it in the dark and distant past? The remainder of your last
contribution suggests to me that you have totally lost the ability
to discuss this matter at a grown-up level. You accuse those who disagree
with you of "behaving like spoilt children", but your recent comments
and insults are by far the most childish in this column. Perhaps you
are now starting to worry that sanity might prevail and that we may
succeed in persuading NET to take a more environmentally friendly
route - one that might run a little closer to your doorstep perhaps
and reveal you to be just as much a nimby as anyone else? No, that
would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it?
Greg Lock, Compton Acres |
|
|
|
|
|
27-August-2002
Tram
Still no one has given any figures for energy spent/pollution per
passenger Km for buses vs trams, let alone the pollouion involved
in the construction and maintainance of the tram infrastucture. For
all that money being spent on the tram one could buy everyone who
is able and might use a tram a bicycle and enclourage them to commute
by bike, not only good for the enivornment but would improve the health
of the city as well. In an earlier message, it was claimed that Notts
had a good reputation on enviromental issues. Yes, this may be true,
but it would be even better if there was roadside collections of plastics
and metals to go alongside the paper they have just started to collect
at least in Broxtowe (Chilwell area). Councils up and down the country
were doing this at least 7 years ago (Vale of white Horse for example).
Fianlly to AW it is my long term intention to sell up and move reagardless
of the tram or not. A decision aided by the Chilwell-Beeston extension
that will destroy much of what makes this (Eskdale, Clumber avenue,
Brookland Drive, Gwenbrook road) area green, tranquil, private, relatively
traffic free and peaceful, something so difficult to find in this
day and age so close to a city centre.
PAS, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
27-August-2002
fact not fantasy
In response to Paul of Chilwell you are entitled to your own opinions
NOT your own FACTS. When the anti tram people can present a consistent
coherent well argued substantiate able fact based argument then perhaps
they would not suffer the put downs from people who have clearly taken
the trouble to do their homework. I wait to be persuaded by the anti-
tram group but I won’t hold my breath
the floating voter, carlton |
|
|
|
|
|
27-August-2002
Tram – valid arguments
Responding to Paul of Chilwell. Apologies to anyone with any valid
anti tram arguments who might feel they are being put down. I don’t
deliberately try to put people down but my experience of these situation
from the past is that, when people know deep down that they are wrong,
they take the truth as a ‘put down’. The problem is that
we don’t hear many valid anti tram arguments. When you consider
how primitive Britain’s transport system is compared to other
developed nations, its extraordinary that people actually resist something
which is going to rectify that situation. Furthermore NET seem capable
of doing it very well indeed. Taking it personally – well only
in so far as I have to live in a country where people think its clever
to debate and oppose something when more advanced countries have shown
there is no point in debating it, you simply have to get on and catch
up with them! Complaining about disruption while it is being built
is ! ha! rdly a valid argument, assuming the project is being carried
out as well as it can be (which it is!). For instance, we did not
hear waves of protest when the Nottingham ring road was being widened
near Lenton Lane Industrial Estate a few years ago. People just accepted
that it would bring an improvement, even though it caused horrendous
disruption, much worse than the tram will ever cause. And that was
for something that brought much less improvement than the tram will
(it may have made the situation worse by generating more traffic)!
The overall point is that people’s views should be afforded
respect when they have bothered to inform themselves. For instance,
the most of Chilwell anti tram crowd (what's left of it) deserves
no respect because they don’t want to hear or acknowledge the
truth, and because they are not accepting of something which is new
or different. Some of them have told fibs and others have been naive
enough to relay those fibs in forums such a! s ! this. Finally –
I think there will be many people who are considering home ‘swaps’
(as Paul puts it) into areas that are getting the tram. Line One is
already having a major effect on where people chose to live, and even
in Chilwell people are taking an interest in moving in.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
