| 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.
|
|
06-September-2002
The trams
If some people in Beeston or Chilwell want to squabble amongst themselves,
that is their affair. But since all the muck is now coming out, and
it makes no difference anyway regarding recent history, I may as well
state the position all-round. Just after the anti-Chilwell tram group
was formed last autumn, and before the public consultations began
in Beeston and Chilwell, our group made the best proposition ever
on the trams. Of course we have always favoured the Queens Drive route
to Clifton, but this is part of our strategy for an integrated tram
system, namely that QD from Nottingham station to the ring road should
also serve Beeston. This sensibly cuts tram building costs, and both
routes would serve plenty of traffic from industrial and commercial
premises. We were aware that the QMC route to Beeston, and the buses,
were actually faster than a Beeston via Boots tram, and indeed that
the QMC themselves have always been passionate supporters of the route
now bearing t! heir name. But obviously the Boots route, like Clifton-QD,
had few objectors since it does not run through residential areas.
We intended, with the support of the appropriate local politicians,
a trinity alliance of all three tram groups to press hard for CQD/BS,
and so kill the NET network preferences stone dead in one fell swoop.
But what did the Beeston/Chilwell objectors do? The Beestonians occupy
only two side streets. They knew their idea of a tram along the train
tracks from Beeston to Nottingham, with a branch to QMC, was a fiasco,
and their only argument noise, so they set themselves up for shunting
the tram into neighbouring streets. The Chilwellians, unable to shove
the tram on to another route, have gone off at half-cock ever since
talking about hydrogen-cell buses which is academic Thunderbirds Are
Go and irrelevant. In this website debate, it is clear the pro-trammers
win the argument against these buses every time. So where are we now?
The tram jugger! naut continues, with the NET-preferred routes being
worked up for the details, and the best opportunity for a united front
to wreck the trams lost forever. Thank you for nothing, Beeston and
Chilwell. And on another matter, contrary to what MF of Beeston says,
it was our group alone who were instrumental in persuading NET to
hold a second series of consultations on the trams, following a large
and well-publicised meeting in Wilford a year ago.
AB, Compton Acres |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
reply to G Bennett
Mr. Bennett. Reading your comments again about trams to Ruddington
racing like hell to out pace the 14 & 54 Barton buses doesn't come
across to me like you support the tram running along the Great Central
track bed at Compton Acres. You sound like one of the anti's trying
to whip up anger among their buddies. It is a poor attempt and not
based on fact therefore ill founded. I hope you are in favour of the
proposed route.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
MF s noise reports
We keep hearing about MFs generosity with his noise reports, are these
the same expert reports that state "there are no noise standards that
relate to the measurement and prediction of noise from transport infrastructure",
and that an industrial noise standard should be used. I am sure all
highway designers are interested to hear that one.
MF, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Reply to James
Your comment is hilarious. Buses being used solely by the poor and
ederly? I'm on 34,000 a year (was 40,000) and I use buses into town
and back. Why? Because the service is fast, frequent, cheap I can
get back late at night, and having to drive and park is incovenient.
If the transport system to other cities and in other cities was as
good I probably could do away with my car completely. The tram doesn't
come near me, but if it did I'd use it. By investing in a proper transport
system there will be less vehicles on the road and there will be more
room for those who have no choice but to use their car. But I think
a large number of those really don't and need to have their mindset
examined. Other than that they could spend many times more bulldozing
down homes and building a motorway right through the city to accommodate
all the cars - wouldn't that be great?
David, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Reply to H. Brown
We formed our group right at the start in July last year but yours
was created weeks later, only after the NET decided on more consultations,
which was our credit, we were responsible. While we were lobbying
through OUR councillor who defied his own party, and US writing letters
to the newpaper, YOU in Chilwell were pinning the letters copys up
on the back gates of YOUR houses next to the greenway. And your run
down traders along the High Road who I would not go where since I
shop in Nottingham and Beeston, were doing NOTHING to stop the Beeston
tram until we helped set up your group, now a cuckoo in the nest.
WE serve Beeston not you just because the 13 bus ends on Imperial.
If the tram ends in Beeston square or goes off to Toton or something,
who will walk to your scruffy Chilwell shops? And you Comptons, keep
your toffee-noses out of it, poaching our noise research. Who is this
other MF in Chilwell, not me?
MF, Lower Road, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
CARS NOT TRAMS
Welcome aboard James!! I'm pleased to see that someone else agrees
with my comments of 9th August. Get rid of ALL public transport I
say,(not just trams), build more roads and get more cars on the move.
Those without cars can take a taxi. You're braver than I was, saying
that people with cars have more money than those who use public transport,
but I'm sure you're right. Perhaps some City Centre shop keepers might
like to let us have their comments.
OUTSIDER, NOTTINGHAM |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Millions well spent on the tram?
I dont use buses and I wont use trams. The City Council seem to forget
about motorists. Businesses in the City Centre want motorists to have
access, not public transport users - who have a lower income and cannot
carry large purchases home with them.
James, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Chilwell &Wilford trams
I am amazed with the attitude of AB, Compton Acres. He advoceates
the Chilwell tram just to get the park and ride out of his own backyard
and push it on us. Well if he thinks his group is so swish at fighting
a tram, when they have the dosh and contacts why haven’t it
been done?? If your embankment is countryside, our greenway is far
better by miles just because youv got nature trails and backing from
these wildlife experts which we cant get.our “green belt”
is being ruined and houses knocked down, but at leest we have our
locals using our spaces, not like Wilford. I went there to see myself.
Nobody on the embankment but me.
H. Brown, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Ruddington -again
I don’t know for certain if a tram route to Ruddington would
be viable, Robert, and if it is not, I will not be dogmatic about
it. I did point out some pros and cons. Ruddington is bigger than
Compton Acres and Wilford combined, and all three can support trams.
What do you mean my “ill-founded excuses to try and stop the
tram on the Great Central trackbed”, since I support the Wilford
tram.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Tram – do you live off the routes?
For those who won’t support the tram because it doesn’t
go where they live, consider these "advantages for those who don’t
live on a route": * You can always move to somewhere that’s
got a line or is getting one soon (quick, before the property values
go up). * If you’re going across the city you may use it for
part of your journey. * You will probably get the tram (or other improvement)
one day. Somewhere has to be first; once its established it may expand
quickly, like Manchester. * It takes traffic off main radial routes
which you may use. * It brings inward investment to the city centre
and the areas it runs through. You might get a job out of it! * It’s
mainly government and private sector money anyway (and the risk is
with the private sector). So, why not start a campaign for a line
rather than moaning about it going elsewhere?
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Trams reply to Willo
Willo; your comments suggest that whilst BACIT is politically led,
BCBRA allow all parties on to the floor of their meetings. You also
claim to have attended BACIT led meetings. As the chair at the last
public meeting I made every attempt to open the floor to anyone who
had a question or some specialist knowledge. Thus as I recall we had
an expert from LRTA, a tramway engineer, a Croydon resident, a local
University lecturer, a retired railway engineer, a noise expert from
BCT (anti-NET route), Chilwell residents and a tram driver all speaking.
Had BCBRA decided to attend and not publicly urged a boycott I would
have invited them to speak too. I recall that the deputy leader of
Broxtowe Borough Council and our local M.P. did speak - they are the
only ones whose political persuasions are known to me - I would expect
such influential people to be present at such a significant meeting.
In contrast when I attended a meeting chaired by a Labour Councillor
and a member of BCBRA in! an old peoples home I was told to “shut
up and say nothing” I and the elderly residents were then subjected
to a diatribe of ill-founded, distressing tripe. Our organisation
does have members of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats as
well as members of such organisations as transport 2000, Pedals etc..
One would expect that, as these are the people concerned about transport
and the community. How the members of Transport 2000 or any other
organisation react to news about topics other than transport to the
west of Nottingham is entirely their concern. They are not permitted
and do not attempt to air non such-related issues at our meetings.
I shall not make any apologies for NET here but I shall agree with
Jim in an earlier posting that we have spent too much time answering
these sort of accusations and not enough criticising NET where they
fall short. We intend to rectify that right now by starting a campaign
for 2 extra stops (Cator Lane & Neville Saddler Court). So ! why not
join us? See http://www.bacit.org.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
06-September-2002
Willo
Willo Can you please explain how you can change transport in west
Nottingham with out it affecting someone. You argue that BCBRA are
concerned for those directly affected. What about those affected if
you do nothing. More houses in Chilwell being built, the University
on the door step constantly expanding their student numbers. All meaning
more traffic more congestion more fumes etc etc, and what about the
poor soles stuck in the traffic like Mr Smythe Wilberforce I assume
its fine for the people in homes and cars affected by all this to
have their human rights eroded.
AJH, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
05-September-2002
Wilford tram
I live on Compton Acres and wish to say that we are not all snobs
or against the Wilford tram. The real opponents are right next to
the embankment. I know quite a lot of people round here who would
like to use the tram, shoppers at least, if only it were here right
now. But they are afraid to speak up because of the bully-boys amongst
the antis. This tram controversy is a laughing stock in the office
where I work, because they know the tram will go on an old rail route.
DP, Compton Acres |
|
|
|
|
|
05-September-2002
Reply to AW
Yes, I saw the Evening Post article as well (Sept 03) on tilting trains
from London to the Midlands and north, using the restored trackbed
of the Great Central most of the way to Nottingham. If they were routed
on Wilford embankment the tram objectors would faint clean away. Surely
AW you know the “countryside” when you see it. The environment-conscious
bright sparks living next to the embankment want to save it for future
generations. And all without a single thought for themselves.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
05-September-2002
Re: trams or trains
do you prefer trams at 50 mph or the proposed super fast tilting trains
at 225 mph As someone who doesn't live in the area I'd prefer trains
myself. I have no reason to use the tram in that direction, but a
super fast train to London I would use instead of my car (given a
decent fare). So if you live on that embankment you should be campaigning
for the tram. The tram may or may not put your prices up, a train
certainly won't. With a fast tram in place such a superfast railway
could be moved out to the M1 corridor, there is no need for it to
go into town then. And why the tilting trains, I still like the idea
of the ultra-fast Japenese 'hover'-trains (maglev) which can clock
over 300mph and are going to be much quieter. With commuter times
to London less than an hour property and investment will soar - the
city will become much more wealthy.
David, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
05-September-2002
Politics BACIT BCBRA and Willo
As a member of BACIT I was surprised to read about my political motivations
which Willo seems to know all about, and I thought your votes were
all secret. I was also interested to read about the altruistic motivations
of BCBRA. As a resident in the Chilwell area and member of no political
party, I find it amazing that Willo thinks BCBRA have no bias when
they were telling everyone locally to vote Tory in the local by election.
As for new labour and the Looney left, there are member of BACIT who
have political allegiances, which is why at our last meeting of about
30 people I ended up sat next to at least 5 members of the local Liberal
party (possibly more old labour than the labour party itself) opposite
me was the Local MP who had come to speak to us as well as two local
councillors and other members of the labour party. I believe we also
have a Tory member somewhere. The reason I joined BACIT was I was
fed up with the ill-informed rubbish coming from BCBRA locally, not
bec! au! se of politics. What I and most members of BACIT want to
see is a decent transport system incorporating all modes car bus tram
train. Those of us that use the current system know it is about to
keel over with an average speed for my journey of about 8mph, BACIT
realise we can’t carry on as we are now, and we understand that the
tram will provide an appropriate solution to the transport problems
of west Nottingham. There are issues with the tram and we agree in
some areas there are problems which need to be resolved but in principle
we want to see it constructed. Willo can you also explain to me why
Net is so linked to big business I have missed this one and what is
the big business sponsoring BCBRA/Mr Willoghby’s £0.25m. I want to
have a well informed and accurately researched argument, persuade
me its bad with some researched FACT and forget the invective. I object
to BCBRA implying on their web site that people who want the tram
are fascists (which is odd as we are all apparently socialists). Willo
you are entitled to your own Opinions however daft they may be you
are not entitled to your own FACTS.
MF, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
Trams; Steve from Jim
There are two reasons why I want to remain anonymous & not join BACIT.
1) It would severely compromise my job - my boss would instantly sack
me if he knew. 2) I think I am being more effective this way. I can
keep an eye on you Steve and make sure that you don't get too pally
with the wrong company, call me your conscience. Thanks for sending
the info to BCBRA etc. I don't want to let anyone know who I am. However,
I don't share your confidence about hearing anything much. For those
who've just joined: At the last BCBRA public meeting the treasurer
announced that they may have a multi-national backer to the tune of
up to £250,000. I badgered on about this and Mr Stephen Willoughby
eventually came on to this forum denying all knowledge and claiming
Green credentials. I welcomed him and reminded him of his stand over
the "fair play on fuel" campaign which resulted in extra profits for
the oil companies and the petrol retailers. I challenged him to make
a statement. Since then silence, despite several reminders. One can
only assume that they're up to something which they don't want public
& I suspect a multi national oil company is behind it. If we hear
nothing by the week-end I shall prepare a letter / release which I
shall put up here before sending to the national and local newspapers
- unless the BBC want to scoop it! BBC editors if you contact me OK
but I don't want my email address releasing to anyone, not even BACIT.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
clifton and Wilford
i use the 48 bus every day to work and it is murder coming home in
the evening with traffic jams over Clifton Bridge, over an hour. If
there is an accident on the bridge, it takes a few hours. We can’t
wait forever to sort out the A453, and we dont know if it will have
a new bridge anyway. The trams should be built. Why should us working
class folk have to suffer just because of a few snobs in Comton Acres.
I agree with what people say the embankment is a rubbish dump.
Pete, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
Reply to H. Brown and MF
I would like to reply to some allegations from tram objectors in Beeston
and Chilwell. Yes, we in Wilford/Compton Acres did help the Chilwell
objectors with their march, and the organisers have been grateful,
unlike the messages lately in this website. We have not sponged off
the Beeston objectors on tram noise research – we pay our way.
But this does not mean we are rich. No house on Compton Acres is worth
more than £500,000, not a stupendous figure for executive properties
in a rising market without the tram. I’m afraid the groups against
the Beeston and Chilwell routes must fight their own battles. There
again, besides our preference for the Queens Drive tram route, we
are now thinking that a Chilwell tram might not make a bad job of
relieving road traffic on the A52 or M1 after all. We understand feeder
buses from Long Eaton or extra park-n-ride for Chilwell High Road
shops are now intended. This traffic from Long Eaton to the tram would
have a simila! r catchment to the Parkway station at Ratcliffe-on-Soar
which we firmly believe in. All the more reason for saying a park-n-ride
at Clifton with the tram terminus is quite unnecessary. As a group,
we need all our resources for ourselves, since we have a tough struggle
against NET bias and dogma, stopping a tram on an old railway route,
despite its obvious nationally important wildlife. The Wilford route
has a much higher environmental value than Beeston/Chilwell, since
it has reverted back to countryside. Compton Man, who are you? Who
is this “loony” you refer to?
AB, Compton Acres |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
REPLY TO MF
I’m fed up and cant keep quiet any more. Your group has been
no use to us, diverting our resourse. We are saving Chilwell valley
and the High Road shops and stopping the Stapleford A52 cars all you
think about is noise. It would suit you to stick the tram in the nearest
street where you cant hear it Broadgate, but still walk to a tram
stop and use it, so your houses still go up in value and you are all
right jack. We carry the can.The exibitions and consultations we had
last Chritmas showd most people in Chilwell are AGAINST the tram but
also most FAVOR the tram down Lower Road and Fletcher Roads. And we
have advised our supporters that when they lobby and write to the
politicans and tram company not to be NIMBY because the bigwigs are
put off, but your prat of group leader says the other day in the Post
letters that he IS a NIMBY he admits it. We don’t need you any
more, fight the tram on your own.
H. Brown, Chilwell. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
Tram – or Great Central train?
Fascinating although it is to read of the differences between anti
trammers north and south of the River Trent, and either side of Beeston,
it is worth pointing out that a story emerged in yesterday’s
Evening Post (3/9/02) www.nottinghameveningpost.co.uk which will put
the Wilford / Compton Acres lot in a spin. It’s on page 4 in
the printed version, or online follow the Trams link on the home page.
Basically it appears that there is a proposal, passed to the Strategic
Rail Authority, to re-open the Great Central Railway, which ran on
the often discussed embankment that runs through Wilford and Compton
Acres. I have to ask the people in that area, do you prefer trams
at 50 mph or the proposed super fast tilting trains at 225 mph? I
tell you want, I’d happily see the tram go via the alternative
route through Riverside business area if we could have the Great Central
running again. Mind you, they’d have to shift the tram bridge
across the Midland station! t! o one side or the other but to have
a new main line by 2015, I’d be prepared to accept lots of change!
Further north, under the city centre and to Carrington and beyond,
the tunnels are still there even if further on the land has been built
on. But what did I recently say about buying a home where a railway
once ran? Caveat emptor = buyer beware!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
trams
Having been following the tram issue on this forum and having attended
meetings involving NET, BCBRA and BACIT, I have started to draw up
a few conclusions, which are becoming a little clearer the more I
hear and read on the tram issue. These are, NET are only being "driven"
by money. They seem to be listening to big business more than the
people who live in the communities they are going to be affecting.They
have not been fair and open with any available information and are,
along with the Councils very secretive, which always tells you something.
BCBRA seem to be more concerned with how any proposals will affect
the community in general. How they feel it will adversely affect the
way they live and work within the community and are worrying that
perhaps their human rights are going to be eroded accordingly.NET
do not seem to be able to come up with the right mitigation to appease
anyone, other than they can build it, they will build it regardless!
BCBRA were not formed with any politcal motives at all, as was shown
at their last public meeting where they gave all parties the floor.
BACIT on the other hand seem to be totally politically led. They seem
to have members that are purely anti car and are old, left wing socialists
who need to be be heard because of what new Labour represent today
and that the tram has become the appropriate " vehicle" of today so
they are all jumping on the tram wagon. They are not really concerned
about the community that NET's proposals are going to affect. Has
this tram "platform " become the best oppurtunity to air their views
? Am I to assume that the Transport 2000 members within BACIT will
now be incensed by Labour's u-turn on road building? I am all for
looking at ways of improving our environment and congestion problems
but not at the expense of all those that are directly affected and
definately not for monetary or political gain!!
Willo, Wollaton |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
REPLY TO H. BROWN
You’ve got nothing to complain about. We in Lower Road gave
you OUR supporters to turn up on the march in a blizzard down Chilwell
valley. Some of us we given the bums rush because the march was supposed
to be limited to 400. Why couldn’t you organise it properly
and let all of us come? Your Chilwell stop the tram group could not
organise a piss-up in a brewery. We gave you the local Greens and
yet you cold shoulder us being on “that other side” of
Beeston. We want the tram to be put on Broadgate, but you Chilwell
objectors don’t care which way it gets to Beeston, as long as
it stops their, just as long as your precious valley is spared from
a tram. And what about the Wilford or Compton Ahcres antis? When we
wanted our own barrister for the enquiry, we asked the Compton Acres
group for help. We paid for the published Sheffield tram noise research,
and lent our university helpers to the Wilford and Compton lot. And
what did they give us ! in return? Not a penny, Nothing except those
few placards. Peanuts! The Comptons are loaded with money, their Chairleader
has said they will fight the tram no matter what the cost and can
afford, so I believe, consultants on environment (why I’d like
to know when the wildlife expert people they know will give them all
the advice they want for free), and also the Comptons will pay for
independent engineering survey, new traffic figures etc. It’s
all quite unfair.
MF, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
Trams a message for Jim
Jim I wish that I had a direct line to you. Why not join us at BACIT?
I copied your posting regarding Mr Willoughby & the £250,000 of last
Friday and sent it to BCBRA - marked attention Mr Willoughby with
copies to Mr Wildish (Green party & noise reports) and to the Concervative
councillors. They will have received this by Saturday so we should
expect a reply in the next few days. If I hear anything direct I'll
post it here.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
04-September-2002
Trams reply to H Brown
So you lot North of the river are pleading poverty. I think that a
bit rich (pun intended) when you’re about to cop for a quarter of
a million. I wonder if your sponsors know the true position? The facts
are the Wilford route will be a lot easier to stop and so save them
a wad of money. Why? Because we haven’t got the Hospital, the University
and most important we’ve only got one loony to contend with. You’ve
got an organised mob.
Compton Man, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
compton acres
I went for a stroll along the compton acres "nature trail" more like
a rubbish tip. I saw a rat. It ran across the path in front of me.
It's not the first time i've seen one. Get the tram there and clean
the place up.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
ruddington tram
ruddington is to small and it would not be viable to run a tram to
there. come on Mr. Bennett, you will have to try harder than that
to enlist help with your ill founded excuses to try and stop the tram
on the Great Central track bed. 3/10 must try harder.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
RUDDINGTON
Another short tram extension worth considering within a decade is
to Ruddington, making more use of the derelict trackbed of the Great
Central main line. Putting the terminus in the centre of the small
town would involve property acquisition/demolition in the narrow High
Road, unless it is located short, at the junction of Clifton and Wilford
Roads. The slower on-street running at the Ruddington town end would
have to be compensated by the trams racing like the devil up the rail
trackbed to outpace the Number 14 and 54 Barton buses. The Ruddington
tram would negate any requirement for a park-and-ride site at Wilwell,
but this is the very place where the main restriction on the tram
route is found – the nature reserve at Wilwell Cutting. There
have been other development pressures around this site lately as well
(A453 by pass proposal now apparently scrapped, Beckett School relocation).
Alas, the nature reserve is a noble thing seemingly in precisely the
wrong plac! e.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
I agree with Chilwelian, since I live just off Bramcote Lane. We are
trying to defend a lovely piece of Green Belt corridor park from the
tram, but Wilford embankment is a pigsty covered in dog turd. It might
just as well go for a new road for all the use right now made out
of it – and get me to work faster. Yet the people there in Compton
Acres call it the countryside. When we had a march earlier this year
in Chilwell, though the Compton Acres people grugingly lent us some
placards, they did not come along, because they were “too busy”,
making there excuses. They have plenty of money in there posh houses
and we have to struggle on meagre donations & resources. And they
don’t have any shopkeepers or quiet roads where a tram would
go. All right for some, isn’t it?
H. Brown, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Tram - who needs enemies
Chilwellian - Will you confirm or deny that BCBRA are about to get
a substantial sum from a multi-national? I'm not surprised that you
want the Wilford lot to shut up. Maybe they know something and might
let the cat out the bag. If they don't then I suspect that they'll
want a cut and dilute your efforts. After all, if NET are determined
to expand (they are) it's best for you that the Wilford line gets
built and you manage to stop yours. I bet you wish I'd shut up too
and this forum would shut down. Democracy rules!
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Trams & Mr Smythe Wilberforce
Mr Smythe-Wilberforce has filed a full and frank report on the Green
Festival at the Open Forum (the boards top-left). It mentions the
NET stall - well worth reading!
Bob, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Anons environmental concerns
In reply to Anon, and his claims of roads being less environmentally
nasty. Most major roads are over 1m thick in construction featuring
600mm of good quality quarried aggregate (or Leicestershire as it
used to be know before it became a Swiss cheese). These then have
either 450mm plus of bitumen (made from oil and more stone), or 200mm
of reinforced concrete topped with more bitumen. The tram construction
is no worse than building a new road of equivalent width and the quantity
of materials used in the tram is tiny compared to the ongoing reconstruction
of roads/motorways, and the construction of the new Birmingham northern
relief road. Secondly the off road sections of ballasted tram lines
are significantly less environmentally nasty construction than any
road construction. Most of the roads the tram uses will have to be
rebuilt at some stage in the near future as they are life expired.
To provide an equivalent capacity new road to the tram would need
to be wider and hence use more materials. 2 million quid will construct
probably no more than 3 bridges or underpasses, and as for low level
Ozone it is totally insignificant and irrelevant. Ever heard of benzene,
particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide all from traffic fumes
all of which will be more concentrated in Nottingham than anything
generated by the tram including the concentrated gasses generated
by the passengers. God help anyone in Blackpool who rides on their
old fashioned tram it’s a miracle they can walk with all the free
radicals flying about from the sea air and their tram combined.
Doug, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Trams and Hydrogen buses
I asked how hydrogen was obtained and got no response. I therefore
did a search on the internet and found the following quote: “Two methods
are generally used to produce hydrogen: (1) electrolysis and (2) synthesis
gas production from steam reforming or partial oxidation. Electrolysis
uses electrical energy to split water molecules into hydrogen and
oxygen. The electrical energy can come from any electricity production
sources including renewable fuels. DOE has concluded that electrolysis
is unlikely to become the predominant method for large quantities
of hydrogen production in the future. The predominant method for producing
synthesis gas is steam reforming of natural gas, although other hydrocarbons
can be used as feedstocks. For example, biomass and coal can be gasified
and used in a steam reforming process to create hydrogen. So in other
words to produce the fuel for this hydrogen bus, either electrical
energy or a hydrocarbon gas must be used. Electrical energy can be
produced by a variety of ways including wind, wave, hydro and fuel
cell so the tram which utilises this, can have the benefits of all
worlds. Methane produced by the latter method clearly involves some
emission (where does the C in CH4 go?) The bus is less efficient than
a tram, (by 50%) couple to this the losses due to an extra process
if method 1 is used and physically carrying the fuel on the roads
this makes the hydrogen powered vehicle a much less attractive proposition
than a tram, environmentally. We already have proved that it has less
impact than a tram on congestion so I believe it is a non-alternative
to the tram. However, it would be useful as a feeder or stop-gap measure
before introduction of a branch tramway.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Trams – positive environmental impact
A common trait of anti tram people is to have selected vision. Anon
(or is it PAS?) asked about impacts of constructing the tram system
without looking at what else might have to be done to help with transport
and travel should the tram not be built. Apart from the fact that
society would be spending the money on something else which would
probably involve construction, one must consider that if the tram
is not built then roads etc would have to be expanded, extra car parks
built, etc. Incidentally, building waste does constitute a large proportion
of landfills but it generally does not produce as much methane as
household and general commercial waste. Methane is a much more potent
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, per atom of carbon. That’s
why sometimes it is piped out and burnt off for the first year or
so after the waste has been dumped, and even used for generating electricity.
Many building materials are reusable – rubble, steel, etc so
effectively a lot ! of recycling goes on. This whole subject of ‘embodied’
energy (and materials) is the last subject that antis should raise.
As already well described on this forum, trams last a lot longer than
road vehicles, and the rails are much easier to maintain than road
surfaces. Also, don’t forget that a lot of the work being done
now will pre-empt utility works (sewers etc) having to be worked on
in the next few years. In other words, a lot of work is now being
done in one go that would have been done separately in the future,
with the obvious savings on disruption and energy (and materials)
use. By the way I doubt you could build even one road underpass for
£2m. I notice Anon / PAS has gone back to the issue of buses and does
not matter what fuel you run them on – a bus is a bus, and buses
won’t take cars off the road. Buses can’t run on vegetable
oil – they can run on diesel which contains up to about 10%
vegetable oil, but the particulate ! etc type pollution is much greater,
and they need converting and special maintenance.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Tram – more on positive environmental impacts
There was so much questionable with Anon’s posting that I have
realised that I have missed out some key responses. Firstly why don’t
anti tram people answer their own dodgy questions rather than always
asking questions? Imagine the status quo and YOU having to defend
it. Secondly, I question whether concrete is the biggest man made
(anthropomorphic) cause of carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions are
generally broken down as follows: Firstly between waste and energy
use. Waste is on the up because the UK is as bad at recycling as it
is at public transport. As regards energy use (caused by use of fossil
fuels) the breakdown is between industrial / commercial, domestic,
and transportation. In the UK domestic emissions are going down slightly
due to better boilers, lighting and insulation, etc, but not as much
as it might because of the increased number of households. Transportation
(of both goods and people) is the big growth sector, especially caused
by use of the pr! ivate car, also more trucking of goods rather than
rail use. Industrial and commercial energy use is generally in decline
because we have less heavy industry, and more light industry and services
these days. I would include construction in this sector. But the really
big energy users are those like paper making and extraction of metals
from ores and other chemical processes. Cement manufacture (and concrete
making) is one of those chemical processes but I don’t believe
it is as significant as Anon claims. Some of the UK’s waste
car tyres are used in generating the heat for cement manufacture,
for instance. A new cement has been invented which absorbs large amounts
of CO2 from the atmosphere when it sets into concrete. I just don’t
see that the tram is producing great environmental problems at the
construction stage, as the embodies energy and materials are minor
compared to the benefits the tram will bring over its lifetime.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Tram - put your own house in order
Dear Chilwellian, I hardly think its appropriate for you in BCBRA
(I assume) to criticise us here in Wilford and Compton Acres. Since
that wretched pro tram lot have knocked you for six, we notice that
you weren't that complimentary about your supposed BCT chums and their
noise reports that you mentioned. In fact since someone pointed out
that the bus sounds were recorded going down hill and the trams going
uphill, its all gone a bit embarrassing hasn't it? And from what I
hear, your favourite political party is in a bit of turmoil, with
the old lady having to slap the kid around a bit so he knows how to
behave in public office. At least we're going to have one of their
much more senior people at our forthcoming meeting. Tell you what,
some of us here reckon we can fend off this line and leave you lumbered
with yours. Don't forget you've got the QMC on yours and we've nothing
like that on our line. They only need one line to balance the line
one trams from the north. Yours, ! a ! supporter of Greg. .
Compton Man, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
03-September-2002
Tram's Environmental Impact
I have seen environmental issues discussed on here, and it's very
easy to have a peacemeal approach to pollutants and pick out just
the good bits, like point of use emmissions. I would like to know
the following if anyone can furnish me with it... How many thousands
of tonnes or cubic metres of concrete were used in Tram construction?
(cement is the largest man-made contributor to manmade Co2) and road
transport is in context miniscule. How many thousands of tonnes of
Steel were used for the concrete reinforcing mesh, girders, supports,
rails etc... which needed extracting, smelting and casting. How many
thousands of tonnes of waste were produced from the huge excavations
of the highways and other land in these times when politicians fuss
over a few grammes of litter in our domestic refuse. Will HT arcing
of the tram's motors and power lines be monitored for low-level ozone
production? Why not run the buses on vegetable oil instead of diesel
if you are merely spending the £2,000,000 on cutting CO2, you can
build a hell of a lot of proper junctions and underpasses with that.
Any coincidence that the traffic light phasing in Nottingham has been
altered in recent months to cause conjestion? Will these be set back
to normal the day the infamous tram is launched?
Anon, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
