| The tram debate - have your say |
|
This page exists as an archive. If you would like to discuss
this or other local topics or issues with other visitors to BBC Nottingham
website, please visit our new message
board.
|
|
21-September-2002
trams
I would just like to thank Steve Barber for producing more evidence
in favour of why we so called anti trammers are so fearful for our
futures. Steve, if in all honesty, you are telling me you cannot see
the difference between the two photos of Chilwell rd. and Croydon,
then I suggest you go and have some tests done. Croydon, you have
shown a one line tram,( lady with child having to dangerousely cross
its path), passing through a massive built up city centre with hugh
multi storey buildings and you then want to compare our village road
where a double tram system is being proposed.The Croydon picture also
shows no signs of regeneration at all. Where are all your Bistro's
and street cafe's? What on Earth are you trying to tell us? Please
keep up the good work!
Willo, Wollaton |
|
|
|
|
|
21-September-2002
Conductors
Thank you Insider, you've saved me the trouble by demolishing your
own arguments.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
PAS House price theories
PAS, Whilst much of the protests concern the route passing along Chilwell
High Road, this is still the best route as trams, like buses, should
serve centres attracting trips. It WILL vastly improve the street,
in economic environmental and aesthetic terms. Whilst we must continue
to look at all options we mustn't settle for a second rate route when
most of the issues arising from the best route can be mitigated. As
for Line 3 house prices, they haven't gone up yet because the route
is neither finalized nor committed (which you imply yourself with
your suggestion). So far we have a preferred route, but it may still
change. When the route is committed (perhaps next year), prices may
start to be increase, particularly after the Line 1 benefits become
tangible, and then accelerating when construction begins. The full
effects will probably not show themselves until the system is operating
though - watch Line 1. As for claiming Croydon is one of the most
affluent parts of South London - I'm sorry? I lived near there not
long ago and it was NOT a sort-after address. Even if the area was
affluent, the stats show price rises IN EXCESS of that occurring in
the rest of the area. Now get on the Midland Mainline to St Pancras
and see for yourself.
Stanley, Basford, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
Posters
Agreed Bob that poster says it all. Can't you see shopkeepers that
you're becoming the laughing stock? If I were you I'd get your No
Tram posters down quick - it must be damaging trade.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
Tram Debate - funding
The case for the tram not having an impact on public funds appears
compelling, as BACIT's website states (quoting Colin Lea of NET),
"Budgetary implications are a risk for the private consortium building
Line One and not the councils." As I understand it, NCT is part of
this 'private' consortium, is it not? The majority shareholder of
NCT is Nottingham City Council. How can a company take a financial
risk without its shareholders taking the same risk? Am I missing something?
I also notice that NET have suddenly decided they need an extra 35
staff for conductor duties, at a salary of £15,000pa each - since
this was not the original plan, could it be argued that NET is now
theoretically £525,000pa over budget, or £14,175,000 over the 27 year
contract? You can argue about cost savings from not installing ticket
machines, I suppose, but they only cost about £1,500 for one of those
spectacularly slow and unreliable red Almex machines. Besides, the
conductors will need hand-held ! machines, and they cost more... Anyway,
having no doubt brought a smile to the anti's, and a snear to the
pro's, I'll save Mr Barber the trouble in writing the counter-argument.
I guess NET think it will pay for itself in reducing fare-dodging
and vandalism. Interesting, though.
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
sworn aspostles
So JC you dont like the tram on financial grounds alone. If they can
prove the figures will you support it as an appropriate form of public
transport. Or are you hinding behind a vale as a closet anti tram
person, who wont be purswaded as you claim is the case of the sworn
apostles. Who are you trying to kid
ajh, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
PAS your route
Although your route sounds interesting it avoids Broxtowe College
which will be a major source of traffic. It also sounds like it will
involve more land acquisition and more properties so I would suggest
it is a non runner. You did not come to Croydon with us perhaps because
you think you know so much about the area. The line we studied ran
to New Addington which is described as the equivalent to Clifton.
The councillor who accompanied us explained that this was a socially
disadvantaged area with residents unable to secure employment in Croydon
because of unreliable transport problems. Hardly the affluent suburb
you paint. If you can find 3 others I suggest that you get a Midland
Mainline Foursight ticket for £11 each and go and have a look. Like
us, you will then be able to argue from a position of knowledge and
not ignorance. Property everywhere around Nottingham is now slowing
down it's largely a seasonal thing. Of course property along certain
parts of the route is probably more difficult to sell at present due
the No Tram posters and the BCBRA web-site which does a marvellous
job of putting people off. I couldn't believe it when I saw a No Tram
poster in a house for sale,the purchasers the! n ! I'm told got the
price right down using the BCBRA web-site and the sellers couldn't
argue as they obviously endorse BCBRA.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
Jc and PAS
How many times do the facts about the funding have to be spelled out
JC. IT’S A PRIVATE FINANCE PROJECT. The contractor in a talk to a
professional institution locally stated there can be no more money
to pay for the tram than what they have asked for in the tender their
pay off is the 30 year concession for the project. They get the money
for the scheme 75% from the government for building a system that
works and for running a certain number of trams to time etc and how
many people are on them does not matter for this funding. Their risk
is the 25% from revinue and the construction costs budget. If it works
out they make a hell of a lot of money if it does not they loose,
that’s how business works take a risk make money. You can argue if
private finance is the most economic way to fund over the time of
the project as it may cost more than paying upfront but that’s a political
decision made by the saintly Mrs T and nice Mr major and carried on
by the current shower. PAS I was going to respond to your concerns
over Sub-sonic vibration and house foundations and settlement but
I have decided that as ignorance is bliss I would not waste my time
on another piece of farcical anti-tram lunacy. What I will say is
that houses in Beeston subside due to settlement of peat lenses within
the river gravels.
Doug, Carlton |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
JC & funding
I attended a fascinating talk last night by Colin Lea of NET. Funding
was mentioned and I learned some new things. 75% of the money comes
from Annex E funding and the other 25% elsewhere. This does not mean
council tax as the operating consortia are expected to put in a sizable
amount. On line 1 only 5% had to be raised out of the public purse
(local & national). Once funding is agreed then the consortium get
a 30 year licence; 3 years to build & 27 years to operate. They must
adhere to strict conditions, construction times, min. frequency of
operation, min.periods of operation etc. The government only give
them 1/30 of the annex E money every year subject to the conditions
being met. If there is an overspend or fares are lower than expected
then the consortium lose out. Of course if they are successful then
they win. The local purse or government will not at any time have
to bail out the system. Why should we have it? Because line 3 will
benefit us to the tune of £140m for ! a tiny cost spread over 30 years.
Each year we gain. We'd be idiots to turn this opportunity down.
S.B., Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
20-September-2002
Trams
I think the response from the Insider on the NET literature ,indicating
trams as the only solution ,and general comments on this discussion
page ,where views will not change no matter what, are fairly accurate
and point towards a cult leadership approach to the Tram with the
swarn apostles blindly following the cause. I come from the view of
concerned Council Tax payer and I do not want to fund a lemon ,the
numbers are far from convincing ,we know how NET have overspent the
budget to evaluate routes (our Council Tax) and I have similar concerns
over both the project costs and potential user numbers. Local funding
will contribute 25 % towards this exercise .Isn’t anyone else
interested about the potential impact on their council tax of overruns
?
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
19-September-2002
Trams trolleys and hobbies
I don’t understand Insider. It is clear that trolley buses have
been knocked on the head, they just don’t do the business like
trams. Mind you, they’re not as hopeless as hydrogen buses –
at least trolley buses (especially with ‘guided busway’
technology) would have some applicability in areas of Nottingham where
there’s no room for extensive off street running for trams,
especially hilly areas. I do have a soft spot for trolleys, especially
as I am just old enough to remember them running in the last (?) city
in the UK that had them. Trams are much better, however. Incidentally,
talking of soft spots, there’s no harm in someone being enthusiastic
about transport systems - councillors, council officers or otherwise.
When you look at the crass rubbish that people are into these days,
it is refreshing that people enthuse about technologies that will
do society some good. If there were more tram spotters, there probably
wouldnR! 17;t be as much trouble in the world, and we’d all
be living better quality lives! I fear Insider has misunderstood the
concept of Nottingham ‘growing’. It does not have to get
bigger, its just its economy that has to grow. It means developing
downtrodden areas is growth, it doesn’t necessarily mean building
4 bed detached housing estates on the outskirts. If they do, the tram
should be there before the houses!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
19-September-2002
Trams spot the difference
Brilliant! The "spot the difference" poster on the telegraph pole
outside the Last Post in Beeston. Keep it up!
Bob, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
19-September-2002
Tram opponents
Isn't it amazing that the only tram protestor that the Evening Post
reporter could find in Croydon is in the motor industry. BCBRA's first
newsletter quoted a protestor on line 1 guess what he owned a garage.
Our protest group's chairman owns a garage. Isn't it becoming obvious
who are running scared. Isn't it a pity that so many have been conned,
so come on now is the time for you to rip down the No Tram posters
from your shops and houses and try and save your dignity.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
19-September-2002
Tram facts
Insider if you want facts for your web site then I suggest that you
start by looking at http://www.bacit.org Everything on there is carefully
checked and most of the links (guess which I don't reccommend) lead
to other informative sites. Particularly the two Croydon sites and
the LTRA site. As far as hydrogen fuel cell propulsion is concerned
it is not in the same league as the tram, see my previous posting
and one by Doug recently. However it is probably preferable to an
internal combustion engine as far as local pollution is concerned
but globally it is a high polluter. Trolley buses are nearly as good
as the tram but still cause more pollution and have a lower impact
on local traffic problems. I would be interested to see your web-site
but if it is to be accurate it will be very similar to the BACIT one.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
19-September-2002
P.S
I forgot to add Imperial road is substantially wider than high Road
PAS, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
19-September-2002
more off road running
If more off road running would improve the success of the Beeston-Chilwell
extension. Then I propose an ammendment to the presently proposed
route. On leaving Beeston centre take the tram up Imperial Road, not
down Chilwell High Road, obviating all the concerns, cost and hot
air about the Chilwell High road route. Then turn it left down Ireton
St. and cut across Park Road and Grove Road. Houses along these roads
have enormous gardens that could easilly accomodate the tram with
little or no loss or property. Then continue the route across the
Middle of the Grove Road allotments. This route would miss Richmond
Court entirely and could make a large arc around Greenwood court,
reducing the "stress" on the residents of these complexes. I expect
this route, including any compulsary purchases would both be far cheaper,
quicker and far easier to build than the High road route. One problem
though, I note that many of the properties along the extension route
have suffered recent settling (subsidence?) I expect the NET engineers
will check for land stability and know that the sub-sonic vibration
of the tram other than driving some forms of wildlife away, will not
affect the state of the property which it passes. One salient point
about property prices. Yes they went up in Croydon hardly surprising
for one of the most affluent suburbs of the south East in the wave
of the current property boom. Since alot fo the route is of road there
this is hardly surpring since these are normally the nicer places
to live. However, take a closer look at how quicky property is moving
(an oft used indicator for proptery demand) along the Chilwell-Beeston
Extension route and you may conclude a different story. Surely if
property is predicted to escalate in value with the coing of Line
3 property speculators would have snapped up all those currently for
sale. Why not I think? Suggestions please
PAS, Chilwell |
|
|
|
|
|
19-September-2002
Game set & match
Yes David I agree Game set & match to the trams. Did any members of
any anti-tram organisation bother to go to Croydon? Did they attend
the BACIT organised meeting in May when a live telephone link was
established to Croydon & an expert from Sheffield was on hand? Have
they found any arguments? No they just depend on hysteria and spreading
falsehoods, especially amongst the most vulnerable in our society
- the elderly. Thank God for BACIT and common sense. The anti tram
lot might as well pack up now and should feel thoroughly ashamed of
themselves.
Stephanie, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
18-September-2002
Speculators
The bad side of me could come out now. I feel like offering Messrs
Wildish & Lock and others who live on the proposed route and are constantly
talking the value of their house down a paltry sum. I could then sell
once the tram is running & clean up. Now is an excellent time to buy
on Lower Road, Fletcher Road, Clumber Ave etc. If you can stand the
constant noise the hot heads are making.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
18-September-2002
The Tram Debate
Now that I've been reading this board for some time now, I notice
that the same old arguments keep coming up on either side - is anyone
listening to anyone else!? I think it's largely proven, for example,
that tram proximity increases property values. If you live on the
line and you're selling your house, you'll probably kick yourself
in a few years time. (Though personally, I wouldn't want them on my
doorstep - just within walking distance)On the other hand, AW, I've
already shot down your arguments re: trolleybuses to varying degrees...
Does anyone feel that there would be any value in creating an impartial
website that simply lists the arguments (and related FACTS) for and
against the tram with links and references to back them up? Does one
exist already? Shall I make a start on one? ;) I saw the Croydon article
in the Post - interesting, but light on fact. I imagine that reflects
the quality of the Post's journalism, rather than the quality of Mr
Barber's tour. I paid a ! visit to the recent Green Festival, and
picked up pretty much every bit of literature on the NET stand. Almost
every one starts with something like, "In order for Nottingham to
survive and grow, we must... build the tram". I find myself increasingly
in agreement, but I can't yet figure out why Nottingham has to grow,
or even survive for that matter. I also notice BMW are releasing a
hydrogen car - zero emissions, 150mph top speed, 0-60 in 6secs, 333bhp,
200mile range, on sale from next year. Now if someone would be kind
enough to donate one, I'll gladly report back on how the experience
compares to a tram ;) Oh, one more thing, AW: Don't be so quick to
dismiss the "train set as a child" syndrome - maybe you won't see
your local councillor writing down engine numbers in an anorak, but
you might spot the odd high-ranking council officer on a platform
with a thermos, or maybe under a bus, writing down a chassis number.
People who make transportation decisions are often drawn t! o the
job by an unhealthy interest in a particular means of transport.
The Insider, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
18-September-2002
Save our Souls
I presume Anon is one of the Compton Acres embankment tram objectors.
But whatever his background, I suggest he provides some real proof,
not spoof, on property values. There is no evidence from elsewhere
that trams produce mass devaluation of property alongside - instead
what we know from the experience of other British cities with trams
is just the opposite. I went on the Croydon day trip Sat 14 September
to see the trams, as reported in the Evening Post Wed 18 September,
though I have been there before. House values in the catchment of
the Croydon trams have gone up 20-25% per annum for the last three
years, 75-100% overall, twice the inflation in the rest of south London.
The Addington tram branch is partly built on the trackbed of a former
railway. It even runs through old tunnels, on the other side of which
the old railway embankment was demolished and the tram tracks put
at ground level with street crossings, similar to what is planned
at Wilford. The old railw! ay station at Coombe Lane, Croydon, was
demolished and a small housing estate built at the same time as the
tramline construction two years ago. In fairness, the first occupants
of the 3-4 bedroom bungalows knew what they were letting themselves
in for. They open their front doors and 20 tram movements per hour
(both directions added up) occur 35 feet away, with no soft landscaping
separating whatsoever. A meter reading showed that the noise from
the main road, thrice the distance away, was worse, with the acceleration
and deceleration of buses muffling the tram noise. The houses were
sold by the builder when the tramline opened, with no hitch, at £350,000
and just over two years on are now worth nearly half a million. The
tram stop is two minutes walk away. We also saw three houses next
to the Sandilands tram stop. Here the back gardens were actually acquired
to get the tram through and down to the old railway cutting and tram
junction. The tram company purchased th! e gardens and houses without
demolishing the latter. The houses were expected to be devalued, not
specifically by tram noise, but in a more subtle way by ending up
with virtually no back garden. The right sort of purchaser is required.
The tram company forked out £250,000 per house and sold them to a
property developer who, after obtaining planning permission, converted
each dwelling into 3 flats, selling each at £140,000 when the tramline
opened. At the bottom of the tiniest back yard is a 5 feet close-boarded
fence, and yet again no trees on the new cutting slope down to the
tram tracks. There are 44 tram movements here every hour. The amenity
at the front of the homes is not palatial either, on a busy street.
In spite of this, the flats are now worth, two years on, about one
quarter of a million, since all those trams are useful, only a one
minute walk away, slicing through congestion. Of course the flats
story won’t apply exactly to Wilford or Chilwell, reg! arding
property acquisition or changes. Better still, however, bunding and
tree planting will be provided along the Nottingham trams in these
areas next to housing. But most importantly, not a single house in
Croydon has lost value because of the trams. Now a word about tram
opposition. Coombe Lane, Croydon is a lovely area, with much woodland
and parkland in an SSSI and has stacks of Tree Preservation Orders.
Hundreds of trees had to be felled to make way for the tram, with
the tram operator replacing the lot elsewhere twice over, and the
Council restoring 11 acres of derelict land in a compensatory package.
I asked our guide, Mr. MacIntosh, once Project Engineer to the tram,
what happened with public participation in the planning of the system.
He told me he had addressed 250 public meetings, with the audience
ranging from 18 to over 600, stormy meetings where people has shouted,
screamed, swore, or threatened him with physical abuse. Some locals
chained themselves! to trees. The antis tried every legal means they
could to stop the tram, quite hopeless. The Nottingham antis, though
alarmist and feeding on similar myths, at least have been quite civil
in public! The anti-Croydon tram pressure group fizzled out about
a year after the trams started up – the trams are far too popular,
with many sceptics, apathetics and even antis converted. Anon of Nottingham,
God Bless you, your own salvation is coming soon, like St. Paul on
the road to Damascus.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
18-September-2002
house prices
In areas where LRT has been constructuted analysis of property shows
that in most places there is a 10 to 15% premium on house prices and
an increase in commercial rents, Obviously bussiness that are going
to go bust due to the tram, is all down the rents being put up on
undesirable commercial property and shops. It is also why in the adverts
for property near the tram in manchester sheffield and croydon, estate
agents say "near the tram" to warn off all unsurspecting buyers, so
they cant be accused of missleading the punters (heaven forbid). The
truth. The anti tram groups are doing more harm than good to their
own and assets.
Even more anon, lenton |
|
|
|
|
|
18-September-2002
Croydon visit
The article in today’s Post about the visit to Croydon has laid
to rest what lingering doubts I had. Game, set and match to the tram.
Particularly interesting was the involvement in the visit of a couple
from Chilwell who apparently stand to lose some of their garden to
the tram. One can only admire their reaction. Instead of resorting
to the hysteria (pro and anti) which prevails far too often on this
forum, they have taken the trouble to go and see a relatively new
tram system in action. If, having done so, they decide to oppose the
tram, I for one will fully respect their view, because they will have
reached it from an informed position and not on the basis of stunts
like scientific demonstrations of a system (Sheffield) which is not
comparable to the one we shall be getting here.
David, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
18-September-2002
Trams and house values
Anon is right when he says that several factors affect the value of
property. He is wrong when he states that the proximity of a tram
devalues property. Did he come to Croydon with us? If he had he would
have heard first hand and seen evidence that tramlink has increased
the value of property. He would have seen adverts from estate agents
quoting the nearness of the tram. He could have come to see a £500,000
property (3 beds detached small gardens similar to those on Cator
Lane) within 20m of the tracks. I'm afraid that it is those who have
no facts at their disposal but make a lot of noise about the supposed
problems and detrimental effect of the tram who are having an adverse
affect on house prices. I get prospective buyers contacting me to
find out the facts about trams before buying. They use BCBRA & ENT
propaganda in their arguments to lower the price. The residents trying
to sell must really love you!
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
18-September-2002
Trams
If house prices will go up as a result of having a tram route why
are houses on the CW route being devalued by Estate Agents to realise
a sale ? Why is there a significant number of houses to the proposed
route suddenly up for sale, why aren’t people waiting to cash
in on the huge benefits people keep mooting on this page ? The answer
is it’s a myth. There are many factors affecting house prices
and issues over the tram is one which is currently devaluing many
properties by a serious amount. Generally appreciating property prices
over time ,changes to school catchment areas, demographic changes
affecting the working population will all impact the housing market.
Yet we are being told it is the tram which will make you money on
your house , come on be realistic !!! There is no real cause and effect
but an association is being made to try and support an argument to
tell people how grateful they should be to live right next to 20 ft
high power cables and several! tons of metal speeding past their property
several times an hour.
Anon, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
17-September-2002
tram pollution
In terms of energy and pollution the following figures have been suggested
by a representative of transport for london. (energy in :energy out)
taking account of delivery of fuel and generation etc hydrogen bus
9 : 1 Trolley bus 2 : 1 Tram 1.5 : 1 A hydrogen bus being bought to
try in london costs 2 million quid.
Doug, carlton |
|
|
|
|
|
17-September-2002
Trams & Croydon
I know that I have been going on about how quiet modern trams are
but even I was suprised. We went to Croydon at the week end for a
conducted tour around the centre. The guide carried on his speech
2 metres from the track as a tram passed only to have to stop when
a bus passed some 10 metres away (I've got it all recorded). Pavement
cafes are springing up within feet of the tracks and business is booming.
We took a picture of Chilwell Road last Saturday at 14:00 and another
of George St Croydon at 14:00 this Saturday. If you see these pictures
then the conclusion is obvious. (Look out on the BACIT website http://www.bacit.org
& in the Post - a reporter came with us)Please let's get the tram
built and live in a more pleasant & prosporous area. What a pity those
who reckon to know better wouldn't come and prefer to make their statements
from a position of ignorance - you all know who I mean.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
17-September-2002
Tram – Yes they’re environmentally friendly
In response to Dilip Sharan, trams ARE environmentally friendly because
they are much more efficient at using the energy extracted from fossil
fuels than an internal combustion engine, or a fuel cell. Furthermore,
they can of course run of green electricity which results in no greenhouse
gas (CO2) emissions at all or even ‘negative’ greenhouse
gas emissions. On top of this, their braking systems feed electricity
back into the system which would be wasted as heat by a conventional
vehicle. Reduced CO2 emissions also means reduced pollution such as
sulphur and nitrogen oxides, particulates etc. Power stations can
also have the technology fitted to reduce these pollutants which individual
vehicles can’t, due to the expense of fitting out so many of
them. Trams are every good no matter what angle you look at them.
That’s why civilised countries have lots of them, and why Britain
(an uncivilised country?) doesn’t have many. The uncivilised
nature of ! Britain is even further emphasised by the fact that not
only don’t we have many trams, but that some citizens go round
telling lies about them when they are proposed. No doubt Dilip someone
has told you this lie about tram ‘pollution’, it keeps
going round and round and we keep having to point out the dishonesty
of it!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
16-September-2002
Are Trams really Environment Friendly?
I keep on hearing that trams are green or eco friendly. Well yes,
they do not belch out exhaust fumes in their close vicinity? However,
is it not equally true that the electricity used to power them is
mainly produced at smoke belching coal and gas driven power stations?
Any thoughs, explanations?
Dilip Sharan, Nottingham / UK |
|
|
|
|
|
16-September-2002
Buses v Trams
One criticism that is frequently made about LRT is that it is "inflexible"
- once you have built the system the alignment cannot be easily changed
later. But the long term nature of LRT systems is the very reason
they are able to attract investment along the corridor. It is one
of the reasons house prices go up along tram routes. They allow long
term planning decisons to be made and indicate a long term commitment
by the local authority in that corridor. You can never achieve this
with buses precisely because they could be gone tomorrow (and indeed
sometimes are - see Keyworth). As far as I know there are no instances
of modern LRT routes closing - the previous British trams were really
just buses on tracks.
Stanley, Basford, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
16-September-2002
Environmental disaster
If they build the tram on top of Wilford embankment, what's going
to happen to all the ...?
MAX, NOTTINGHAM |
|
|
|
|
|
16-September-2002
Tram routes
Ed Heath-Whyte from Sheffield wrote about the tram, ‘…..try
to have as much off-road running as possible’. Absolutely correct.
Off-road running on the CW route, 63%, CQD route 30%. Another couple
of points for CW, I think.
David, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
16-September-2002
Tram – versus trolley buses
Here we go again - someone commenting on trams versus trolley buses
but they can’t even spell ‘buses’! Yes, PGT, you
say that you “don’t know the economics” and it shows.
It has been said many times before and I shall repeat it in brief:
Trolley buses don’t have the accessibility that trams have for
the elderly and disabled etc; Trams give a better ride; Trolley buses
are not as attractive to car drivers and the middle classes; You need
more of them to provide the same level of service (trams carry more);
They get stuck in traffic; Where they have their own roads these cost
more to build than tram tracks. Your logic about pumping energy down
wires applies to both trams and trolley buses, although of course
you need twice as many wires for trolley buses as for trams, as the
track provides one side of the circuit for trams. In any case the
losses are minimal especially compared to the inefficiency of road
vehicles. Your mention of prov! id! ing more conventional buses shows
that you don’t understand just what councils can do in relation
to buses – many of the suggestions that have been made are simply
not legal and would in any case be a huge waste of money. PGT you
resort to cheap jibes at councillors which is a sign of someone with
a hopeless argument. Its not nice and its not helpful. I don’t
even vote for the party in control but I respect the councils for
being the most advanced on transport in the country. On top of all
this you are selective about San Francisco’s transport technology.
You fail to mention that they have the modern MUNI trams (as well
as the old tourist streetcar system) and the BART (Bay Area Rapid
Transit) light rail system.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
15-September-2002
the tram sux
the tram sux. now then if ne1 in notingham (chilwell, beeston area)
wants to form a band in the style of iron maiden, kiss, GnR, megadeth,
motorhead,metallica e-mail me at jailhouse666@hotmail.com another
guitarist, bassist ans drummer realy
bigdave |
|
|
|
|
|
15-September-2002
The Tram
I am all for progress but why spend so much on one route? How many
buses would the tram buy to service the whole community such as the
outlying villages who get one or two buses a day? In San Francisco
they have electric busses that hook up to cables when they get into
the city. To me this seems like the best idea for several reasons;
1 - Only the cables have to be erected rather then the huge work required
laying down the rails.
2 - The transport can then be easily routed to areas of the city where
there are high areas of demand such as football matches etc.
3 - This helps keep the city clean, besides how much energy is required
to be pumped down miles of cables to keep a few trams going?
4 – More members of the community would benefit rather than those
on the one route.
5 – I don’t know the economics but surely electric buses would be
cheaper it would be cheaper?
Have we got the tram because some councillor never had a train set
as a child?
PGT, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
14-September-2002
Trams
Come to Sheffield & have a look - it's a success despite a vociferous
anti-lobby, yes - there was pain in the early days - especially construction.
But now the tram is very popular with traveller numbers rising all
the time. The only comments I can make are:
1/ Try to have as much off-road running as possible
2/ Do not listen to traders who claim the tram has closed them down
- it's not the tram it's supermarkets & DIY chains that close down
small traders.
Ed Heath-Whyte, Sheffield |
|
|
|
|
|
13-September-2002
Tram - reply to JC
JC - I find your latest contribution particularly perverse. You have
taken the view of another contributor to this forum and used it to
lambast NET. There are people who think CQD is the best route and
they have a right to argue their case. Indeed, as recently as 16 August
the route was being touted by a letter writer in the Post as the best
Clifton-Nottingham route. My own opinion is that CQD is not the best
option, but I would not have said that a year ago. It has become clear
in the debate since then that CW is the way to go, but I have no doubt
that had NET not floated CQD as an option they would have been heavily
criticised.
David, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
13-September-2002
spending
I am no expert, but the way I see it is if the council fails to explore
all the possibilities, which involves spending money, then they would
be accused of not doing their job correctly. This is why, I understand,
non starters are included along with the eventual routes, in such
studies. I am pleased to get the oppotunity to debate in the open
every option. If it was ALL done behind closed doors what would be
the outcry then. We are getting the tram, thats apparent, so lets
have a good system using the CW route.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
13-September-2002
Trams
Thank you to Robert for making the statement the trams will go where
people live. This is exactly the point I was making about CQD ,why
did NET put it forward if it is a non starter. The theoretical patronage
model assumes usage in relation to where people live rather than taking
account of the realities of specific localities. Given this is how
it works it does not take much to establish CW will be preferable
on the model basis . So questioning NET’s intelligence in putting
it forward is questioning how they spend our money now and the liklihood
of how it will be spent in the future. Putting forward a non starter
with the associated leafleting and collation has caused an overspend
of £ 598,000 which comes out of Council funding NOT other sources
( see April NET report section 11 ). This is a significant overspend
on a 4 year project ,what hope for 30 years ?
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
12-September-2002
NET Extensions Website
The NET extensions website at www.nottinghamexpresstransit.com/network
has been updated with a lot more information, pictures, maps etc.
Editor - would it also be possible to archive some of the older comments
as this page now takes ages to load.
CF, Nottingham
Sure CF. Older comments have now been archived.
Dan, BBC Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
11-September-2002
Reply to Robert
When it comes to noise, I suggest you read the letter sent 10 Sept
to the EP&N by a lady from Clifton pointing out current traffic noise
on Wilford Lane. She was in the past a resident there for 30 years.
Nice to know you think trains are so quiet, Robert. The ENT pressure
group want to conduct more research into tram noise. Straight up.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
11-September-2002
Trams & outings
David asked, in reference to Sheffield "For heavens sake, it’s only
30 miles up the road – why not hire a coach and go and have a proper
look." The reason is quite simple. The anti tram people are afraid
that once the public have experienced trams they will come out in
favour. We (BACIT) organised a coach trip to Croydon specifically
on a Sunday to enable the Chilwell road traders to have a look and
meet their counterparts in Church St. What did BCBRA do? state in
the Post that this trip is a waste of time and urge people not to
go. We organised a meeting in Beeston Church Hall and filled teh platform
with tramway experts. We even had a live telephone link to people
with experience of trams such as a Croydon resident who lives on the
tram route and a tram driver. Again how did BCBRA respond - by putting
up a notice in a shop urging people to boycott this meeting. The facts
are that these groups are afraid, beacuase they know that once line
1 is running, even before the publi! c are allowed on the trams all
their silly arguments will ring hollow and as in Manchester, Sheffield
and Croydon all opposition will collapse and people will want the
tram to their neighbourhood. Incidently we are going to Croydon on
Saturday but all places are now sold out.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
11-September-2002
Trams & Chilwell Road
MF of Lower Road wrote: "And your run down traders along the High
Road who I would not go where since I shop in Nottingham and Beeston,"
Then sadly that is your loss. There are some excellent shops on Chilwell
Road & High Road. Although a lot of the proprietors, but not all,
have been misled about the tram they nevertheless are hard working
and provide an excellent service. Once the tram arrives they will
fast become part of one of the most prosporous streets to the west
of Nottingham.
S.B., Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
10-September-2002
where people live
If trams are to be effective in moving people and cover the cost of
doing so, then they have to run where people live. That is why the
CQD route is a non starter. it would only move people morning and
evening when people are going to work and returning home. The CW route
is perfect in both counts because it will run where people live and
collect passengers throughout the whole of the day. It maybe that
the people living at Compton Acres who are shouting don't wish to
mix with the good folk of Clifton or the Meadows. I stood at Derby
rail station Monday. While waiting for my train a coal train came
through and i was amazed at how quiet it was. If they can make a heavy
train like that so quiet, the tram certainly will be quiet.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
10-September-2002
reply to G Bennett
Mr. G Bennett. You are wrong on both counts. I am looking forward
to using the tram as you maybe. The Wilford route along the embankment
seems to be the best option cost wise. I do not live there. The tram
will improve transport in Nottingham as they have done in other cities.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
10-September-2002
Tram
What a telling contribution from DP of Compton Acres (5 September),
in particular his reference to bully boy tactics by the anti-trammers
in his area. It is an inescapable fact that on most issues, there
are small, vocal minorities with strong views, and whilst the bulk
of the population are generally far more concerned with things like
whose turn it is to peel the potatoes on Big Brother, when presented
with a petition by their neighbours they will often feel pressured
to sign. Incidentally, I was sat on my bicycle at Wilford crossroads
today when I noticed a very weatherbeaten poster spoiling the environment.
It was advertising an anti-tram meeting on, wait for it, 19 March
2002, which featured a scientific demonstration of the Sheffield tram.
For heavens sake, it’s only 30 miles up the road – why
not hire a coach and go and have a proper look. The meeting was held
in a building which has since been demolished, symbolic of the anti
campaign, perhaps?
David, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
10-September-2002
Trams & CQD
JC - what is the poilicy of ENT? Is it anti-tram anywhere as is the
case of BCBRA in Chilwell. If that is the case what is your alternative
proposal? Or is it to promote CQD which is a less cost effective (and
hence less useful) route but avoids the relatively few objectors houses?
This is BCT (The Beeston anti-group) policy but their leader has declared
himself a NIMBY - fair enough, full marks for honesty. Therefore are
you NIMBYS?
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
10-September-2002
Reply to AMP
If it's for the council's benefit, how does it benefit them?
David, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
10-September-2002
Tram – crossings etc
AMP makes a rather misleading point about Basford Crossing. The fact
is that trams work more like street traffic than heavy rail when it
comes to a ‘level crossing’. Heavy rail signalling is
very complex and trains exert more effort to stop. Trams are ‘light
rail’ and when they cross the road its rather like an ordinary
cross roads with traffic lights – no long waits. Pity AMP didn’t
check his facts, especially before slagging off the city council.
And most people aren't expressing doubt about the tram, you have merely
misinterpreted the fact that in Britain, it always a vocal negative
minority that speaks up the most, respectable people tend to keep
quiet and welcome change for the better. By the way, how could the
tram actually benefit the council with out benefiting the residents?
As for trains causing disruption, I can think of many more cases where
road vehicles cause each other disruption, and for that matter, many
cases where road t! raffic cause rail disruption (e.g. Selby train
crash) – especially on level crossings! Re Bert Fegg –
yes, you go and buy a car. Try and get in it if you break your leg;
try driving it when you’re old and wobbly; try and drive it
in the rush hour - especially in a few years time when congestion
is even worse; try and afford the payments when you’re on a
low or medium income; try driving it when you’re drunk or drugged
(prescription, non prescription or illegal); try finding a parking
space for it when going into town – or even when you come home
again; try mending the broken bodies of the people it runs over; and
try putting life into the dead corpse of someone it has killed. Nice
one, Bert. I say: Let’s have a full tram system, and ignore
people who don’t know what they’re talking about!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
09-September-2002
trams going through radford to bulwell.
all this talk about the trams,i dread to think about how it is going
to affect Basford crossings.It is bad enough already just with the
trains,the amount of time you have to waitis unbelievable.It is causing
disruptions everywhere.It seems to me and many others i have spoken
to have the same views.For whos benefit is it,the publics or the city
councils???
A.M.P., NOTTINGHAM. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-September-2002
Trams
in the beginning i was fairly scepticle that the trams would be a
good idea, but i am slowly coming around to the idea, i recently went
to Croydon and was very impressed with what i saw, so if it is going
to be like that then it will be good for the City, just out of interest
how will you stop people from vandlising the trams (throwing objects
and putting things on to the track), after all the last thing that
anyone would wnat to see is damaged trams? Simon Zacharia
Simon Zacharia, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
09-September-2002
Trams
As I understand it the promotion of CQD was recommending one of the
routes put forward by NET so Steve Barbers comment about NET being
stupid to accept such a thing questions NET’s intelligence of
putting it forward in the first place !!!
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
09-September-2002
The Tram
Who really cares anyway ? - just buy a car.
bert fegg, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
09-September-2002
Reply to Robert
Robert, you are incomprehensible. Logically, I therefore presume you
are yourself one of the tram objectors living along Wilford embankment.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-September-2002
Trams the triple Alliance
So let’s get this triple alliance business straight. MF seems to imply
that the 3 anti-tram groups formed an alliance to promote a basically
useless route, avoiding all the key locations and taking too long
to get to Beeston. They then seem to have assumed that this would
then kill off the preferred NET options. If I’ve read this correctly
then I can’t see how anyone could possibly expect such a flawed plan
to work. 1) It assumed that NET are stupid and would fall for this
plan, that is far from true. 2) Unless the Green Party who form the
core of BCT were to be taken in, such tactics directly go against
their national policy which favours trams as a means of transport.
If your aim is to kill off the tram what do you propose in it’s place?
Or do you want to leave things as they are and watch the city grind
to a choking halt in a few years? At least you now agree with me that
the hydrogen bus is a non-replacement so BCBRA now need to come up
with something else – remember the! y have publicly declared themselves
as an anti-tram anywhere group so what is it to be – a new road along
the Chilwell Valley perhaps? BCT at least are now being honest with
their chairman declaring himself a NIMBY (letter in the Post) and
they seem to want the tram to go along Broadgate, which will be slower,
less convenient and subject the trams to unacceptable delays but keep
them away from the Green Party / BCT residences. MF, AB, H Brown,
Messrs Willoughby, Lock & Wildish etc.; If my reading of the situation
is incorrect then please respond, I do like to get facts straight.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
07-September-2002
West Bridgford
The West Bridgford routes were scrapped because their trams would
not be fast enough compared to buses. There is not much off-street
running and the routes are relatively short. The logical answer would
be to lengthen them, to Radcliffe or Keyworth. But most of the traffic
would still originate in Bridgford. If a Loughborough-Ruddington-Tollerton-Colwick
heavy rail line were built, as suggested in the M1 multi-modal study
(cost £300 million!), intercity trains could enter Nottingham from
the east and go through without reversal or termination. They would
come from St. Pancras either through Leicester or Rutland/Melton,
tilting trains in public service, more than merely tested so far on
the Melton line. Tollerton and Gamston would have tram/rail interchange
and park-and-rides. Rushcliffe Council favours a future tram route
to West Bridgford in principle. But how could it be made viable? And
another matter – if a Kimberley tram cannot be extended to Ilkeston
via! A! wsworth, project it to Eastwood and Heanor instead.
G. Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
