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.

See also: Tram archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

	18-October-2002 Bramcote Yes it's a social event, but don't mention the tram to the bar staff. She's dead against, lives on Eskdale Drive, drives into Beeston to shop and moans about the traffic / parking. She believes it will only get worse with the tram. Dress - optional. See you all there Nelly, Jim, Insider, Steve, Drew etc. A free drink for anyone who spots me 7.00p.m. on! Stephanie, Nottingham

	18-October-2002 Bramcote It's getting a bit off topic but I visited your site Stephanie and was fascinated "The baths management are running these naturist evenings and the entire centre is available for naturist use." There is also a reference to Edwina Currie, perhaps John Major might pop in later or even Mr Willoughby - see you there I'll be wearing a smile! Jim Jim, Beeston

	17-October-2002 Bramcote Jim et al: see www.armage.demon.co.uk/nuff/venues/area/nottinghamshire/bramcote.html See you there this Saturday? I'll be drinking coffee. Stephanie, Beeston

	17-October-2002 The Tram Jim & Steph is there some kind of secret meeting at Bramcote Leisure Centre on sat? Is it For or Against or just an excuse to have a social drink. Can people get there by public transport. What should people wear to be recognised by fellow Tramsters.... Nellie, Boozy Beeston..Hic

	17-October-2002 the tram anybody who does not think the tram is a good idea is not thinking about the future. the present situation on the roads of notts is perhaps the worst in the country the tram is the best solution and can only be a plus for the city and dont we need something on the plus side what with all the street crime I am only sorry the people of west bridford rejected it it would have made it an even better place to live ken adamsk, west bridgford nottm

	17-October-2002 CW costs and benefits JC, you are referring to the discounted cost of CW, which is indeed shown in the NET report (£69.1 million). You claim this corresponds to a discount rate of 40% over a three year construction time span. I don’t see how it does, and in any case I cannot see how it negates what I have said. I have referred to benefits minus costs (£42 million). The costs (£94 million) are undiscounted and include 30% contingencies. The benefits (£136 million) include of course both direct private passenger benefits and third party benefits or externalities, and are discounted over 30 years of operation. This does not include construction time, when, as you say, there is of course no return on capital. This errs towards a caution of high on calculating cost and a modesty for the benefits. Since my own quotation from NET refers to costs before discounting, I still don’t see what you mean, if you are saying or implying the cost of CW has been surreptitiously underestimated. G. Bennett, Wilford

	17-October-2002 Trams, oil and cars Mr ‘Will He Be’, chairman of the ‘Reverse Bustenhalter’ anti tram organisation, may be delighted to know that all he needs is the riches of a motor company and an oil company to kill off the tram. It’s already been done. In the 1930’s, Standard Oil (S.O. = Esso = Exxon) and General Motors (Vauxhall, Opel, Holden, Chevrolet, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, GM, Buick and other brands) bought up the Los Angeles tram system (which featured in Laurel and Hardy films etc). They then shut it down, to encourage the population of LA to buy cars and gasoline (petrol). Appalling, eh? Incidentally, Esso / Exxon won’t recognise global warming unlike other oil companies. Thus I have been to www.stopesso.com and entered my postcode and was offered two Esso garages in Beeston to boycott. One is a slightly out of date entry for the High Road garage where the first anti tram meeting was held, now a Total branded outlet. The other is its sister outfit not far aw! ay! in Wollaton Road. Hmm, perhaps I can work out where the £250,000 to fight the hopeless anti tram cause will come from. After all, who is going to be just about the only loser from the building of the tram to Beeston and Chilwell? Drew, Chilwell

	16-October-2002 Alcohol Jim you seem to know everyone in Beeston's drinking habits! I'll buy you a drink if I see you in the bar at Bramcote Leisure Centre on Saturday. What will you be wearing? Stephanie, Nottingham

	16-October-2002 Croydon Insider, I too would recommend that people make use of my site www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk for information on Trams. Yes, you can indeed read all about Tramlinks accidents and yes, since they started 2 years ago, there have been a number. What you will find if you read them is the cause in most cases. Perhaps you could collate where the blame lies? Also, people must realise that I record every incident I find out about on Tramlink - I am not (and others are not) recording the accidents or other incidents on bus, car, cycle, pedestrian, rail, lorry or any other mode. Just because there is no website, does not mean the incidents don't happen! And Obviously, if I reported the mundane, highly reliable service Tramlink provides 96% of the time, it would be a boring website, hence the news is always full of the 4% when things have gone wrong for various reasons. I'm glad that you, the people of Nottingham are able to make use of my sites resources. SJP, SJP, West Wickham, Kent

	16-October-2002 Double Dutch JC you seem to have an attack of Sir Humphrey Appleby speak. What on earth are you on about? Please in simple language for us simpletons to the West of Nottingham. AM, Toton

	16-October-2002 Insiders bandwaggon Think about it again Insider you say: "0.3% OF ALL DEATHS - not as a proportion of the population as a whole". That is precisely the point made. One thing in life is sure - we all die. The point claimed was that 0.3% of us will die prematurely as a result of a road accident. If you were giving it as a proportion of the population then you would also have to define a time period every average lifespan (claimed), every 10 years, every year, every month, every day??. Good God if 0.3% died annually that would mean that we stood something like a 21% chance of dying prematurely - that has never been claimed. Now who's jumping on to a bandwaggon, the trouble is yours won't roll! Let's hope the rest of your research is more precise. Steve Barber, Beeston

	16-October-2002 Mr Willoughbys winter sale Nellie perhaps there will be a mass sale to help BCBRA - they need every penny to argue such a weak case. In case people have forgotten the treasurer of BCBRA announced at the last meeting that they were to get £250,000 from a multi-national - we're still waiting to see who this is - an oil company? a tobacco Company?. What's going on at Bramcote on Saturday Stephanie? - que? Jim, Beeston

	16-October-2002 Nottingham Trams Re: my 'lunatics & scum' comment - the majority of public transport users fall into neither category, but these elements are very much in evidence on public transport. I just hope that the atmosphere on a tram, with its conductors, is a little better. (and no, I neither read the Mail nor own a caravan). The accident figures quoted by troutmaskreplicant are only partly correct. My figures state that 3,409 people were killed on our roads in 2000, which roughly equates to 0.3% OF ALL DEATHS - not as a proportion of the population as a whole. It would take over 500 years of current road deaths to cull 0.3% of our population! Shame on you, Mr Barber, for jumping on an emotive bandwagon - that's the anti's job, right? Anyway, 4297 people died last year from accidently falling over - shall we mount a passionate campaign to reduce our gravity or shorten our legs? And don't get me started on deaths from smoking... A word to THE WISE ONE: the figures are theoretical, but not at all d! ub! ious. The 'banger' can hardly be described as 'super efficient' - it's braking figure is an acceptable figure for a car built in 1965, with drum brakes all round. You would be hard pressed to find a car driving around with such poor brakes today, even one that just scraped an MOT - I was actually being generous to the tram. And the public enquiry - I doubt I will be there - as I've said before, I almost entirely agree with NET on this one: if Nottingham is to survive and prosper, it needs a tram. Why even bother to object? You know you're going to get it anyway. The sooner I can get out of this giant termite hill called Nottingham the better... The Insider, Nottingham

	16-October-2002 RE:JC calcs Please explain what on earth you are on about JC! No wonder you have not got an answer - we don't understand the question. Explain! Rude boy, Nottingham

	16-October-2002 Research Insider some more statistics to help you with your research, taken from http://www.transport2000.org.uk/: The average speed of traffic in central London during the morning rush hour was 10mph in 1996, the speed of a horse and cart. Source: DETR Traffic delays cost the country £20bn a year. Source: CBI Transport produces around 25 per cent of global carbon dioxide and rising. Source: Prime Minister Tony Blair in speech to CBI Air pollution causes between 12,000 and 24,000 premature deaths each year. Source: Committee on the Medical Effect of Air Pollutants The annual carnage on the roads in the UK each year is equivalent to 30 average commercial aircraft crashing. Source: DETR If there was a £5 charge to enter their town or city centre by car, two-thirds of drivers would change at least some of their journeys by car and a quarter would change all journeys by car. Source: CfIT 2002 There’s a lot more where these came from. Steve Barber, Beeston

	16-October-2002 The Tram Whats wrong with Chardonnay Jim.... I do prefer a Shiraz.... Answers.... 1, Does he own a Car sales place on High Road Chilwell! 2, Does he work for car sales place on High Road! 3, None...its just fantasy Maybe the Chair of BCBRA will do a winter sale of cars with proceeds to the fight aginst the Tram. Like a ducks botty under water he will! Nellie Furtado, Busy Beeston

	16-October-2002 Tram Safety I forgot to mention: check out http://www.fausto.freeserve.co.uk/NewsAug02.html for statistics on accidents with Dutch trams. These figures, if correct, show trams as being considerably less safe than other road vehicles for other road users. You have to bear in mind the differences between our trams and theirs, though, and I haven't had a chance to verify the facts. Yes, in a head-on, I'd rather be in a tram, but that adds little to the debate. In a head on between a cyclist and a car, I'd rather be in the car. Overall I'd rather be in a smaller town with no trams at all! I thoroughly recommend that people check out SJP's croydon tram news archives at http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/news/archive.php for a flavour of things to come. Try typing 'accident' into the google site search he provides... The Insider, Nottingham

	16-October-2002 Trams Mr Bennet see the NET report it shows undiscounted capital at £93.9 m and discounted capital at £69.1 m (the discounted value is fundamental to the ratio,the lower the value the better the ratio) .The tram takes 3 years to build. Assuming an equalised spend of £ 31.3 m per year ,you would get discount values of £ 31.3 m Year 1, £ 22.4 m Year 2 and £ 15.9 m year 3 at a 40 % discount rate. This is the only way one cost can discount to the other over the build period. The discount rate seems a bit excessive to me !!!! JC, West Bridgford

	16-October-2002 TRAMS What will the trams really do for us that busses are not doing already? I appreciate that they will be in line with ecology strategy,but surely I can't see how putting trams online is going to motivate people to use public transport. The real issues are service, cost and safety. Unless public transport is cheaper and the service reaches everyone in the community the I can't see anyone really switching. Of course when the trams do come online curiousity values will in the first few weeks get people to try the trams out, however the test will be in a years time when the novelty has finished.All I see that we are doing is adding on more congestion. Surely a more sensible approach would be to ban large transportation going into the city for one. How often do we see a big truck delivering a few items? Run very cheap bus routes, part funded by local councils, have a car ban day like they do in European cities and except that we are to blame for car culture for instance letting Local shops be erradicated in favour of city sites, thus increasing the need to go into the city . For me the issues are bigger than any trams can solve. , Beeston

	16-October-2002 Alcohol Jim you seem to know everyone in Beeston's drinking habits! I'll buy you a drink if I see you in the bar at Bramcote Leisure Centre on Saturday. What will you be wearing? Stephanie, Nottingham

	16-October-2002 Nottingham Trams Re: my 'lunatics & scum' comment - the majority of public transport users fall into neither category, but these elements are very much in evidence on public transport. I just hope that the atmosphere on a tram, with its conductors, is a little better. (and no, I neither read the Mail nor own a caravan). The accident figures quoted by troutmaskreplicant are only partly correct. My figures state that 3,409 people were killed on our roads in 2000, which roughly equates to 0.3% OF ALL DEATHS - not as a proportion of the population as a whole. It would take over 500 years of current road deaths to cull 0.3% of our population! Shame on you, Mr Barber, for jumping on an emotive bandwagon - that's the anti's job, right? Anyway, 4297 people died last year from accidently falling over - shall we mount a passionate campaign to reduce our gravity or shorten our legs? And don't get me started on deaths from smoking... A word to THE WISE ONE: the figures are theoretical, but not at all d! ub! ious. The 'banger' can hardly be described as 'super efficient' - it's braking figure is an acceptable figure for a car built in 1965, with drum brakes all round. You would be hard pressed to find a car driving around with such poor brakes today, even one that just scraped an MOT - I was actually being generous to the tram. And the public enquiry - I doubt I will be there - as I've said before, I almost entirely agree with NET on this one: if Nottingham is to survive and prosper, it needs a tram. Why even bother to object? You know you're going to get it anyway. The sooner I can get out of this giant termite hill called Nottingham the better... The Insider, Nottingham

	16-October-2002 RE:JC calcs Please explain what on earth you are on about JC! No wonder you have not got an answer - we don't understand the question. Explain! Rude boy, Nottingham

	16-October-2002 The Tram Whats wrong with Chardonnay Jim.... I do prefer a Shiraz.... Answers.... 1, Does he own a Car sales place on High Road Chilwell! 2, Does he work for car sales place on High Road! 3, None...its just fantasy Maybe the Chair of BCBRA will do a winter sale of cars with proceeds to the fight aginst the Tram. Like a ducks botty under water he will! Nellie Furtado, Busy Beeston

	16-October-2002 Trams Mr Bennet see the NET report it shows undiscounted capital at £93.9 m and discounted capital at £69.1 m (the discounted value is fundamental to the ratio,the lower the value the better the ratio) .The tram takes 3 years to build. Assuming an equalised spend of £ 31.3 m per year ,you would get discount values of £ 31.3 m Year 1, £ 22.4 m Year 2 and £ 15.9 m year 3 at a 40 % discount rate. This is the only way one cost can discount to the other over the build period. The discount rate seems a bit excessive to me !!!! JC, West Bridgford

	16-October-2002 TRAMS What will the trams really do for us that busses are not doing already? I appreciate that they will be in line with ecology strategy,but surely I can't see how putting trams online is going to motivate people to use public transport. The real issues are service, cost and safety. Unless public transport is cheaper and the service reaches everyone in the community the I can't see anyone really switching. Of course when the trams do come online curiousity values will in the first few weeks get people to try the trams out, however the test will be in a years time when the novelty has finished.All I see that we are doing is adding on more congestion. Surely a more sensible approach would be to ban large transportation going into the city for one. How often do we see a big truck delivering a few items? Run very cheap bus routes, part funded by local councils, have a car ban day like they do in European cities and except that we are to blame for car culture for instance letting Local shops be erradicated in favour of city sites, thus increasing the need to go into the city . For me the issues are bigger than any trams can solve. , Beeston

	16-October-2002 Tram Safety I forgot to mention: check out http://www.fausto.freeserve.co.uk/NewsAug02.html for statistics on accidents with Dutch trams. These figures, if correct, show trams as being considerably less safe than other road vehicles for other road users. You have to bear in mind the differences between our trams and theirs, though, and I haven't had a chance to verify the facts. Yes, in a head-on, I'd rather be in a tram, but that adds little to the debate. In a head on between a cyclist and a car, I'd rather be in the car. Overall I'd rather be in a smaller town with no trams at all! I thoroughly recommend that people check out SJP's croydon tram news archives at http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/news/archive.php for a flavour of things to come. Try typing 'accident' into the google site search he provides... The Insider, Nottingham

	15-October-2002 Reply to JC JC of West Bridgford. Please explain your point then, chapter and verse. G. Bennett., Wilford

	15-October-2002 insider Oh yes Insider Into which catogory do you put a well educated professional who is pro tram and a public transport user (who also own a car). Are they a lunatic or scum or both, or just misguided. Insider if we want some sweeping gereralisations I bet you own a caravan and read the daily mail? the floating voter, notts

	15-October-2002 Feeling sick So according to someone from Lowdham 1 in 30 people will be seriously injured or die in a road accident. In other words someone from my wifes or my family - it WILL PROBABLY seriously affect every one of us. Last Saturday we went to Blackpool by road (the railway is effectively shut at the moment) and saw three multiple pile-ups, one just 4 cars in front. 18 cars written off and emergency ambulances needed at all three. Last week a close family member was knocked off her bike at the University West Entrance roundabout and has needed steel plates inserted into her elbow during a long complex operation. She is to be off work until January at the earliest. So when the road lobby carry on the love affair with their cars I just feel sick. Steve Barber, Beeston

	15-October-2002 BANGERS & TRAMS & BRAKING I see that INSIDER is tring to impress us all again with his highly dubious and theoretical calculations about braking distances and stopping times. Will he please promise one thing - that he'll present this evidence to the Public Enquiry - that should keep us all amused for a while! Finally, a simple question for INSIDER. If his super efficient, fast braking old banger collides head-on with a tram, which would be rather be travelling in? THE WISE ONE, NOTTINGHAM

	15-October-2002 Accidents You may be interested in the Croydon Accident Statistics (unfortunatly not in eonough detail to separate out trams) - Note in particular the massive drop in cycle accidents since Tramlink opened. See http://www.croydon.gov.uk/tpsec/safetystats/accindex.html SJP, West Wickham, Kent, UK

	15-October-2002 3 questions Welcome Big Fat Dave! Even though you're a lager drinker, but it's better than another chardonet swiller! We should now get some sense into this debate. Yes you're right the road lobby were everywhere in the past and they are at it again now. Three questions: Q1. What does the chairman of BCBRA do for a living? Q2. What does the Tory councillor in Chilwell elected on a no tram ticket do for a living? Q3 Which multi-national organisation is to sponsor BCBRA to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds. No prizes. Jim, Beeston

	15-October-2002 Trams - history and snobbery In response to BIGFATDAVE, the old trams were got rid of around the 1930s because the trams were wearing out and because of the pressure of the roads lobby. The electricity infrastructure still had life, so they put in the extra cable and bought trolley buses - a low investment option. By the 1960s, the trolley buses were wearing out and the electrical infrastructure had finally come to the end of its life. So the whole lot went in favour of diesel buses. Another short term decision. In response to Insider, two points. Firstly, you will find that trams are an extremely safe form of transport, as all the stats show. All this talk of braking is irrelevant – trams brake so well, especially in winter weather, that cars go into the back of them more than the other way round, for instance. As for the sort of people that use public transport, they may appear to be low-lifes but that’s only because there hasn’t been investment in systems like trams. Once there is, ! a wider range of people will use public transport, including feeder bus services. AW, Nottm

	15-October-2002 Insider figures Very interesting keep up the good work. - It's good to see someone making the effort. I too am chasing facts & figures - see you at the public enquiry! Steve Barber, Beeston

	15-October-2002 Insider figures 2 Insider to help you on your way see: http://www.pacts.org.uk/statistics_uk.htm which gives us the death rate per billion passenger kilometres in 1998: car 2.8 motorcycle 112 pedestrian 49 pedal cycle 41 bus/coach 0.2 light goods vehicle 1.0 rail 0.9 air (UK registered aircraft) 0.02 marine (UK registered vessels) 0.3 There is additional data needed but I think it fair to assume that cars, buses & lorries played a hugely significant part in the extra-ordinary rate for pedestrians and cyclists. Even without taking this into account and the fact that most of the rail deaths occurred in one accident the car does not come out particularly well. For motorcycles read death traps. Keep up the good work! Steve Barber, Beeston

	15-October-2002 insider The stopping figures are really interesting, for your next trick will you compare urban journeys for cars or for all journeys, are accident stats given in accidents per passenger km or actual km moved?. Is it right that most accidents in cars are likely to occur within a short distance of home. As for reliablity I agree all my trips on the bus are 100% reliable as i always get in/home (similarly that also holds for our nations railways, i usually get from and to where i want to go). The problem is I cant gaurentee with any degree of certanty what time i will arrive, regardless of if i drive or bus it in to the city (all of which is mainly due to weight of traffic!!) quarts and pint pots etc. doug, carlton

	15-October-2002 Trams I see the issue of the cost model has again reared its head via Mr Bennett. I still have not got the answer to the question which is fundamental to the ratio used to support the case and this is How do you turn £ 94 million into £ 69 million in 3 years (the construction period of the tram ,which needs to be in place before any benefits can accrue). You can’t unless you are funding at 40 %. This is clearly a nonsense . Again if this is so far out what hope is there for the rest of the case ? JC, West Bridgford

	15-October-2002 Trams Approximately 0.35% of the population will die prematurely in road accidents. Another 3% will be seriously injured. Why do the pro-car lobby persist in defending a mode of transport that results in such car-nage, (nevermind the pollution etc.). Troutmaskreplicant, Lowdham/GB

	14-October-2002 Trams Why did the 'powers that were' get rid of the old tram system in the first place ? Was there any 'encouragement' from the road lobby or what. I think we should find out ?! "Those who ignore the errors of the past are doomed to repeat them" BIGFATDAVE, Beeston

	14-October-2002 Road closures - reply to Greg Lock Trams do not have difficulties with street closures if their routes are predominantly off-road. So that’s another two points to the CW route, then. D’oh! David, Wilford

	14-October-2002 Nottingham Trams - braking & reliability Steve Barber: The reliability of my trip to work in my car can be represented as follows: I expected to travel 100% of planned kms, and achieved 100%. As regards timetables, I expected my car to turn up instantly when I needed it 100% of the time, and it acheived exactly that 8-) By the way, I was one of the people inside a metal box when Derby Rd was closed, and it added about 15mins to my journey. Big deal - rather that than deal with the lunatics and scum that use public transport. Re: braking distances. Here's some worked analysis for you. I'm going to compare an old banger (6m/s/s deceleration) with a tram (3m/s/s). If both are travelling at 30mph and take .75secs to react, the tram will stop in 40m, and the car in 25. If we increase the car's reaction time 1.5secs, and leave the superhuman tram driver at .75, then the tram stops in 40m, the car in 35m. If we increase the cars speed to 40mph and equalise the reaction times again, the figures are equal at 40m each. If w! e assume the car travels at 40, AND the car drivers reaction time is double that of the steely-eyed tram driver who's patiently observing that 30 limit, then it finally swings in favour of the tram at 53m for the car, 40m for the tram. Of course this isn't the whole story. For my next trick, I will calculating accident rate of trams vs cars, per km travelled, if I can get the figures. That should be a good indicator of relative 'safety' of transport method. The Insider, Nottingham

	14-October-2002 BCBRA & quarter of a million Concerned - The point the BCBRA treasurer was trying to make was that their arguments are so weak that they will need £250,000 to present them (personally I think they will need a lot more). If you have a reasoned valid point based on facts then the inspector will be interested and will take note. I'm not surprised that you haven't heard any more as this multi-national has probably pulled out due to the bad publicity they would receive and the poor value for money in trying to argue such a lost cause on very weak evidence. Jim, Beeston

	14-October-2002 Tram replies Anthony - you are right enough to say the West Bridgford routes flunked because of patronage. The tram timings even off-peak are not competitive enough with buses, owing to a deficiency in off-street running. This is a shame. But there is a rumour going around that local opposition from the Davies Road/Musters Road pressure groups and/or the local MP played a part in blackballing the routes. This is nonsense. You can’t talk down a good tram route. There again, Rushcliffe Borough Council still favours a tram to WB town centre in principle. Given this sympathy in spite of apparently unviable workings, it would be strange for the Council to oppose CW with its obvious outstanding commercial superiority. As with the expressed emphasis of the various councils regarding Lines 2 and 3, what is required is adequate safeguarding of local environmental matters and the amenities of the people living alongside. Jamie of Hucknall – Single line working for parallel hea! vy! /light rail, converted from double track heavy rail, exists for one mile at the Beckenham Junction end of the Croydon Tramlink. Here the train frequency is 30 minutes, and the tram 12 minutes most of the time. As I recall, one tram stop at least has a passing loop. Well, it functions without detriment to train or tram reliability. And if the Hucknall tram service required a higher frequency in future years, surely there is scope to improve track capacity. G. Bennett, Wilford

	14-October-2002 Barristers But Andrew at the last BCBRA meeting the treasurer got up and said that we NEED £250,000 to fight the tram at the public enquiry. He said not to worry as a multi-national was coming up with the money. But I am worried because I've not heard anything more about this money and I don't know anything about public enquiries. Concerned, Chilwell

	14-October-2002 Reliability Welcome back Mr Lock! The hold ups on Friday were I believe due to an armed raid and I understand there wasn’t much point in any vehicle diverting as everywhere was just as chaotic. Of course those without the worry of what to do with their car were able to walk. Had you bothered to accompany us to Croydon or done any serious research then you would have found that in Croydon they targeted for 98% of scheduled Km’s to run and achieved 99%. It was hoped that 97% of the time passengers would not have wait longer than twice the timetabled interval. The figure achieved was 98.6%. How reliable is your journey to work? Steve Barber., Beeston

	14-October-2002 CW tram speed The CW tram route is off-street all the way from the fringe of Clifton to Nottingham Midland station, and Wilford embankment, or the footprint of its demolished site, is only part of this distinct advantage for speed. There is no problem with safety or noise from fast trams in proximity to the housing adjacent in Wilford/Compton Acres. The street and footpath crossings here are located at two out of the three tram stops anyway. Over a year ago engineering consultants for NET concluded that a street crossing on Wilford Lane would be feasible. High speed trains on heavy railways don’t have to deliberately slow down to 30mph or 50mph because of adjacent housing. Wilford embankment was built for express trains, not as a free private amenity for a small number of people to live alongside. And CW has twice the off-street running of CQD, which helps to explain why the latter is 17 per cent slower, requiring more rolling stock and having lower traffic potential from Clif! to! n. What a fuss some people are making over tram speed – let’s get people on the move with the trams instead of being stuck in road traffic queues. G. Bennett, Wilford

	14-October-2002 Tram – what about the other systems I notice Greg Lock, whose house backs on to the CW route, is making another of his silly statements about trams. This is not one which can be shown to be untrue, like some of his statements to the media in the past, but is nevertheless easily ridiculed. How, may I ask, do all the other hundreds of tram systems in the world cope with temporary road closures? Given that they are consistently found to be reliable and desirable forms of transportation, Greg, have you now miraculously discovered a disadvantage of trams that no-one has spotted before? Or the reality - perhaps they all have systems to cope with such situations? Perhaps because trams often run predominantly on their own reserved space that the problem very rarely occurs? Given that last Friday’s bank hold-up was in a location that no-one would dream of putting a modern day tram through, then the hold-up would not affect the tram. Perhaps if there was a gun battle on the dog-poo strewn Compton Acres embankment,! t! hen the tram line running close to it would perhaps be closed. I would gladly suffer the temporary disruption to services, walking around the stretch that the trams can’t operate on. After all such an entertaining situation would be compensate for the inconvenience. But I should really rub it in, should I? You must be feeling pretty rotten. I hear that every house in your area has received a leaflet from a pro tram group which will mean you now have to watch everything you say in case it gets challenged. AW, Nottm

	14-October-2002 Stuck in traffic (V concerned) Given that it took me 1.5hrs to travel 6 miles this morning due to conjestion in west nottingham/ chilwell beeston and the A52 how can very concerned think that closing the A52 is the answer to the transport problems in Chilwell (which he suggests dont exist). We need more transport space and if we dont get the tram, then we need a road. Can you also expalin what the significance of the statement the tram is about money" If we do soemthing we need to spend or are you suggesting more dubious motives?? I dont think its me who needs to wake up. narcolept, Toton

	14-October-2002 The Tram Dear Grid Lock (for that will surely happen oneday around Crummy Acher's) Irrespective of of whether we get the trams or not, we are heading for melt down..... What I suggest is....once we get grid lock, NET put the tram lines ontop of all the cars stuck in the traffic jams. Then there will be no need to dig up the roads. Yeah I know that is not really feasible...some of the cars may not be able to take the weight of the tram lines. If we don't do something we are going to be in the do-do. Or people could move in with Grid Lock in NIMBYLAND and stick their heads in the sand. (For NIMBYLAND read anywhere where there is opposition to anything new but no alternatives) Totally Not Concerned of Chilwell, Grey Skies Over Chilwell

	14-October-2002 Road Closures Sorry to disappoint you, NC of C, CC, but trams are not exempt from road closures, in fact quite the opposite. In the event of any major incident, such as fire, accident or security alert, the trams will be stopped along with all the other traffic along the road in question. As with last Friday, diversions will be put in place for traffic to use for the duration of the incident. All traffic that is except for trams, which of course cannot be diverted. There will certainly be a few frayed nerves and some angry tram passengers sitting in their metal boxes then, won’t there! Thanks for drawing one of the major limitations of the tram system to everyone’s attention. Greg Lock, Compton Acres

	14-October-2002 You (and every objector) has the right to put together evidence for the public inquiry - you need not have a barrister (although one would assume it to be an advantage if you did) - all you need do is submit a statement of case beforehand and turn up on the day. Andrew, Beeston

	14-October-2002 Stopping I have had a look in my boys book of transport and it says for comfort and safety the ideal decelleration is 0.25g (2.5m/s/s). so if a bus decellerates at 3 times that what will this do to the passengers (unrestarined /standing). The book also says thinking time of two seconds should be allowed. I would not fancy being on a bus decellerating such that i feel nearly 1g extra weight. burke, west b

	13-October-2002 Congestion Very Concerned - you must be fairly new to this debate as we have discussed this in some detail. What is needed is another way into Nottingham. The current ones as you say are too congested. A roadway in would be environmentaly unacceptable and be far too expensive, a tramway is the best option and has the advantage of serving many people along it's new route, especially the less mobile and elderly. We in the group have already discussed the alternatives. Putting the trams down a current roadway does not solve anything as there is no extra way created. Could you please give me details of when Mr Bates stated in public "that trams will not solve peak time congestion," what were his precise words? I've seen a quote in the BCBRA article referring to Chilwell Road, do you know the source of this? I'm sure that with my superb contacts around the country that I can give you an answer to these questions once I have the exact quotes. Steve Barber, Beeston

	13-October-2002 TRAMS TO CHILWELL VERY CONCERNED of Beeston must surely be one of the last few individuals still being taken in by the BCBRA propaganda machine, or more likely he IS the BCRBA propaganda machine. Having had all their previous anti-tram scare stories well and truly exposed as the myths that they are, they now seem to be clinging, like a drowning man clutching at a piece of driftwood, to an alleged statement by Neil Bates, the Director of NET, that trams “won’t solve peak time congestion.” It’s very strange that everything NET has ever stated about the benefits of trams is either rubbished, dismissed, or ignored by the anti- trammers, but now here they are trying to use an alleged statement by Neil Bates as a justification for not having the tram!! Come on gentlemen, you can’t have it both ways. Either you accept what NET says or you don’t I would be very interested if someone could please clarify exactly when and where this alleged statement was made, and in what context. Of course the tram won’t totally solve all traffic congestion problems. No one has ever claimed that. But they will certainly go a long way to alleviating the problem. VERY CONCERNED was actually correct in one observation – that the number of cars on the roads will continue to increase. That is true and is exactly why the tram is needed. By he time it is ready to operate to Chilwell, in about 2007, congestion will even worse than it is now. Anything that helps to reduce this increasing problem should be welcomed. WIDE AWAKE AND EQUALLY CONCERNED, BEESTON

	13-October-2002 Nottingham tram I m not against the tram system as such, but as it looks likely to be running along a single line as the Robin Hood line does already, it just appears to me that there will be delays to two methods of transport waiting for oncoming trams/trains to pass instead of one. Perhaps more effort/concentration could have been put into improving the existing train service by providing a second line instead of the novelty value of Nottingham getting a tram system such as Sheffield. Only time will tell.... Jamie, Hucknall, Nottingham, England

	13-October-2002 Insider Insider well done for getting the figures on breaking decellerations, can I go back to the original questions within the sea of fact you are washing us with. From what speed should this be taken a speeding car or a tram at the speed limit, if i remember rightly S=ut+0.5at^2 (where u is velocity and a is accleration (-ve in this case). all assuming the time time to see the incident and apply the breaks is constant. Does the bus figure include the use of the electromagnetic retarder doug, carlton

	12-October-2002 Reply to Mrs Downs of Bingham NET did look at the proposal of introducing a tram to West Bridgford, with a Park and Rider site near Gamston Bridge. However, the level of opposition and low patronage expectations reversed this decision for now. I understand Bus Lanes are on the table for part of of the Bingham-Nottingham route, so perhaps Pathfinder or Bartons could be an alternative? Anthony, Nottingham

	12-October-2002 Trams Drivers/Braking I remain to be convinced by your braking data. No matter what the figures, evidence from Croydon shows that it is very, very rare for trams to run into things which you would expect from the poor figures you present. Trams only hit cars if they jump lights/pull out in front of them and pedestrians likewise. In Croydon, buses and cars are frequently hitting pedestrians, trams and each other. Either the braking figures are inaccurate or the quality of driving of the trams is vastly superior to those of other motorists. I suspect a bit of both. As far as speeding goes, in Croydon, tram drivers stick religiously to speed limits and there data loggers are monitored after incidents and on a regualar basis. Their employers would take action if they were found to be speeding. In addition, the Police could take action - charges of Dangerous Driving can be made although I'm not sure how your licence is affected as someone said before, tram companies issue apropriate licences - it is not up to DVLA. Although, a Clean Car licence is required to apply for a tram drivers job. In Wolverhampton, a Midland Metro tram was caught on a speed camera exceeding the 30mph limit on the wide road into the town. Travel West Midlands took action against the driver. This is the exception though - the trams usually crawl at the 30mph limit while the car drivers do up to double that! SJP, West Wickham, Kent

	11-October-2002 Public Enquiries NC you raise the issue of the public enquiry. I would like to say something at this enquiry as the tram will pass the bottom of my garden. However, I'm told by BCBRA that I need about £250,000 to hire a barrister, I haven't got that sort of money so how do the normal people get their views known? concerned, Chilwell

	11-October-2002 The Tram I was in Nottingham this afternoon (Friday 11th). There was some kind of hold up on Derby Road, the police closed off Derby Road causing chaos. Friday afternoon when people want to get home early for tea or something stronger. There must have been a few frayed nerves and some angry motorists sitting in their metal boxes. How different it would be if those commuters could just hop on a tram and be whisked home to Sunny Chilwell without any worries......just a thought. Not Concerned of Chilwell, Cheery Old Chilwell

	11-October-2002 Tram Debate - Braking distances I have, at long last, acquired some figures on bus stopping distances. Mr Fagrell Göran, senior design engineer of Volvo's brake design Dept informs me that their current range of buses has a deceleration rate of "between 7 and 8" m/s/s. "it would be about the same for laden and unladen" So, as a recap, here are the figures: Performance car: 9m/s/s Old banger: 6 m/s/s Bus: 7-8m/s/s Tram: 3m/s/s. So there you go - the stopping distance of a tram is between 2-3 times as long as other road vehicles. In a sea of nonsense, there at least is one hard fact. The Insider, Nottingham

	11-October-2002 trams Just a few quick points that I am sure Steve Barber will answer with all the expert knowledge he possess!! Trams will solve road congestion? Even though Neil Bates has stated in public that trams will not solve peak time congestion, if they could, then it would be better to put them on roads where car congestion occurs and "encourage" those drivers onto a tram.So it would be more advantagous and a quicker journey time to use the A52 as mentioned on many occasions, as this is one of our most heavily used roads. This though is the main reason why NET do not want to go this way , they cannot afford to disrupt this heavily used car route. So therefore they show their lack of concern in reducing congestion, and peoples lives. On line 1 NET state that they can only "predict"that two million less car journeys will be the result of building a tram. If they had the time to wait this could be proved or disproved along with all their other claims, instead of just using models from other areas that are very different to our own.NET's calculations on reducing car journeys will also become insignificant when taking into account the predicted increase in car ownership (that I am sure the Government will be pleased about as it will raise more taxes)So this massive spend project on trams again cannot be justified if all the costs and facts are put into the public domain and compared fairly and not just stacked in one groups favour. It is all well and good spouting about all the benefits for the city of Nottingham but Nottingham city is not entitled to grow, or solve its problems at the rest of ours expenses. All those who's lives and livelyhoods are to be directly blighted by any proposals have the right to ! be! heard above anybody else who think they will personally be better off. The pro tram groups do not need to really spout their case as NET does this with all our money on their behalf!We all know the real reasons why trams are being lobbied for and its only for money, not for the environment or congestion. Wake up before it is too late!!! Very concerned Beeston Very concerned, Beeston