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.

	31-October-2002 Queens Drive tram again The Queens Drive tram to Clifton cannot surely serve workers on the QD business park at weekends, the firms G. Wheeler mentions. The 48 bus from Clifton does not properly go right into the business park at all – why not? And the old ROF site with the building now demolished – new offices and a store for the future – but this site will be served by the Beeston tram anyhow. The ENT case for CQD is not fully explained. Nobody lives along QD north of the river – would the business premises rise in value with the CQD tram if nobody here will use it? It seems to me Wilford can provide traffic at all times to Nottingham city centre, and the NET have got it right for a tram here. RA Catchpole, Wilford

	31-October-2002 Serving east of the City? As usual, villages east of Nottingham have been totally excluded from the tram system. Thus, I will probably still find my way through WestBridgeford, over the totally inadequate Ladt Bay or Trent Bridge and hopefully into the city in time for work. Shame on you City Councillors and NET! Left out yet again!, Cotgrave

	01-November-2002 Sheffield Supertram The tram system which the antis once tried to rubbish (though not recently I notice) is now planning to expand. Not bad for a failure eh? (http://www.sypte.co.uk/more/news/news5.html) Stanley, Basford, Nottingham

	31-October-2002 Trams Geoffrey (the only pro CW activist in the local community). I am well aware one of your number (perhaps it was you?) came along to the Kenneth Clarke event at the Compton Acres Shopping precinct. The chap in question stuck a camera in the faces of ENT Committee members. We found his antics quite sad. He is clearly in need of help. When invited to discuss his views, he muttered some rubbish, jumped into his car (yes he could not even manage to walk over)and drove off. As to having an informed view on the event, the chap is (as expected) talking rubbish. Apart from being there only a few minutes, he is unlikely to say what a success the event was. BACIT say they have not supported Mr Bennett (despite him asking for help). Yet they helped distribute the dreadful leaflet he put together which may as well have been put compiled (was it?) by NET. There are still a few people who seek to rubbish the environmental qualities of the CW corridor. If this is a worthless stretch of land, then why are respected environmental bodies so concerned that it is protected and remains a natural wildlife haven? As to the road improvements, the ENT has not entered the debate. I reiterate I was asked for a view and gave it. Surely no one is daft enough to believe that cars will simply disappear when (or if) further tram routes are developed. Roads need to improved (so long as this is done with care and environmental issues are fully accommodated) to ease the flow of traffic thus minimising accidents in blackspots and preventing the build up of toxic fumes. One reader suggested I should live or work along Queens Drive. This is an industrial area and I do work nearby. I see the parking problems with cars littered along along the Industrial Units. The CQD option -which is not dead and buried (a public enquiry will determine this)-will help address this issue. Gordon Wheeler Chair ENT West Bridgford Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford

	31-October-2002 Tram twaddle If ENT really have explained their case in great detail, as Gordon Wheeler claims, it is of no surprise that the tram company want to build the tram through Wilford. Everybody knows the argument against it is nimby rubbish. Harry J., West Bridgford

	31-October-2002 Traffic problems Trams are better for the environmet and traffic congestion than cars... but not half as good as bikes! A Nottingham ex-pat, I live a jolly life here in Groningen (Holland) where bikes are used by all... Blokes in suits, mums and dads with kids front and back, people moving furniture on mad looking pedal-vans, we have the lot. It's all good fun, keeps people fit and doesn't poison the atmosphere. The morning rush hour is miniscule compared to 'home'. Nottingham has a great but pitifully under-used cycle path system. So if you're sick of the congestion, get on your bike! Richard Ireland, Groningen, Clogville

	31-October-2002 The Tram To Concerned and Chilwellian So you wanna stand for the council as a one issue candidiate.......great. So if the the tram is built what will you then do.... Will you resign? Another fine example of anti-tram stupidity...... Nellie is a nice name...... Nellie Furtardo, Beeston

	31-October-2002 The Road Lobby Well said Stanley - The road lobby are everywhere. ENT now openly support them, BCBRA may get a huge sum for their campaign - source undisclosed but obvious and BCT who were the Green party have been conned - but if the quality of contributions from MA etc are indicative then they are easy pickings. The Ramblers & Notts Wildlife trust have been infiltrated - it's big business and huge profits are at stake. What price chardonet? Jim, Beeston

	31-October-2002 New road at Wilford Pete of Clifton and Stanley of Basford provide interesting comments. The CW tram does not run along any roads around Wilford, so if the tram were scrapped, why not build a new road on the tram route instead, from Clifton? It appears the yellow route (Clifton east by-pass A453) has been scrapped yet again, but a new road around Wilford would be OK. It need not have a junction with the ring road, but with Ruddington Lane instead, and with or without a new crossing over the Trent. I don’t think a tram is a bad idea at all, but I bet a lot of people in Clifton and Wilford would favour a new road. J. Wilson, Wilford

	31-October-2002 A View from Compton Acres I keep reading the comments on this site which range from the sublime to the ridiculous and felt that it was time to add something myself. I live on Compton Acres. OK, perhaps my garden doesn't back onto the Embankment (instead the Industrial Estate) - in any case the last time I walked down there it was clear that it can't be used much apart from by dogs as it was so overgrown, but we bought our house last year and we saw the Tram as a plus point. To get a bus into town is difficult as they now only run once an hour, the alternative of walking across the playing field or down to Wilford Lane isn't always practical in the dark alone at night. For the record, I do have a car but prefer to leave it at home sometimes. In the year we have lived there we have seen the value of our house go up by by around 30% (and we thought we paid a lot to start with), far from prices being depressed as mentioned by Steve Barber, they continue to climb - some to unbelievable levels - and people are still buying. I was pleased to see the CW Yes! campaign has started and have even seen a couple of posters in people's windows. There seem to be fewer ENT posters around too..... Just think about how much easier it will be to travel into the City to shop, eat, drink or go to the Theatre or a concert. Surely, this type of travel will take a lot of un-necessary car journeys off the road and is another argument for the tram ? Compton Acres Woman, Compton Acres

	31-October-2002 ENT I've just had an amusing read of ENT's website (http://groups.msn.com/StoptheTram) where all the opinions on their discussion forum are pro-tram. How long can they keep up this charade of protesting against the tram on environmental grounds? And when are they going to rename themselves RNT (roads not trams) or RNE (roads not environment)? All the anti-tram groups appear close to collapse - BCBRA have lost their webmaster, BCT are clinging to scare tactics and ENT have jumped into bed with the road lobby. Stanley, Basford, Nottingham

	30-October-2002 Elections Chilwellian - Perhaps you or I should stand for the council on a no tram ticket. BCBRA or BCT don't seem to have the guts or support any more and someone has to make a stand. Does anyone want to join with us in a breakaway group? Concerned, Chilwell

	30-October-2002 Clifton trams G Wheeler says the Clifton tram should go down Queens Drive. G Bennett says the workers mostly dont live at the other end of the route. How can the trams then serve the workers properly if not near where they live? I cant understand whats so special about Wilford embankment, scruffy old railway land. The tram people have made there choice and want Wilford. It would suit me, my mrs. and other folk here in Clifton for a quick journey. Build the ruddy tram now, and that’s that. What a long time this case is taking. Pete, Clifton

	30-October-2002 House prices There is now clear evidence from all cities with tramways to suggest that house prices dramatically increase along the tram corridors (80% in Forest Fields!). This applies to all houses including those directly on the line. At the moment the house prices in Compton Acres and parts of Wilford are being depressed. This is due to daft, totally untrue statements put out by ENT such as "Significantly reduce the value of many properties along its route, most of which will be subjected to the noise, light and disruption, but will be too far from the planned stations to derive any benefit" Potential house buyers and speculators are using this to talk down the prices and get prepared to clean up once the tram is operational. Whose side are you on? Steve Barber, Beeston

	30-October-2002 Queens Drive tram Mr. Bennet makes his point that trams won’t serve the home addresses of the people who work along Queens Drive. So these people won’t use the trams, they will go on using cars or buses, because trams won’t go everywhere. If Gordon Wheeler thinks the Queens Drive route is fab for trams, why doesn’t he go and live or work there himself? RA Catchpole, Wilford

	30-October-2002 Reply to Ethel > Some supporters think we should all take our kit off and debate the trams as nudists....... Perhaps you misunderstood Stephanie's comment on the meeting a couple of weeks ago 'dress is optional'? Or perhaps it meant the men can wear a dress if they want? Could be interesting to see Geoffrey and Gordon battle it out with handbags. I'm sure the Insider could give some GCSE fashion tips. Perhaps a wildlife centre for homeless rats could be set up with the money raised from selling tickets. .......... But seriously if Nottingham is to improve its prosperity, increase jobs and reduce pollution, it needs is a state of the art transport network internally and to other cities. Some of the comments on this board belong in the funny farm rather than in a serious debate. Perhaps its time to focus on getting Nottingham the best system possible rather than silly anti-arguments. David, Nottingham

	30-October-2002 Trams The Wilford case sounds a lot like Cinderhill. Ten years ago people here fought the tram like the devil but lost. It follows the old mineral line to Babington colliery. The back gardens next to the tram are quite short. After the mineral line closed, it became all overgrown and people threw their house rubbish down the cutting. Dogs were walked here by the locals. Now their homes have shot up in value, even before the tram is there. I know some people there who fought the tram, and they are still living there, why didn’t they move out then before now? I am going to use the tram, and I reckon people will like it. Judith Cummings, Basford. Judith Cummings, Basford

	30-October-2002 Wilford tram Who does G. Wheeler think he is addressing in this website? We have all heard his nimby tripe about building the tram on Queens Drive many times.As for road improvements he favours, since Ruddington Lane has a tailback from Wilford crossroads in the morning work travel period, why not convert the embankment into a by-pass road? I’m all for trams, but if this Wilford one wasn’t built, lets have a road instead. It doesn’t make sense to me that the embankment lies wasted and derelict. And don’t give me all that mush about nature. Everybody round here knows the embankment is a hovel full of dog business. J. Wilson, Wilford

	30-October-2002 Tram debate This column is getting more absurd. Some tram opponents in different places are slagging off each other’s campaigns. Some sceptics pump out endless figures on tram stopping distances. Some supporters think we should all take our kit off and debate the trams as nudists. First we had Greg Locke, now another boring nut against the Wilford tram. And who ever heard of anybody with a ridiculous name like Nellie Furtardo???? Ethel Nettlebot, Nottingham

	30-October-2002 Cry baby cry, Part 2 Jim of Beeston is quite right to say the Wilford tram objectors are a bunch of cry-babies. Izoo going to have to live next door to a tramsy-wamsy, little flower? Aaaaah, diddums, den. Mature adults don’t whine in Sheffield, Croydon, etc about living next to a tram route any more than a bus service. If the Wilford objectors don’t behave, their bums will be smacked by the authorities. And if these whiners don’t want to live next to the nasty horrid tram, they don’t have to. Move out and go live elsewhere. Pete de Silvera, Nottingham

	29-October-2002 CW issues Gordon Wheeler comes out with the same old worn-out arguments over and over again. On CW, ENT iinflate the wildlife argument out of all proportion. There are no statutory protected sites for nature conservation along Wilford embankment or at Iremongers Pond, and the impact, if any at all, on the SSSI at Wilwell is marginal. The wildlife bodies the anti-CW group extol are not enraptured at the idea of the CQD tram along the Trent at Wilford, because of the impact on habitats there. For how much longer do we have to hear this garbage about how wonderful CQD would be serving the workers of Queens Drive? They live well dispersed over the Nottingham area, very few stuck at the other end of the tram route in Clifton. A fat lot of use a radial tram route would be for them. Most Cliftonites want to go to Nottingham for most journeys, and CW will get them there faster than buses or CQD. The CQD tram route is hopelessly uneconomic, would not qualify for government funding, and! w! as rejected by the councils over six months ago. This is why Mr. Bates calls ENT whingeing DISINGENUOUS AND REDUNDANT about how marvellous CQD is supposed to be. Trams have to serve residential areas, as CW admirably does, and the point is not negated just because small clusters of malcontents along proposed routes do not want to live next to the tram. In the case of Wilford, this grievance from the embankment dwellers does not prove that another route miles away is hunkey-dorey, and the councils cannot be expected to dump the tram there purely to satisfy a cavalier selfishness. The website of CW YES! http://yestothetram.tripod.com gives an evaluation of the real issues. As for an article in the Evening Post Neighbourhood News supplement, CW YES! asked for this, and there will be submissions from both groups, for and against CW. I suggest ENT employ and pay for private professional consultants to research the following on the Clifton routes – tram noise, recreati! on! , landscape, wildlife, engineering costs and traffic forecasting. Why not? For one thing, ENT asserted last February they would fight the tram no matter what the cost, and for another, on the Compton Acres side they are quite affluent. Then maybe this increasingly stale objection could be livened up! Geoffrey Bennett, Chair CW YES!, Wilford

	29-October-2002 Gordon Wheeler Gordon I can't quite make out if you are pro-road, anti tram, a nimby or were conned into making a statement to the Post. The trouble with road "improvements" at one spot is it merely makes the problem worse and shifts it to another. A radical solution such as a tram is necessary. Regarding your comments about there only being one pro-tram enthusiast in your neighbourhood I doubt it. Obviously BACIT were approached when it was proposed to set up CWYes! However we declined to offer help in any way as we felt that we are a pressure group with interests solely to the West of Nottingham. To acheive what CWYes has so far managed (including ruffling your feathers) could not be acheived by one person alone. Steve Barber, Beeston

	29-October-2002 Reply to Gordon Wheeler Thank you, Gordon, for answering my question on your recent remarks to the Evening Post about road improvements in the Wilford area. I have more to say about ENT, and refer to the event at Compton Acres on October 05, when Ken Clarke MP received lobbying letters bound for the Transport Secretary. ENT has published its latest newsletter, claiming that hundreds of people turned out for the event. The following Monday the Evening Post did not report hundreds in attendance, and a planted CW YES! member reported back to us that the event was a damp squib. Trying to stop a development is not a simple game of publicity, showmanship, and counting up the numbers of protestors – in the anti-CW case it is all a fig leaf for inadequate reasoning. The councils and NET – who are of course monitoring this website – are well aware that 90 per cent of the population of Wilford and Compton Acres do not live next to the embankment. Amongst this group, very few use the e! mbankment for recreation, and hardly any think it worth saving. Geoffrey Bennett, Chair CW YES!, Wilford

	29-October-2002 Wilford Embankment I can't understand why the Ramblers Association are defending a blocked footpath. Last time I tried to get along it was virtually impassable. I thought that they supported opening footpaths which is precisely what I understand NET intend to do. I've asked Paddy Tipping M.P. (president of Notts Ramblers) why? and may I suggest other members of the Ramblers do likewise. The Rambler, Nottingham

	29-October-2002 Gordon Wheeler Gordon....Thanks for your reply. I have read the comments of the anti-tram people and the reasons why they are against the CW route. The wildlife I have noted is a rat, on two occasions. I have yet to identify any rare plants. As soon as someone trims their lawn any bird will fly away. What i have seen is evidence of fires, lots of dog mess, litter, sparrows, starlings, magpies and the rats. What rare or special wildlife, plants etc are you protecting? I'm sorry to say that you are trying to protect an eyesore. robert, nottingham

	29-October-2002 Mr Wheeler Its interesting to note your comments on CQD. Someone who claimed to be a memeber of ENT in a discussion on this board about the campaigns of Beeston anti groups said the only reason for ENT were going for CQD was that it would kill the tram stone dead. Not because of its excellences as a route SA , notts

	29-October-2002 Robert In response to your enquiry as to why the ENT oppose the CW corridor, we have explained our case in great detail through reports to the NET, the local community, the Department for Transport and Newspaper articles (there will be a feature in a forthcoming Neighbourhood Section of the Evening Post). To summarise we are opposed to the CW route as it will devastate a wildlife corridor. This view is supported by respected environmental groups such as Nottingham Wildlife Trust, English Nature, RSPB and the Ramblers Association. Furthermore the alternative Queens Drive option (CQD Route) will have a far lesser impact on the environment and transport people who work on the Industrial Estate,Experian, Pork Farms (etc)to and from their places of employment. Not only does this make good economic sense, it will encourage drivers to leave their cars at home. Hope this helps Regards Gordon Wheeler (Chair ENT) 29/10/02 Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford

	28-October-2002 Cry baby cry Gordon Wheeler will you stop bagging on about CQD route. It's as dead as Beeston South & Nick Palmers Toton route. They simply doesn't meet the criteria for funding and so are uneconomic. Please be like Mr Willoughby and have the decency to say that you are anti-tram (you've already said that you are pro road) or be like Mr Wildish and declare yourself a nimby. Cut the environmental **** you're just making a fool of yourself. Jim, Beeston

	28-October-2002 Ban the Tram and Cars TOO Why don't we save aload of money and make the public use HPV's. Build more HVP highways, save money save the enviroment at the same time....... Human Powered Vehicles (BICYCLES, TRICYCLES) 2 Wheels Good 4 Bad, Beeston

	28-October-2002 Love it or hate it, the tram is on its way and there is nothing ANYBODY can do to stop it. But for me the tram will never replace the good old fashioned bus.Being an ex bus driver for nct I more often than not cast my mind back to the days of dawdling when I was running late,putting my foot down when I was early then having an extended fag break at the terminus.aaaaaahhhh, I remember it well.But my favourite was the spud trick. Now you have to remember that going round and round and round on the same roads day in,day out,well,it tends to make your brain a bit numb so you have to find ways of 'livening' things up a bit.When I used to do service 58 on market day in arnold you always get a bus full of elderly folk with bags bursting to the brim with spuds,onions,oranges, you name it. So off I go from arnold up to the terminus but on the way round and without warning I do a slight emergency stop and lo and behold I get a couple of kilos of spuds running up to the front of the bus."It was a rabbit\cat\llama" I would say(unable to drive anymore because of the tears of laughter running down my face). Now pay attention because here comes the important bit. I suppose what I am trying to say is that some people need to lighten up a bit.I Mean weather your anti tram or pro tram just take one step back and have a look below at some of the silly comments.People having a go at other people,people getting wound up.Its not that important is it? when you consider that people in this world are starving with no food and no money.People have no-where to call home.Children who die from disease and illness when other people steal and maim yet get to live long and healthy lives.Sorry if I am ranting and maybe this is the wrong forum to say such things but after I had read some of the comments on this page I felt that I just had to say something. I will now get off my soap box. George Bush(yeah right)!, nottingham

	28-October-2002 BCTs No sence of shame MA has now said that the initial BCT reports were “not up to scratch”. This is appalling, they have happily gone round scaring people and continue to do so with statements like “we have scientific proof that the tram noise will be devastating to peoples lives” based on what is now by MA’s omission potentially dudd “not up to scratch” information. If you want to use facts to support opinion then at least have the decency to make sure its accurate. If you are happy to peddle what you know to be inaccurate information just to suit your own ends, it is a disgrace particularly, when the BCT leader has declared himself to be a NIMBY in the Post. If you have such faith in your Croydon work and your expert has finally done his homework properly (which your admission shows he had not) submit the reports to the inquiry and let a barrister, someone who will make my smart arse behaviour look like Mary Poppins, pick over the decaying bones of your case. SA, Notts

	28-October-2002 Chilwellian, withheld etc. You Luddites have all the foresight of Mystic Meg. There are already huge queues of traffic attempting to get into Nottingham every morning and your "I'm alright Jack" attitude doesn't show the anti-trammers in a good light at all. Tram Warrior, Hyson Green

	28-October-2002 Gordon Wheeler Gordon, Could you make clear one point. You suggest that there is polution from vehicles at the nottingham knight roundabout and that it is harmful. So, could you let us know why you don't want the tram to use CW route?? While I have your attention, you live in West Bridgeford, yes, so why would the CW route give you any reason to question the benefits of the tram. robert, nottingham

	27-October-2002 Trains Midland Main Line propose to divert the Nottingham Turbostar service to Manchester. That means that we shall lose 13 through trains a day to London (Beeston will lose 13 out of 16). There is a discussion group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stoppingtrains which is open to all, particularly well informed people such as many of the contributers here. Steve Barber, Beeston

	27-October-2002 Is BCTs position is now untenable? I am astounded and amazed that BCT (Fletcher road group) now also appear to be in favour of road improvements ( a through road Fletcher to Lower road) as a preferred option to the tram (just like ENT). This is extraordinary for many reasons. Firstly it is incredible they would now rather allow unlimited access to lorries buses cars etc etc potentially causing constant noise 24 hours a day, and accept unlimited growth in traffic, rather than having a tram run say every 10 minutes for 18hrs a day. Secondly having considered MA’s message further I have taken the time today to look at the BCT noise reports on the web (to which he/she referred), rather than rely on BACIT. The BCT “expert” noise reports show clearly in the analysis (if you believe it) that where there is currently through traffic the tram will not make much if any difference to the over-all traffic noise level on these existing through streets, even the ones with little traffic. If I remember this has been confirmed by their expert in a letter to the post. Significantly because of this BCT expert has also said in the post that their main argument for objecting to the tram is that a change in the acoustic environment is unacceptable along current quiet no through roads (fletcher road etc). This argument should therefore be their case regardless of noise source, car, bus, tram, trolley bus, coach and horses etc etc. I think MA’s Fletcher Road through route (linking middle street in a straight line to uni boulevard) would be quite busy, so we can say the tram will not change any noise levels here above potential traffic noise. So if you would rather open up Fletcher Road and Lower Road as a through road than have the tram, you should also except the tram, as your own reports suggest it will not contribute any more noise than that already present on any busy through road. This must also call into question the statement that trams are the noisiest thing on the road, as BCT suggest that when the tram noise is added to current levels the over-all noise values don’t change on streets with some traffic. Additionally, what is now being said by MA is that if pushed, they would prefer a road indicating they are not against a change, (undermining their main argument) they just don’t want the tram (as it would generate too much noise if you believe the reports). But again this contradicts the findings detailed above about changes on through routes. So are we seeing a change in BCT policy, are BCT now pro-road and anti tram, or NIMBY or is it just that they don’t understand their own arguments and reports (which are possibly not that accurate anyway). What ever it is, their current position, (if MA speaks for BCT) is now untenable, as MA has now discounted the experts prime reason for objecting, by saying a through road is preferable to the tram. SA (protrammer), Notts

	27-October-2002 Opposition to the CW tram corridor The pro CW brigade (of which there is only one in the local community) wonders why the ENT has entered the road improvement debate. I was contacted by the Nottingham Evening Post and my views were sought on proposals to improve the access to the Nottingham Knight roundabout. I told the reporter that of more immediate concern is the stretch along Wilford Lane (where it is traversed by Ruddington Lane and Main road)to the roundabout where the left hand filter joins the A 52. This stretch should allow motorists the option of going straight over from either lane. But drivers on the inside lane presently move over to the outside lane because the inside lane allows only a left turn. This jockeying for position is downright dangerous. A bottleneck such as this, causes needless accidents. As to the Nottingham Knight roundabout, I said we presently have one lane (and a bit) going into three lanes. The endless fumes from cars, whilst they wait in long queues, is bad for the environmen! t. And again as drivers struggle for position, the risk of accidents is high. Cars are not going to go away(although development pf the alternative CQD route will address the problem of the number of cars coming into the City)so we need to do all we can to improve conditions where the risk of accidents is reduced and the environment benefits. Incidentally I cycle to work! The ENT has no plans to field a candidate for local Council elections. Gordon Wheeler (Chair Environment Not Trams (ENT)) 27 October 2002 Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford

	26-October-2002 Tram Noise Smart Arse pro trammer you think you're smart eh? Just wait until the boffin produces his next report (the FOURTH) OK some of the others weren't quite up to scratch, they used data from a different system etc but the next one is from Croydon and uses the latest word in technology. One thing Dr Coles did notice in Sheffield was that a lot of the trams were exceeding the 30m.p.h. road speed limit - he said this in the papers. He must be correct otherwise his reputation would be seriously at risk and he could face libel action. He's a man who knows what he's talking about. MA, Fletcher Road

	26-October-2002 Tram stop name changes NET are asking the public to comment on names for tram stops for the two proposed routes. Here are my suggested changes in brackets. Chilwell route – University Boulevard West (rename NIMBY GATEWAY) Chilwell Road (change to OPEN ALL HOURS) Bramcote Lane (KITELESS KORNER) Inham Road (PROLE PIT). On the Clifton run – Wilford Village (SINK-PINT & BASH STREET KIDS) Wilford Lane (TOFFEE-NOSE) Compton Acres (DOG STOOL ALLEY) Ruddington Lane (PSYCHOPATH PLACE). Ethel Nettlebot, Nottingham

	26-October-2002 Chilwellean tram comments Chilwellean you say that you want a tram?? Good grief it's just as well we over in Compton Acres have gone our own way and not had too much to do with you. Your chairman Stephen Willoughby goes on record describing BCBRA as an anti-tram anywhere group, then in the next breath he accepts that it's coming and now you say that you want a tram. I strongly suspect your pro-tram lot are behind the small problem we now have with our CWYes group, but don't worry we'll soon see them off. Your BACIT? group just seem to be going from strength to strength and that's because your arguments are all confused and all over the place - you even misquote them in your article to the local paper. I'm amazed that they haven't picked up on that but it's probably because you constantly hand it to them on a plate and they can't be bothered. What's happened to your quarter of a million? Compton Man, Compton Acres Compton Man, Compton Acres

	26-October-2002 MA s nose reports MA are the noise reports you refer to the ones that state "there are no transport related noise standards or prediction methods, so we should use industrial noise standards". I belive BACIT pointed out this was wrong at their public meeting, therefore as someone who has worked in transport I find that laughable. Therefore I would not have much faith in the rest of the reports. But what a good idea open up fletcher road and ease the passage of cars to beeston. that would link nicely with the corridor road (pity the poor high road through.) smart arse pro trammer, notts

	25-October-2002 Chilwellian So you and apparently many others use the Chilwell corridor to do what is euphemistically called exercise your dogs, however you do claim to scoop it, are you claiming its main use as recreational space is a DOG LOO. I am now very concerned about all the people who use the area, especially all the small children who play there (according to BCBRA), even if you scoop there must be a high risk of toxicaris to these poor innocent mites, potential more as they wont know where to avoid so to speak, as you remove. The potential attrition rate for kids in Chilwell must be going through the roof, if you add this to the tram. As I understand it the kids will be run down by trams because they would be so quite, they wont hear them when they are two busy playing. That is of course in different areas to that where they wont be able to sleep as the tram will be so noisy. We know more transport space is required now, (as long as its not in Compton acres) ENT have told us so. (Of course in Chilwell there are no transport problems, there wont be any demand, but hold on someone from the anti tram group last week is reported to be concerned about tram overcrowding) I am confused. Anyway lets think 10 years on, the anti trammers gain victory, the M1 has just been widened to 5 lanes either way (they are investigating this now), where do all the cars wanting to get to the City go, its clear we need some more transport dedicated space. So next question, didn’t we have a possible tram route yes lets put a road on it. My best advice to Chilwellian, campaign to build houses on the corridor, then at least you wont have a tram or a road in your back yard, unfortunately you will have C*** as you wont have anywhere to walk your dog. Ill fetch my special geek style bite proof trousers. smart arse pro trammer, notts

	25-October-2002 Derby residents & trams Will - In 4 or five years time when our fine system is in place, we have a shopping centre to rival Meadowhall, Excellent eating places and interesting shops en route (Chilwell Road) a major railway station with proper connections. You people from Derby and further afield can leave your cars at Bardills Roundabout and enjoy our fine city (spending money of course). If you want entertainment just archive what the moaners are now saying (fag ends, noisy trams, 130 standing on empty trams etc.) and amuse yourself as you are smoothly whisked in. S.B., Beeston

	25-October-2002 Reply to Steve Barber CW YES! have no intention of fielding any candidate at any election. We are a group for those who support the proposed CW tram route, open to persons of any political party or none. G. Bennett, Chair CW YES!, Wilford

	25-October-2002 Tram Noise Chilwellian would rather have a tram than a road, well more fool him. We at BCT with our highly acclaimed "boffin" Dr Coles have produced noise reports which clearly show a tram to be much louder than any road vehicle. I for one would rather they opened up Lower Road and Fletcher Road to through traffic than have a tram going through. I wish the Chilwell lot would belt up at times, it's just discrediting all our valuable work. Do you want our noise reports on your web site or what? MA, Fletcher Road

	25-October-2002 Tram – foolish talk / webmaster needed With some irony, those of us keeping the tram resistant cause going here in Chilwell, have noticed that south or the river there has been a leaflet delivered from a pro tram group (CWYes?). That should keep certain anti tram mouthpieces a bit more on subject and stop them making such silly remarks and damaging the cause we are all supposedly fighting for. FOR GOODNESS SAKE – What on earth was Gordon Wheeler doing making positive sounding noises about road widening?? Think of the consequences of such foolish talk please! The Chilwell Valley was once earmarked for a massive road scheme and we’d rather have a tram than that! I am thinking of starting another anti tram group because BCBRA have gone dead (it could do with a webmaster), BCT are just noising off about noise again (which just gives rich pickings for pro trammers) and ENT appear to have joined the roads lobby. I fear for our valley in Chilwell all the more, especially since some smart-arse pro tram geek d! escribed it as the brown corridor rather than the green corridor. I was wondering if I could train my dog to bite that smart-arse. And by the way, I always scoop up my dog’s poop even if everyone else doesn’t! Chilwellian, Nottingham

	25-October-2002 A sad sight Once there was a proud organisation who boasted hundreds of members. They organised a protest march in a snow storm , packed a school hall with the public and it looked like they would soon have a budget of over £250,000 to campaign with. However, their arguments were weak and based on half-truths or even non-truths. They were found out and now have only the thinnest of straws to clutch on to. Their members are deserting, the public see through them and their posters are coming down. The battle is all but lost. Oh dear BCBRA what a sad tale....But a lesson for us all! Jim, Beeston

	25-October-2002 Councillors making a buck Withheld, I guess we'll be seeing you standing for election next time eh? Then you too will be able to milk the rest of the population. Really. Thousands (millions?) of pounds have been spent on examining all possible routes, the likely patronage of each one etc etc. And that argument about the RHL corridor has been answered a million times.... They serve different markets, operating along a similar alignment. The RHL is mainly for longer distance trips between North Notts and Nottingham, NET is for local trips in Nottingham. It's like comparing the M1 and the A611. Stanley, Basford, Nottingham

	25-October-2002 Dear witheld You are about 10 years behind the times (at least), as thats when the palnning started. burke, west B (home of the Nimby)

	25-October-2002 Flangeways and politics EDITOR: Appeared on the open forum, intended for the tram debate: Sue - If you go to Croydon, Sheffield or Manchester then you will observe that once running the flangeways are kept clear of debris. Look closely at the pictures in http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk and you'll see what I mean or better still go and have a look - you'll be impressed! A.M. - I can confirm that BACIT have absolutely NO INTENTION of putting up a candidate in any local or national election. We are a pressure group and shall continue to campaign for better public transport to the West of Nottingham. Would the other tram interest groups (BCBRA, BCT, ENT & CWYES) also care to respond? Steve Barber (Chair BACIT) Steve Barber, Beeston Steve Barber, Beeston

	25-October-2002 Roads, not trams? So Environment Not Trams are now advocating road junction improvements at the Nottingham Knight roundabout (A52 ring road/A60 interchange), and at the entrance to Silverdale (A453/B679 interchange). Perhaps any member of the group reading this column could enlighten me as to why. G. Bennett, Chair CW YES!, Wilford

	25-October-2002 The Tram Looks like SUE as completely gone off the rails . Nellie, Beeston

	25-October-2002 The tram debate Obviously in the short term the tram is an annoyance as mess is caused and congestion is rife. Living in highbury vale I have to put up with it every day. But the bigger picture is it an excellent investment in the long term and also is creating a lot of jobs.Although the short term economy is affected. The economy is overall better off. Dominic Finn, nottingham

	25-October-2002 The Tram Debate Can I say - as a Croydon resident, it is a matter of short term pain (2 years to install)and long term gain. There are still detractors (as seen from the local free press) but these are in the minority and the obvious benefits to those travelling at peak times is now evident. Sheffield had big problems and some of these were taken into account in the Croydon scheme. The Mayor of London is committed to extending the system, and I am all for it (as a daily user). David Griffiths, Croydon/UK

	25-October-2002 Tram and insults I find Withheld’s comments about councillors utterly atrocious. If there is any corruption or ignorance in this world, then it is with people like he / she. Just examining Withheld’s abilities at spelling and grammar demonstrates that. Councillors of all political parties often hold down full time jobs and then are at the beck and call of the ward constituents the rest of the time. As for expenses etc, these barely cover the cost of running a computer etc. As for trips away, councillors I know complain of having to be away from home to attend conferences or functions, but would rather be at home – either to get on with their own life, or dealing with problems in their wards. Dear Withheld, the councillors ARE doing what we want (building the tram), its just that they aren’t doing what you want, but I suspect that if we all did what you want, society would collapse into chaos within weeks. Has anyone told you that you are totally out of order? British ! people are polite, but you provoke me into saying that your behaviour is unacceptable. Think of the way you think about councillors, and I assure you that reasonable people think of you much worse than that. Please go away but read the following first: The trains from Hucknall to Nottingham only run once every half hour and only some stop at Bulwell. The tram will run more often, will stop at many more places on the way, will also serve Phoenix Park, and will go to many more useful places in the city centre, will be cleaner and more modern, will be accessible to the elderly, disabled and those with children’s buggies, will have shared ticketing with buses. Yes we would like the tram to go elsewhere, I suggest that eventually we should have about ten different lines in the Nottingham area. AW, Nottm

	25-October-2002 Trams Hey you lot, at least you've got an opportunity for your (and I hate to say this - here we go....through gritted teeth) "nice city" (from Derby you see) improved. You don't seem to have a council hellbent on screwing everything up wherever they go. Raving-Mad road closures, crazy car parks, barmy building projects...the list goes on. Stop bleating about how Notts is suffering and get your collective rear-ends over to Derby....have a good laugh at our expense!! Will, Derby

	25-October-2002 witheld Witheld.........you are wrong with everything you have said. 1.the tram on line one covers part of the way along side the Robin Hood line. 2.the tram on line one has been planned to be used by a lot of passengers otherwise it would not pass the government criteria.3 it probably cost us each 50p for the travel of the councillors not a fortune !! 4. We no longer pay poletax (poll tax to spell it right). robert, nottingham

	24-October-2002 Reply to Sue Really, Sue. Even by the standards of some of the anti-tram straw clutching that goes on on this forum your latest contribution is a prime example of futility. David, Wilford

	24-October-2002 Tram and the butt-end of logic Sue’s comment is very silly (said in the best Monty Python accent). There won’t be any build up of fag ends etc in the tram tracks if the trams are going over them, will there? Funny all every “enhanced” cities i.e. those with trams, don’t have a problem with this. D’ohhhh! AW, Nottm

	24-October-2002 tramway in notts allthough i think its a good idea, its the planning i have debate about. ive not seen any plans, but as far as i am aware, it will run along side the existing robbin hood line, right upto hucknall. from notts city center, if this is correct have the council looked at an alternative root for it. i.e. for it to run from the other way round the city. toward eastwood ilkeston, to give these people a fairer way of transport into the city.. or are the councillers so bloody minded that they take no notice of what the people of nottinghamshire want them selfs. untill it comes to electoral time. they are full of promise, and also full of crap untill it comes to milking the county out of every penny they can. with their trips abroad, and putting it down to expences. also their meals in each others county every year, that costs a small fortune. they are like the juditional system in this country and have to come down to reality, with whats happening on the streets, or what the people of nottinghamshire want to happen. its about time the councillers listened to us, and acted upon the requests of the poletax paying citizens of this county............... witheld, kirkby in ashfield

	23-October-2002 Tram to Silverdale and CCTV Every tram stop is going to have CCTV therefore the Silverdale subways could go on to the same close circuit television system. Access and lighting improvements could also be made. Mind you, I also agree with the idea that there should be a stop to the south of Silverdale. AW, Nottm

	23-October-2002 TRAMLINES CITY CENTRE On my last visit to Nottingham City Centre I noticed the new tramlines already filling up with cigarette ends and bits of paper. These I imagine will remain a permanent addition as I can't imagine them ever being removed. Another thing to "enhance" the city! Sue, Nottingham

	22-October-2002 CW route and Silverdale estate According to a map of the proposed CW route included in a leaflet recently delivered to my house, there is no tram stop proposed between the point at which the route leaves the old railway line and the bottom of Southchurch Drive at Clifton. We therefore have the possibility of the route completely by-passing Silverdale. At present, to reach public transport, those living on the estate, a significant proportion of whom are elderly, face a lengthy walk either to Clifton, or through the subways under the ring road. Much has been made of the accessibility of trams for those with mobility difficulties, but due to the presence of barriers to discourage cycling through them, the subways are difficult to negotiate in a wheelchair, impossible in an electric buggy. Even for those without mobility difficulties the subways are unpleasant. Once through the subways, potential tram passengers would have to walk past bus stops to reach the tram stops. The addition of a stop located at! the southwest corner of the estate next to Fairham Brook, and served by a footpath from the vicinity of Siverdale Community Centre would make a huge improvement in transport provision for Silverdale residents. It would also, in my opinion, increase the viability of the route. David, Wilford

	22-October-2002 Jim & Bramcote And it was good to meet you too Jim. I only met one other regular contributor (a chardonay drinker). Apologies to the others George is unwell so I left early. I'm sure plenty was discussed. See you all next time! Stephanie, Nottingham

	21-October-2002 Political Parties I heard a rumour that the pro and anti tram groups are going to put up candidates in next year's local elections. Is this true? If so they are then no longer pressure groups but political parties. AM, Toton

	21-October-2002 Mis information Thanks Drew for giving the precise reason why BACIT was set up. The lies circulating around Beeston & Chilwell last Spring were frankly unbelievable. We seemed to stop the sources of this misinformation for a time, however, I too have noted some more and the same old rubbish circulating. People are being mis-quoted, people are being accused of being law-breakers. I still don't have a satisfactory reply to my question about an alleged quote by Mr Bates. BCBRA in the Neighbourhood News have said that ".... NET has agreed that at peak times the tram will have no impact in reducing car traffic through Beeston and Chilwell High Road." I would like to know who said this and when. BCBRA also claim "According to BACIT, Croydon traders received only one third of the amount that some of them claim they lost during construction." We have never stated any such thing, I'm not denying that it may be true but we have no direct evidence for this statement so please stop mis-quoting people. ! I ! could go on & on but I agree that sooner or later someone is going to find themselves in some very hot water. Steve Barber Chair BACIT Steve Barber, Beeston

	21-October-2002 Lies Another anti-tram lie nailed by Stephen Barker (NET) in tonights Post. It seems to be a new tactic of the anti-tram people, just a little lie or accusation here and there, individually not much, but they build up. Thank goodness NET & BACIT have the patience to keep correcting them. Good to meet you on Saturday Stephanie and yes I'll see you in Mansfield next week! Jim, Beeston

	20-October-2002 Tram – lies, libel and slander Pro tram people stick to the facts. Whereas, I wonder if the anti tram crowd have heard of the laws on slander and libel. Next time they make something up, it might be entertaining if they get themselves into hot water and sued. Some of them are worried (unjustifiably, I’d say) about losing their homes or businesses because of the tram. I reckon they are more likely to lose them because of telling a porkie. What astonishes me are the people who aren’t “affected” and still say stupid things, basically because they don’t like anything new. We could do with one or more of them being taken for every last cent and left with just the clothes they are wearing. It would be ‘just desserts’ for taking a stance which, I reckon, libel aside, is highly damaging to one’s community. It might teach people all over the country not to fib because they have an inexplicable resistance to anything new (that great British mental illness). The result! o! f anti tram fibs mean that I frequently talk to people who are anti tram because they have been told something which is completely made up! Anti trammers tell me what I say is just another ‘opinion’. Wrong. I rely on facts, and that’s what matters in a court of law. Or a public enquiry, for that matter. I’m starting my countdown to the time that someone gets sued or has to issue a public apology! Drew, Chilwell

	20-October-2002 the tram What Tram? Come on FOREST!!!!!! george, nottingham la la la

	20-October-2002 Less worried It was good to meet so many of you "in the flesh" last night (Bramcote). I am less concerned this morning. Concerned, Chilwell

	20-October-2002 A marvellous Idea I've solved the problem - how to stop the tram and save the Wilford Embankment..... Seeing as how ENT are obviously now in favour of road building (Mr Wheeler's comments in the Post) and these "improvements" are clarly going to cause more congestion further along the route into Nottingham then everyone will be happy if the DOT could be persuaded to build a road through all the back gardens parallel to the embankment. The money paid out in compensation could then be used, together with the £250,000 from BCBRA to hire a team of barristers and kill the tram forever.... Simple isn't it? Bob, Beeston

	18-October-2002 Reply to Stephanie See you at Bramcote, then, tomorrow, at the bar. We can talk about trams if you like. I drink larger. Dave, Nottingham

	18-October-2002 How cynical can you get (i can still cango much further) Well the truth will out. I was interested to read in tonights post about Mr Wheeler of Compton Acres Head of ENVIRONMENT NOT TRAMS, being in favour of widening the roads to the Nottingham Knight Roundabout and purporting improvements to the A453. He said and I paraphrase the improvements should be made because there is plenty of open space adjacent to the junctions/approach roads. I suppose its OK because its not his open space this time, but of course it is sort of transport space so it can be used, (perhaps one could extend that argument to old undeveloped railway land). There was me thinking they were a concerned green activists trying to save our precious green space strange how your heroes all turn out to have feet of clay. Oh well I thought we know they are a cynical bunch and turned over the page. The next article was about the local hospital looking at Met office data to predict when they will need particular drugs to be on hand such as when there is hot weather fog ! etc and pollution, combining to increasing asthma cases in hospital. So rather cynically I thought improving traffic conditions allowing more cars to flow increasing traffic further is not likely to make that worse is it, clearly there is no need for the tram!!! I then thought how appropriate environment not trams supporting these road works, how well named they are. But then I remembered, of course Mr Wheeler is dead right. Back in the days of the policy roads to prosperity the argument used on pollution was this. You measure pollution near the road, if the cars are all stuck in jams they belch fumes and it all hangs in the area, you get high pollution readings, that’s a bad thing. So what they used to say was, you improve things so more traffic is attracted to a road so the total amount of traffic and fumes increases but as the traffic is moving, it stirs it all up, spreads it out and hence your pollution readings reduce. Well I thought you may poison more people in ! total but at least its fair as it shares it out more, that has to be better for the environment, good old ENT. Obviously all us pro tram people have been misjudging ENT and BCBRA that are not all NIMBYs at all, Willo is right they are altruistic they want to share it all out. I am now convinced, forget the tram use the Chilwell Brown corridor (named after the predominant colour of the area due to its prime use) for its original purpose build a road ENT surely would support this, as its not in there back yard. The floating Voter, notts