| 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,
10
|
|
15-November-2002
JC & the road lobby
So now we have it: JC states "Yes something needs to be done about
the transport infrastructure and in my view the roads are a more pressing
need" Mr Wheeler has gone in the press praising plans for road improvements,
Mr Willoughby has stated no tram anywhere and thrown in the red herring
about hydrogen buses - now discredited and BCBRA have sought finance
from an un-named multi-national. Clearly the road lobby are right
behind all this anti-tram nonsense. I cannot believe that such distinguished
groups as Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, English Nature, the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection
of Rural England could be taken in. The Green Party have been taken
for a complete ride and have lost all credibility. Thank goodness
for the Ramblers - the only truly environmentally conscience group
in Nottinghamshire if Mr Wheeler is to be believed. So come on NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
WILDLIFE TRUST, ENGLISH NATURE, RSPB, CPRE & THE GREEN PARTY show
that ! yo! u have the same courage and conviction as the RAMBLERS
and make a public statement now!! If it retracts a previously made
one I for one shall respect you the more.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Trams
A point of clarification on the 30 year mortgage. A £ 500 million
capital investment funded at 9 % and repaid over 30 years will cost
£ 48 million per annum. Of which 25 % will be funded locally. A 6
% funding rate will result in a cost of around £ 36 million per annum.
These are hardly insignificant numbers on our local purse.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
ENT report
Mr Wheeler---I'm not questioning that you did submit the report. All
I'm asking is did NET then put the report on their web-site? They
have put a report from ENT entitled "Objections to the uses of the
recreational open spaces in Wilford & Compton Acres for the proposed
CW tram route" and dated 15/10/2001 is this the report in question
and is it complete? Have you submitted another report to supercede
this one? I just want everyone to be able to get their facts absolutely
straight before making comments.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Give us the Facts Please
Mr Wheeler, has said ask NET to see the ENT report, as he says they
must show us. Legal oppinion says NET can't/ dont have to do that.
He say (in the press and to NET) ENT have the support of various environmenatl
boddies including the ramblers. The Ramblers are adament that they
do not support ENT, and MR W wont or cant show the other groups are
supporting ENT outright. The NET consultation report shows that most
of the boddies ENT reffer to (with a few exceptions who also dont
like the alternative cqd route) have concerns but are not totally
opposed. An independant consultant says the embankment has little
of environmental significance. ENT says it does, but cant say what
makes it special, (not in the time I have been on the list). Please
produce the reports as soon as you possibly can and finish this arguemnet
before it finishes ENT do it for the sake of all of those who dont
want the tram, because on current form who are we to belive when George
says "ENT have no credab! ilty left and should be ignored".
SA, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
gordon wheeler
hello Gordon.....my word it's tough trying to get you to understand
what we want from you. The letters or reports you constantly rave
about from environment agencies that YOU refer to are the letters
or reports we are trying to get you to produce. I am asking, are these
letters or reports that you have out of date or ambiguous. That should
be easy enough for any one to understand. You have given us a date
of April 2002. Now we come to the content of these letters or reports
from the environment agencies which I was asking about. Is the content
of the letters or reports exact or is it open to interpretation, hence
ambiguous? If you continue to avoid producing the letters or reports
then you leave all of us with no doubt that they do not exist. Also
anything else you mention in this discusion will be treated with doubt
and ridicule!!
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Mr Jones
our transport system is in such a fantastic way isnt it, we dont need
to spend any money on that. I dont doubt Mr jones you picked the wrong
board.
burke, west B |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Paul's figures
Paul says: "Part of the colossal amount of money spent on the tram
could have been spent on giving all Notingham's public sector workers
at least a 10% pay increase" wait a minute, if the 3 lines cost £500m
and last 30 years that's £16.7 m p.a.. This suggest a bill of £167m
p.a. for Nottingham's public sector workers. Assuming an average salary
of £20,000 (the firemens current salary) that implies 8350 public
sector workers in Nottingham. (and the county workers get nothing?)
I doubt it there must be far more teachers, hospital workers, bus
drivers, firemen, police ambulance etc. I think your maths is slightly
askew. Of course with inflation an extra £2000 p.a. in 30 years time
would be worthless but a properly integrated working tram system would
be something worth having.
AM, Toton |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Tram - false eye lashes
Carla of Stapleford you are a scream. When you got your high heel
caught in the tracks, did you happen to fall over and get your make-up
in a mess and your dyed blonde hair all askew? How do you think all
the other much more sophisticated cities in the world get by with
having tram tracks in the streets? They don’t manage to crunch
their XR3i’s or their stilettos. Or perhaps they are a bit too
sophisticated for things like that? The tram will bring investment
and growth and investment which is a good way of getting people off
the streets. And in 2008 it will come to Stapleford. Those who don’t
like it will have to go to other cities – but by train, car
or coach. Trams, you see, are for getting around large urban areas
rather than between them.
Drew, Chilwell, UK |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Tram – and economies
Paul Jones misses the point about the money being spent on the tram.
For a start, its private money going into building it, which will
be paid back by the government (75%) and city and county (25%) over
30 years. Secondly, it has huge benefits which will create savings
in other areas, e.g. reduced health and welfare costs as a result
of reduced road accidents. So its actually a benefit, not a cost.
I don’t like Paul’s attitude towards councillors –
they basically do a full time job for some modest expenses. How would
you like to hold down a job and be a councillor and thus have no free
time, Paul? Rather bizarrely, you suggest the money should be spent
on health and education. Ironically, you complain about their third
world status, but transport is in an even worse state than these other
two sectors, i.e. it is even more ‘third world’. Finally,
don’t be taken in by the ‘fourth largest economy’
argument. It is only because the ! pound is high against the euro
that the economies of Italy and France are temporarily pushed down
the league table. When you start to compare the GNP per capita, there
are also lots of countries which beat us on wealth – we are
way, way down that table. Clearly Paul you haven’t been to any
developed countries because you would be demanding more trams, metros,
etc. NOW if you had.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Trams
In return to Carla of Stapleford's comments... Mass transit in Nottingham
is a neccessity . How many times have you sat on Derby Road nose to
tail and thought how you could get out of it ? My home town of Sheffield
has now had trams since 1994 and look on them as second nature . They
are clean and efficent , can move large numbers about (taking them
out of cars) , and through ticketing allows them to used in conjunction
with a local bus network . Yes , I am the first to admit that the
noise, the mess and the inconvience will be a pain in the proverbial
, but once it is up and running , you'll wonder what the fuss was
about . Sheffielders were also apprehensive of the 2 original routes
when the Sheffield Supertram scheme was constructed- now there are
4 with a possible 4 more in consultation at this moment. And don't
be thinking that trams are white elephants - Sandwell , Croydon ,
and Leeds (in the process of construction) all have taken the initiative
, and not forgetting Blackpool , who have lived with the tram for
110 years !!! By the way , If you check out the latest copy of the
Highway Code ,you'll find the details of rights of way in there -
they've been there since the early 90's .... so , please , learn to
live with the NET -trust me , you'll learn to love it ...eventually
.....
Dave , SHEFFIELD |
|
|
|
|
|
15-November-2002
Trams
AW thanks for your crazy ramblings. The payment of the fare is to
cover the operating costs which need to be covered on an annual basis.
The mortgage the local authority will need to enter into for the next
30 years is to cover the initial investment . ( The equivalent annual
cost ,or tangible benefit as you have called it, for cars is the Road
Fund Licence ). Yes something needs to be done about the transport
infrastructure and in my view the roads are a more pressing need .How
a 3 lane A50 can be built one side of a motorway junction with nothing
being done the other side is beyond me. The A 453 into Nottingham
is technically not even wide enough to be classified as an A road.
You can ponder away on the names on the ENT leaflets as I am not on
there,although I am an interested recipient of their and NET’s
publications.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
Part of the colossal amount of money spent on the tram could have
been spent on giving all Notingham's public sector workers at least
a 10% pay increase. Nottingham's public sector workers put in a tremendous
amount of time, energy and hard work implementing the government's
reform of public services, but get very little in return. The pay
that was offered to public sector workers in Nottingham was disgraceful
bearing in mind that councillors and senior mnanagement of this local
authority got an inflation busting pay rise and let's not forget that
they get thier "expenses" paid at our expense, so this money that
was spent on the tram could have been used for this purpose and other
purposes like schools, hospitals etc which are begining to look like
third world establishments not that of a country with the fourth largest
economy.
Paul Jones, Mansfield |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
flooded
to build bridges is very expensive and as we know people like JC are
concerned about good value for money. It is also clear that the Wilford
antis like CQD as the bridge cost would will kill the tram. Also from
the consultation report a good number of MR wheelers environmental
boddies are aginst new bridges. Secondly Soon to be flooded do you
have some engineering and hydrological evidence to show that the tram
will reduce the flood defences.
SA, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
NET work
Soon to be flooded wrote: "..The impact of the tram on this is not
clear as this is too much detail for NET to be bother with at this
stage." Can he not open his eyes and see the work on-going at the
moment. The place is crawling with surveyors, traffic survey bods,
engineers etc. We had a meeting yesterday with some very tired NET
employees who tell us that detailed plans are now being drawn up and
will be released (lots of them with great detail) once complete in
the spring. Compared to most large public projects this one is progressing
well. Line 1 is on schedule and within budget. If the moaners want
to see someone sitting around on their fat **** then look in the mirror!
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
TRAM
What a waste of money......it runs along teh Railways Track (mmm clever
idea) it only goes to towns which have a fantastic bus route anyway...leaving
out the smaller ones who have a bus service once an hour. It doesnt
connect nottingham to any other city !...and has distroyed the city
centre. It has become dangerose to walk in the city as you cant see
the cars for all the railings, which have been put up for the construction.
And the council refuses to pay for new heels to go on my shoes, which
get broken every time i slip down the small track. Also who was learnt
how to drive around trams. WHO has right of way. Who has to brake.....we
have never had to deal with this.....who will teach up ?? A waste
of money which should have gone on making the city look nicer and
to help get people off livingon the streets.
carla, stapleford. nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
Tram – cost of bridges
In response to Soon to be Flooded of Wilford, I can say that the costs
of larger bridges certainly are prohibitive. The route to Chilwell
is more expensive than the route to Clifton for a major reason –
a bridge across the ring road at the QMC. Avoiding building a bridge
across the Trent reduces the cost of the Clifton route massively.
Plus it takes it through Wilford and Compton Acres where it will serve
more people, thus increasing the revenues and the soft benefits (as
JC might put it). By the way, the building of smaller bridges is much
less costly, e.g. to cross a stream (I assume because basically they
are just large pipes!). Incidentally, as a rough rule of thumb, it
costs six times as much per km to build an underground system as compared
to a tram system – being on the surface keeps costs down. As
regards crossing Wilford Lane, the embankment is to be remove anyway
(at least to the south), so that the tram does not overlook the nearby
housing and so that! screening can be put in. Therefore the massive
costs of a bridge is not justified. Furthermore, having traffic lights
will not hold up the traffic anymore. Don’t forget it will be
a junction where nothing will turn left or right, the vehicles (rail
or road based) will merely cross straight over, so the delays will
be negligible, if any at all (I think a traffic study has already
been done).
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
Tram Debate
Steve Barber and Robert Mr Barber I have already said the ENT report
was submitted to the NET a few months ago. This was in April of this
year (viz 2002). Robert Sorry but I do not understand whatever the
point is you are seeking to make. Regards Gordon Wheeler (Chair ENT)
14/11/02
Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
TRAMS AND FUNDING
Thanks JC. Even a simple soul like me can understand that if the activity
stops so do the costs. But then, in the case of the trams, so will
the income. By your argument, the Local Authorities should stop spending
anything on schools. Just think how much that would save the Council
Tax Payers! And of course schools, unlike trams, generate no income,
only costs - unless of course one looks at cost benefits. But you're
not to keen on them are you?
SIMPLE SIMON, CLIFTON |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
Embankments and Bridges
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? from where I live, in Wilford
Village, the old great central embankment is not an eye saw rather
provides a lovely bank of mature deciduous trees. However that does
not mean I do not think it should be used for the trams, as most of
the trees are on the side not the top of the embankment. The impact
of the tram on this is not clear as this is too much detail for NET
to be bother with at this stage. If they leave the trees alone I will
only see the tram in winter. Of more concern is the aversion of NET
to building bridges. No bridge over Wilford Lane ? the Tram will get
delayed by morning traffic ? and no new bridge over the Trent. The
NET position of faith being that it is less environmentally damaging
to tamper with the flood bank than to rebuild the old Great Central
bridge over the Trent.
Soon to be flooded, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
I am confused and fed up and PFI
Can someone please help, I have looked at the reports Mr Barber reffered
to and I can find a summary of the consultation replies which includes
the stuff from ent claiming support. The opinions do appears to be
shared to some degree by some of the bodies, although not all (one
body also appears to be opposed to bridging the trent so they are
aginst the whole lot, which counts them out as far as i am concened).
However this does not really appear to be MR wheelers report, and
is far from conclusive. The best thing that can happen is Mr Wheeler
could make the report public on the website and kill the arguemnt
stone dead. (dont say ask NET, it appears from the other comments
thats a dead duck too). If Mr wheeler cant help for the time beeing
can CW yes write to all the boddies and just ask the question, "do
you oppose the use of the embankment for the tram regardless of mitigation
etc and do you suport ENT in their campagin to prevent the tram running
past their back gardens." ! I note the comment from the consultants
in the report that say the embankemnt has little to offer in the way
of biodiversity or special plants/habitats. ENT you better find/ plant
a rare snail in the area. JC I too have my doubts about PFI, but it
was developed by the tories and the current shower have carried it
on for all major infrastructure investment regardless of mode. If
you accept the principle that we have to do something to the traffic
problems regardless of mode (a new road etc etc) it too will be funded
by PFI as a political decision so it would appear we are stuck with
it. The alternative is do nothing and that I think we all know is
not on. Tell your MP you dont like PFI, I belive the tram is a seperate
issue that just happens to also bring the validity of PFI to the arguemnt.
The pros and cons with the tram compared to other modes would be the
same if it was directly funded.
SA, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
Ignorant people
Thank you for the correction Brian. Another piece of ignorant rubbish
from the anti-tram brigade dismissed. Can we believe anything they
say? George you're correct--ignore them!
Christopher, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
spending
JC seems to be opposed to spending any money at all. What would you
have the council spend it on? 25% of the cost of building the tram
network seems to me to be a bargain. Perhaps, JC, you would have it
spent on roads. Where would they go?
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
14-November-2002
Trams – Red herrings and environmental groups
JC is at it again. Does anyone understand what he says? No, I thought
not! But here’s a semi sensible point I can make in response
to his crazy ramblings… There are tangible costs to building
roads and almost no tangible benefits, all the benefits are ‘soft’.
At least the tram has some tangible benefits, i.e. people buy tickets!
I cannot be bothered to discuss with JC any further as I can make
no sense of his postings. I am left to ponder which of the people
JC is, from the names on the 14 leaflets that ENT Stop the Tram have
inflicted on Wilford and Compton Acres. Because of course although
JC says he is from West Bridgford, the Wilford and Compton Acres addresses
of the NIMBY lot are in fact postally within West Bridgford. There
is a much more important issue however. Are ENT to obtain further
up to date evidence of support from the RSPB, CPRE, English Nature
and Notts Wildlife Trust etc, especially now that these environmental
organisations will al! l be aware of the prohibitive expense of the
CQD option as compared to CW?
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
13-November-2002
Freedom of Information Act
As a lawyer I have to point out that the freedom of information act
has not yet come into force! You cannot use this legislation for some
time yet!
Brian Smith, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
13-November-2002
Nimby dot com
ENT---Have you had many applicants yet for the post of Webmaster?
Perhaps the funding from the multi-national is a problem. Don't worry
I'll ask about that at the BCBRA meeting on Friday. I take it that
this is the main reason why the letters frequently referred to are
not yet published. Could you not ask another body such as CWYes to
put them on their web-site - they seem to have a webmaster.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
13-November-2002
Red Herrings
J.C.----stop throwing in red herrings. Until this issue over the environmental
groups claim is resolved ENT have no credibility and should be ignored!
George, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
13-November-2002
Retractions
Mr Wheeler wrote "....and we need the authority to place the letters
on the website" If this authority is not forthcoming from all parties
will you then publish a retraction in the newspapers, here and send
an apology to any M.P.s or government ministers who may have been
misled?
George, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
13-November-2002
Trams
Simple Simon.The answer is it might. Look at the NET reports to see
the money spent to date which comes out of the local council tax.
If the activity stops so do the costs .Whether any of this is passed
back to you & me is questionable. The way the cost benefit case is
justified is through soft benefits rather than tangible costs. Incremental
costs will result from the development which will be funded partially
through council tax. Whether anything else will be done to offset
this incremental cost by savings in other areas is debatable BUT looking
at the tram in isolation costs will increase.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
TRAMS, FUNDING AND THE ELUSIVE LETTERS
Two simple questions from a simple soul to the two NIMBYS: 1. To JC
of West Bridgford. If, as you claim, 25% of the tram funding is our
council tax money, then if route one is immediately scrapped and future
proposals abandoned, will we all get a refund and lower future council
taxes? 2. To Gordon Wheeler. As you seem paranoid about releasing
the text of the letters you say you have from various environmental
bodies, perhaps you might be prepared to print the names and addresses
of the persons who wrote these letters to you. We can then write to
them oursleves and ask for their comments. Or am I being a little
naive in hoping that you might do this.
SIMPLE SIMON, CLIFTON |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
ENT report
Mr Wheeler-----Is the ENT report entitled "Objections to the uses
of the recreational open spaces in Wilford & Compton Acres for the
proposed CW tram route" and dated 15/10/2001? If so it is available
for us all to see on the NET site. Could you please confirm that this
is the complete report and that the letters from other bodies are
accurate?
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
Gordon
Hello Gordon..........So the letters you are referring to are the
ambiguous ones.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
Tram Debate
George I suggest you carefully read my earlier missives regarding
letters from the various Environmental bodies who oppose the development
of the CW corridor as a possible tram route. Nowhere have I refused
to make the letters avaialble. I have (repeatedly) pointed out that
the ENT website is being revamped and we need the authority to place
the letters on the website. In the meantime as I havs said (many times)
the full text of the letters are in the ENT report submitted a few
months ago to the NET. Please go along to the NET offices. They are
obliged, under the Freedom of Information Act, to make the full report
avialable to the piblic. I trust this -again-sets the record straight.
Regards Gordon Wheeler (Chair ENT) 12/11/02
Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
Trams
Doug & George all I am pointing out is the fact that the supporters
of the tram appear to look at the NET literature as gospel . At least
SA acknowledged that it is not all correct. The NET literature is
riddled with spin and interpretation. The management summary I referred
to previously is down right misleading you have to go into the text
to calculate the 8 % differential and how this can be described as
substantial is beyond me ,especially as 6 % (again calculated from
the detail) is described as marginal . NET obvioulsy have a lavish
budget from the local council to fund their spin and publicity machine
and this is being used to the full. What I am more surprised about
is the fact no one has picked up on my previous comments on the PFI
funding methods and how these have had such bad press recently . 25
% of this comes from local funding ,which is your and my council tax.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
Gordon lets see the letters
Mr Wheeler - I re-iterate---IT IS YOU AND NOT NET WHO ARE MAKING THESE
CLAIMS THEREFORE IT IS YOU WHO MUST PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE.---- Is that
clear????? If you continue to steadfastly refuse to produce these
letters of "support" then I leave everyone to draw their own conclusions.
I for one shall simply disregard every utterance you make here or
anywhere else until these letters are produced -unedited and dated
-somewhere where we may all have access - not just members of any
particular organisation. I urge everyone else to do likewise. Just
to remind you the organisations concerned are: Nottinghamshire Wildlife
Trust, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
the Council for the Protection of Rural England.
George, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
Jay's view on trams
Jay, you're falling into the "all or nothing" trap again. No-one said
that trams would be the best for every single possible journey you'd
take. But they will be for a lot of journeys (assuming you can overcome
your fear of other people), especially the most environmentally sensitive
ones. It's worth thinking that your bike may be the best option for
some trips too.
Stanley, Basford, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
question for JC
following from Georges interprtation. Can i ask JC if he/she was trying
to imply that the contributors to this board who are giveing ENT such
a hard time are working for/stooges of NET. Perhaps this is why Mr
wheeler says we should go and read nets files to see what has been
said.
doug, carlton |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
Situations vacant
WEBMASTERS two nimby groups in the Nottingham area are desperate for
someone to maintain their websites which haven't been updated for
months. The successful applicant will have a strong belief in the
future of road transport and will be very skilled at spin. Salary
is dependant on funding from a multinational. Apply BCBRA or ENT (previous
web-masters need not apply)
Nimby dot com, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
12-November-2002
Tram debate
Hi Robert You ask whether the letters (from the Environmental bodies)
are up to date. I assume you are referring to the ENT report I have
identified in earlier missives. The report was submitted a few months
ago and contain, what were then, up to date letters. Regards Gordon
Wheeler (Chair ENT) 11/11/02
Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
gordon wheeler and Jay of nottingham
hello Gordon. Are you talking about the letters that are out of date
or the letters that are ambiguous? Jay not everyone will use the tram
but a lot will and thats why they will benefit Nottingham. You travel
how you like. I will use the tram.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
Reply to Jay
> i think that the tram is a waste of time,money..... This is your
opinion but I don't agree with it..........................................
> and will cause more congestion............................................
Why? Because the tram runs offroad as well as onroad, it causes less
congestion than a bus. Unless it's empty or all the passengers were
bus passengers, it also removes cars from the road................................................
> 1,if i want to go any where that is not on the route to nottingham........................................
One of the main points of the tram is to link the town with various
areas and to link the M1 to the town. This reduces many of the car
journeys. I agree with your point when it comes to two journeys. It
would be good to see a transport service that did a full ringroad
loop (covering the town, both universities, boots and the QMC), perhaps
a suggestion to the bus companies........................................
> i am going with anyone else it is more expensive than going in the
car....................................... Probably not unless your
car is super efficient or you have three or more passengers (also
add in wear and tear to the bill). Again one of the aims is to reduce
cars, not travellers. A large number of travellers are in cars occupied
just by themselves............................................ 2,if
i catch the bus or tram i will still be paying for my car insurance
and road tax.............................................. Big deal.
I pay income tax yet I still have to pay council tax. However perhaps
there could be some incentive to holders of season transport tickets
of some kind of reduction in their road tax, particularly those that
use public transport to commute to work............................................................
3,buses and probably trams,seating is to cramped(i am only 5 foot
6inch and there is not enough space for me what about my 6foot 2inch
brother?).................................................... Oh come
on. I'm 5 10 and never had a problem. I can understand in the case
of the obese, but the number of travellers that need a whole seat
to themselves is a small percentage........................................................
and where iis my shoping supposed to go?..................................................
Depends how much you have. Though I think there is work that can be
done by the council here. Perhaps organise home delivery (that is
you buy your goods and they are over a certain size or weight the
council can have them delivered for you). With enough people using
the scheme it could be viable and you get your bus/tram ticket stamped
to prove you took public transport. The supermarkets already have
a delivery scheme for those on the Internet, perhaps a phone service
could be added too?..............................................
4,buses are infrequent and late....................................................
Depends where you catch them from. Many major routes have buses every
10 minutes. And besides this is a tram discussion not a bus discussion,
there is no indication the tram is going to be infrequent or late...........................................
> 5,it is horrible standing at stopes in bad weather...................................................
Agreed, but unfortunately until the idiots who think its fun to smash
bus shelters grow up, I don't think we are going to get better ones.
Anyone know what the tram stops will be like? ........................................................
6,trams will be taking up cars space on the roads as bus lanes already
have................................ How many people does one tram
hold? How many (on average) does the same length of cars hold? And
that is assuming it's on road............................. 7,what
effect is the tram going to have at basford crossings?........................................
Probably negligable...................................................
8,how many pedestrins are going to twist ankles etc on the tracks.........................................................
Perhaps we should remove curbs just in case they trip too? Perhaps
they should watch where they are going?..........................................................
9,what efect will the tracks have on push bikes and motor cycles?........................................................
Probably nothing with motor cycles except the chance of slipping.
Bikes shouldn't ride on them. Again I can use the curb argument.....................................................
10, why would i want to sit squashed up next to some stranger?............................................
me me me me me. Maybe it's time to think of others? Cars are causing
a pollution problem causing problem with asthma suffers. There are
more cars on the road than the roads were designed for. Journeys in
the rush hour seem to take forever. More roads is not an option. Study
somewhere like Birmingham if you think it is....................................................
i parked it up and walked or road my push bike every where upto 30
miles a day. i did enjoy it, as i think my dog did to......................................
Hooray! If you used your bike it doesn't cause pollution, takes up
less space and isn't reliant on a short term fuel solution. The problem
with cycles at the moment is Nottingham is not a cycle friendly place
(no lanes nor secure places to leave them).
David, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
Have Your Say
Hi everyone, The reason why your messages are so bunched together,
is because that's the way they are processed. Time is short and if
we spent time editing messages, we wouldn't be able to put your messages
up as quickly as we endeavor to do. Thank you.
Have Your say editor
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
JC Implications
JC when you refer to pots & kettles you imply that NET are the authors
of these missives against ENT. May I assure you they are not. We are
members of the public who it is becoming evident have been misled
by an organisation which would appear to have NIMBY tendancies. The
Ramblers statement exposes the first tier of this plot to mislead.
Perhaps only a small point but we were told about the masses of people
on October 5 out to meet Mr Clarke. We now have evidence from observers
to the contrary. I wonder how many other tiers of deception there
are? I eagerly await statements from the Royal Society for The Protection
of Birds, English Nature, the Council for the protection of Rural
England and the Green Party. I find it difficult to believe that such
respected organisations should oppose such an environmentally friendly
form of transport.
George, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
Reply to Jay
1. If the tram doesn't go where you want to go, fair point but for
others it will be useful. If you are driving in from the same direction,
you may soon decide that for some journeys it is easier, quicker
and more pleasant to park your tram by a stop and use it. 2. Yes
but you still pay for that if you walk or sleep or eat etc. etc.
3. Your car is very cramped. You may not think about it but you
have very little room to move when you are in the driving seat and
you have to pay attention all the time. Obviously the ammount of
shopping is a reasonable point but you'd be suprised what people
carry onto trams in Croydon! Not all your journeys are for heavy
shopping trips though. 4. Buses are infrequent and late - Yes they
are but trams are designed to be reliable and frequent and all evidence
from other systems backs that up. I'd say they have more reliable
journey times than a car journey. 5. It is also horrible sititng
on a motorway in your car in bad weather. Stops will have shelters
and with a frequent, reliable service, you won't have to wait long.
6. Nottingham trams are longer and carry more people but using Croydon
figures - Trams are 30m long and carry ~200 people. Lets be very,
very conservative and give an average load of just 60. Thats 2 people
per metre of road space. In your car, giving you a tiny SMART car
(~2m) and an above average 2 passengers, you have just 1 passenger
per metre of road space. So, in this very biased towards the car
example, the tram still DOUBLES the road capacity! 7. Can't comment
on Basford - I don't know the area. 8. I'm not aware of a single
accident in Croydon as a result of pedestrians tripping on the rails
in the 4 years the tracks have been laid. 9. Bikes will have to
treat the tram rails as an additional hazzard but thats all it is.
In Europe, bikes and trams have no trouble mixing in very large
quantities. 10. You might meet someone interesting or be a little
more sociable than exchanging stares or hand gestures in a traffic
jam.
Editor - Why are Carriage returns not allowed/process
on this forum? It would make things much easier to read!
SJP, West Wickham, Kent, UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
Pots and kettles
lets be honest everyone will spin to suit there point of view but
frankly I would belive NET before I belive ENT because at least NET
(and I dont agree with all NEt say before you ask) are forced to substantiate
what they say and therefore retain some credibilty. ENT dont or possibly
cant substantiate there statements at the moment, as we have seen
this week, What is the lack of these these letters doing to there
credability the longer they leave it the worse it becomes for ENT
SA, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
the tram
i think that the tram is a waste of time,money and will cause more
congestion.as people dont want to go from there cars to buses or trams,
these are some of the reasons i wont. 1,if i want to go any where
that is not on the route to nottingham i have to go there or bulwell
and then get another bus or even two more to get where i want to.a
lot of time wasted and if i am going with anyone else it is more expensive
than going in the car. 2,if i catch the bus or tram i will still be
paying for my car insurance and road tax. 3,buses and probably trams,seating
is to cramped(i am only 5 foot 6inch and there is not enough space
for me what about my 6foot 2inch brother?)and where iis my shoping
supposed to go? this is based on if i get a seat at all. 4,buses are
infrequent and late. 5,it is horrible standing at stopes in bad weather.
6,trams will be taking up cars space on the roads as bus lanes already
have. 7,what effect is the tram going to have at basford crossings?
wich is bad enough as it is. 8,how many pedestrins are going to twist
ankles etc on the tracks. 9,what efect will the tracks have on push
bikes and motor cycles? 10, why would i want to sit squashed up next
to some stranger? even if my car was taken from me i wouldnt use public
transport. i know that this is true as i was out of work for 11 months
once and after a few months could not aford to run my car so i parked
it up and walked or road my push bike every where upto 30 miles a
day. i did enjoy it, as i think my dog did to.
jay, nottingham nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
Tram debate
Robert, Geoffery and others I have time and time repeatedly explained
that all of the letters from the Environmental bodies that I have
specifically identified in earlier missives(Incidentally I never mentioned
the Green Party)are available in the ENT report which is with the
NET. For those of you that are so keen to see the full text of these
letters, go along to the NET offices. The ENT is happy to give you
permission to view our report in its entirety. You may well be better
informed thereafter!The NET also has to let you see the reports under
the Freedom oF Information Act. So why do you keep asking the same
question? I have given you a very clear answer. I have also explained
the ENT website is being revamped. We have every intention of including
the letters from the Environmental bodies. I cannot say when this
exercise will be complete. A lot of hard work is being done to expedite
matters but we all have other responsibilities in our day to day lives.
Gordon Wheeler Chair ENT 10/11/02
Gordon wheeler, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
Trams – antis’ website
David of Wilford, don’t worry about joining up to the ENT Stop
the Tram website http://communities.msn.co.uk/StoptheTram . Most members
of this group seem to be pro tram, which you can see from the debates
taking place. Being a member of the group could not really be construed
as being a member of ENT Stop the Tram itself. Be prepared however
to find very little of interest in the Filing Cabinet. There’s
one letter from the RSPB which could hardly be construed as ‘support’
although ENT have of course predictably interpreted it as such. The
other letter is an out of date one from Notts Wildlife Trust.
Observer, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
11-November-2002
Wilford Embankments
I think it was George who said that the trams would save lives due
to fewer road accidents. There is STRONG evidence from Croydon to
say that this is true. Also fewer people hurt, and that's before we
get on to respirotary problems, future road widening etc. To convince
me that it's worth saving the Wilford embankments these Environmental
Groups (Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, English Nature, the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection
of Rural England) are going to need a pretty convincing argument.
At least one internationally endangered species. So far we only have
sitings of two rats. I think a human life is worth more than a colony
of rats!
Christopher, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
ENT letters of 'support'
Gordon Wheeler says we can view the letters of 'support' ('support'
in inverted commas following the discrediting of the Ramblers Association's
'support') from various environmental and wildlife groups by going
to the ENT website filing cabinet. But once there, I got the message,
'In order to go to this page, you need to be a member of this group.'
So, by taking a look at these letters I boost the membership of ENT,
even though I think the CW route is the best way to go. Come on, let's
have these letters where we can all see them.
David, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
More documentary evidence, please
I refer to the tram debate article in the West Bridgford Neighbourhood
News. ENT assert that in the early 1990s Rushcliffe Borough Council
gave an assurance that there was no intention of using the land [Wilford
embankment] for anything other than a nature trail. ENT have made
this claim before on their website. Is there a legal covenant which
says the embankment cannot be developed? Can ENT provide documentary
evidence of the assurance of which they speak?
Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
The Tram
Don't forget folks.....next Friday 15th November @ 7pm, Eskdale School,
Eskdale Drive, Chilwell. Notts. There is a public debate about the
Tram. So if you is agin or is you fore then get yer ass down there.
This will be an opportunity for facts to come out from under the stones
they are hiding under. Hope to see you there
Nellie F, beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
Trams
Some of the comments about ENT literature being spun are a bit rich.
Just read the NET literature and spot the misleading statements. For
example in the initial report on routes in the Management summary
a 6 % differential on routes was described as ‘marginal’
whereas an 8 % differential was described as ‘substantial’.
I hardly think use of such emotive phrases is applicable when presenting
such a report to people who may only read the summary and not go into
the detail. This is clearly giving the emphasis to what they want
in the summary rather than the more balanced view in the detail of
the report. It seems now we are at the stage of the pot calling the
kettle black !!!
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
Wilford tram branch
I’ve got an even better idea, Pete of Clifton. Why not turn the idea
of a tram branch to the other route. Put a tram down Queens Drive
all the way to Clifton, and have a branch to Wilford. All the tram
objectors live beyond Wilford Lane, so finish the tram at either Wilford
village or on the Lane. A tram would be better than a bus over Wilford
bridge, but without going all the way to Clifton. The objectors do
not have to live next to the tram, but they could still use it and
their homes will go up in value. The ROF workers can still live in
Wilford, and Wilford people who work on Queens can get to work by
tram as well. I prefer roads rather than trams, but to save lovely
Wilford village have no road bridge over the Trent. But Wilford embankment
south of Wilford Lane could still be made into a road, finishing at
the tram terminus.
J. Wilson, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
Well done, ENT
In the West Bridgford News, ENT say the Wilford trams will run every
ten minutes 18 hours daily, at speeds up to 50mph. Best advert I’ve
heard yet in favour of the tram. Keep it up, ENT, you are a whiz.
Mark Denison, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
Nottinghams Reality vortex
If you look at all the arguemnts against the tram like the ones suggested
by Frustrated it would appear that Nottingham is a city different
from any other in europe and even the UK. Trams are going to do some
things to the city (usually bad) that they have not doen in other
places when a well designed system has been built, and they will not
bring all the good things they have done else where. Ok there may
be a few things that need sorting out and some things will al ways
be a comprmise. But can some one please explain why is Nottingham
different to any other mid sized city in the europe does it have its
own reality vortex or does that just exist around the anti trammers.
Bernard Cooper, Fressingfield |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
The Ramblers
SA says it may have been a communications cock up at the Ramblers.
They may have been duped into making a rash statement which they didn't
expect to see brandished here there & everywhere (I should know about
this one - it nearly cost me my job a few years ago!). However, full
marks to them for making a clear and concise statement straight away.
The other environmental organisations I'm sure will know about this
and I'm sure will also make a statement in due course, if not I'm
afraid their credibility is in question. To remind you the other organisations
are: Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, English Nature, the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds, the Council for the Protection of Rural
England. Jim would also like an explanation from the Green Party.
Learned by experience, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
tram branch line
I have a great idea. Why not build the Wilford tram AND as wel a branch
down Queens Drive. The branch would finish at the park and ride, It
would not go over the trent on a costly new bridge nor nacker the
recreation walks to Clifton or wildlife there. It would serve the
park and ride into town, and the workers as well. The workers could
live in Beeston, Chilwell and Wilford, as some people suggest. Some
people have been snobbish, but I take there point. People on Clifton
estate don’t want to go to queens Drive to work. They want to go to
Nottingham, and I note that the Wilford tram is quickest, and one
reason why the tram people want it. So everybody can be happy. Apart
from the miserable timewasting ---- along Wilford embankment, if it
wasn’t for them, they could have built the tram by now. Do it, and
the other branch a bit later, then.
Pete, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
A statement please
Mr Wheeler: - you owe us explanations. Explain away this untruth you
knowingly published in the newspapers to which Mr Barber referred....Where
are the letters?....Can we ever believe a word you ever say?.....Or
have you taken Jim's advice and decided to shut up?....If so then
close down your web-site now.
Christopher, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
DAte needed from Mr Wheeler
Lets not get too carried away here. MR wheeler said the other corespondance
will be released soon on the updated web page, and he did not have
to release the stuff he has already. If he releases the other stuff
its good for the debate and credit where credit due. Mr Wheeler can
you please give a date when you will make the corespondance available.
I am sure ENT will have written to these various boddies who will
have written back, possibly saying they share ENTs concerns about
wildlife. This will not show outright opposition true but it shows
a level of support to ENT which can be SPUN. Now Mr W seems a reasonable
man so I think he will have some other letters, he would be very daft
to rely on the things he has currently released which have already
been binned here today. So lets give him time to produce the goods.
ENT are now putting every signgle bit of their credability on the
line over this one we should give them a Chance. However the situation
with the Ramblers does ne! ed! addressing immediately. The Ramblers
must issue a statement to the press etc and ENT should show their
ramblers letter, it may be a communications cock up at the ramblers.
SA, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
Press pictures
I like the picture in Neighbourhood News. Ken Clarke laughing at some
documents held by a surprised and shocked looking Gordon Wheeler.
Maybe these are the environmental letters? Go on Gordon let's all
see them and share the joke!
Stephanie, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
Reply to Liz of Clifton
Liz of Clifton, like the Wilford embankment objectors, does not explain
where the workers and shoppers of Queens Drive live, and how or why
they will travel by tram. They won’t, since their travel pattern is
sporadic, but instead go on using their cars to commute or shop. It
is important to keep down construction costs and boost tram speeds,
and off-street running will often do both. Serving park-and-ride is
important as well. Surely Liz you don’t think the pseudo-countryside
of Wilford embankment, a derelict railway route, is worth preserving?
CQD does not serve population or even high density business premises
north of the Trent. Boots supports the Beeston-Chilwell tram, and
would like their staff to use it via feeder buses. Liz appears to
advocate massive roadbuilding. Would she support a new road along
the route of Wilford embankment then? ENT have suggested a few minor
road improvements around Wilford. So far.
Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Reply to RA Catchpole
RA Catchpole poses some interesting points. The white-collar workers
on Queens Drive don’t want to live on Clifton estate, and the CQD
tram, if it were built, would not make any difference. As regards
the redeveloped ROF site and tram commuting there, Wilford could be
home for some of the white-collar workers, as an alternative to Chilwell.
Using CW, the workers would of course change trams at Nottingham Midland
high level (allow 6 minutes in the peak). I reckon the full journey
from Compton Acres to Kings Meadow would take 21 minutes, about the
same timing as from the centre of Chilwell. Suppose CW were scrapped
and CQD built instead, together with the Beeston tram. To try to make
sense out of it all (??) thousands of white-collar workers along CQD,
especially at the Riverside business park, would have to be persuaded
to live in Chilwell or Beeston since they would forsake Clifton estate.
This is not a practical proposition for existing workers at existing
employmen! t premises. I am suggesting more residential mobility is
possible for the future workforce at the redeveloped ROF site.
Harry J., West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
08-November-2002
Tram Proposal
Thank you Liz for your contribution. When are the government going
to wake up to the fact that the car is the public’s chosen form
of transport and the necessary infrastructure needs to be built around
it. The A453 is a disgrace ,it really is a case of ‘ step back
in time,come to Nottingham ‘ sit on this road for half an hour
before you anywhere near to the City. Investing in this is far more
of a priority than a tram to serve a minority of locations. Thank
you also to Compton Acres woman who advised she could not catch buses
because they only run hourly. The reason they only run hourly is because
of a lack of demand and have been cut back because of it .There is
no real reason to assume that patronage will increase for Trams ,
other than the theoretical drag magnet model used to construct these
routes says it will.Never mind the reality of buses being withdrawn
!!!
Frustrated, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Liz of Clifton
You have said a lot in your message and to sum it up. The Boots factory
and the Players factory have their own bus services from all over
Nottingham in the morning and evening. What good would the tram be
in that direction? It has got to be used constantly all day which
it will be on the CW route. Thats why the CQD is a non starter. A
bridge would be too costly because of the restrictions put on it by
the Environment agency. The A453 cuts through Clifton and to increase
it to a dual carriage way would be to sever one part of Clifton from
the other.Other Cities would have the tram, but it needs the initiative
to be taken because Government say it must be paid for by the private
sector in the main. There is possibly one area of semi green land,
between Silverdale and Clifton a matter of 100 to 200 yards. Some
would be used to dual the A453. If you look at the map that NET have
on their web site you will quite clearly see that for the best part,the
CW route is direct given that there is housing situated where it is.
The roads could not be improved because of the lack of space. Roads
cost more to construct than tram lines. Once installed tram lines
are cheaper to maintain.Mr Gordon Wheeler keeps saying he has letters
from various groups objecting to the CW route but if they were to
be produced by him the story would be different. One group, the Ramblers
have already distanced themselves from him. What evidence he has produced
is out of date. He is not looking at the whole picture and as for
the piece of land he is trying to protect , it is a dogs toilet scattered
with litter overgrown in places and infested with rats. May I suggest
Liz you take a look at all the relavent sites on the internet before
you make up your mind. Also go and have a look at the site at Compton
Acres where the tram will be running. It was always put aside for
transport uses. If not it would have been leveled and built apon when
they built the houses. Those who bought a house close by have shot
themselves in the foot not realizing this point before they purchased.
So I hope your Questions have been answered Liz.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
CW and West Brdgford Neighbourhood News
In the tram debate in the West Bridgford Neighbourhood News, ENT come
up with only one idea I have never heard before – a bus service over
Wilford toll bridge. ENT consider that some people may actually benefit
from CW (!!), some people living in Wilford village. This sounds intriguing.
Last April a senior ENT activist said in a letter to the Evening Post
that there is no demand for public transport on the fringe of Wilford,
and implied that the village tram stop would pull in meagre traffic
off-peak Instead of spending millions on a tram, so the ENT argument
goes in the West Bridgford News, it would be better to spend only
a few thousand on a new bus service over the Toll bridge. How heartwarming
it is to hear that ENT is so conscientious about saving public money.
But they seem to forget that the CQD route would cost 30% more (£26
million extra) than CW to build, chiefly because of the enormous cost
of bridging the Trent south of the village. I did not forget to me!
ntion the point on the opposite page in favour of the tram. Wilford
bridge needs to be widened but not strengthened for the 100 feet 50
ton tram (I quote ENT on these figures). But I am inclined to think
a bus, unlike a tram, encourages the idea of opening up the bridge
to car traffic. I think such a move would be anathema. I do not accuse
ENT of advocating this, since they have not made the remark explicitly.
But a bus over the bridge, like every other argument ENT come out
with, is going to be easy to demolish at the Public Inquiry.
Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
False claims by ENT
In Tuesday's edition of West Bridgford Neighbourhood News ENT have
stated "Other groups who oppose the route are the Royal Society for
The Protection of Birds, English Nature, The Ramblers Association
and the Council for the protection of Rural England." This was published
3 days after the Ramblers Association made the public statement which
included the words "....it has never made any blanket objection to
the proposed tram route along the disused railway embankment adjacent
to Wilford and Compton Acres." Surely this statement by ENT through
their chairman is therefore libellous. I think at the very least the
newspaper should be made to print a full retraction in next weeks
edition.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Ignorance
Liz your ignorance in matters of an economic nature simply astounds.
Unless we regard each life saved as of infinate fiscal value then
every investment must have a finite ceiling to bring about a profitable
return. The tram will save lives, that is undisputed, so under the
former criteria infinite resources could be put at NET's disposal
and all cars made illegal. However, I believe the sum assessed per
life is about £1m and so the roads on this criteria alone are subsidised
to the extent of £10m per day or nearly £7000 per minute. The cost
of serious and non-serious injuries is much higher due to the extreme
number.
George, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
PRO ROAD Then Liz
Where should all these new roads we need go liz, discarded tram routes
under sued/disused transport space??
sa , notts |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Reply to Liz
If a tram or whatever has to meander through communities, people won't
use it - it'll take too long to get there. Would you rather spend
1hr or 30 mins on transport for each journey to work? The M1 link
is vital for the city's economy. Nottingham needs to attract people
from outside to come visit and work in Nottingham, but it doesn't
want them to bring their cars with them. It's not just about local
people, it's about the city's long term future. And I'd much rather
see the government put money into sorting out the train links, which
are diabolical, before the roads. The only real option to the south
right now is the M1 which is why a lot of business doesn't want to
be here.
David, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Roads, not trams
Trams are fixed on track and Victorian, a waste of money. It is good
some people are talking about roads again. Since these “NIMBIE” people
cant even stop a tram nobody will use, the places it will go might
just as well have roads instead. Chilwell Valley could have been a
road 20 or 30 years ago. If it had, people would have long forgotten
about the “green belt” and the road would be paying dividends by now.
It is obvious that the Beeston back streets are very wide, and a new
through road from Middle Street to the Boulevard is the answer. I
dont want to be rotten to the old folk in the flats, but propertys
sometimes have to come down for road improvements, and this happened
on Middle Street anyway when it was widened to avoid the town centre.
Broadgate route road is congested with zigzags. I work in Bridgeford
and pass by Wilford embankment every day. I have seen it close up
this summer. What a fuss people make about a disused railway land.
I have heard the embank! ment will have to come down for the tram
that does not make sense to me. A tram on top would go where the railway
was, but if they are going to take down the embankment anyway, it
might as well be made into a road. ROADS not TRAMS, please. Thank
you. Yours sincerely, Billy Marshall from Beeston.
Billy Marsha, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Root of our discontent
I have just seen the West Bridgford News. What rubbish the Wilford
anti-tram people come out with (Route of Our Discontent). The nimbys
say the Queens Drive route to Clifton will have a virtually zero harmful
impact on residents. Of course it will, that’s because nobody lives
next to the route outside Clifton, so the traffic would be crummy.
And what is this “harmful impact” supposed to be? Ask people in Manchester
and so on what they think of trams. The tram-bashers think they own
the embankment. Why not just go and live somewhere else, and buy a
house with a longer back garden?
Mark Denison, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Tram – Chilwell route is near perfect
Liz’s comments are so out of touch that its hard to believe
that they are genuine. If they are a wind-up by pro trammers bored
at the lack of any effective debate from the anti tram brigade then
I’d say they are a bit too silly to be believable!! If real,
I suspect that Liz is the partner of someone living in Clifton who
has previously made several postings on this forum and possibly works
in Beeston- on the Chilwell High Road? Anyway, just using this as
an opportunity to answer some points that regularly come up: We are
not going to get many more roads in this country. There might be a
few improvements to junctions to increase capacity and safety, which
the government in now thankfully doing, because its money very effectively
spent. Secondly, there is a reason for applying the spending criteria
to tram routes. The explanation for higher cost benefit ratios is
generally speaking a greater number of passengers using it. Thirdly,
the Palmer alternative routes were! r! ejected on a number of grounds,
and by the way two of them would have travelled past the shops on
the Chilwell High Road. The best of the three might in a modified
form make a good spur off the Chilwell line but not a replacement.
Let’s get something straight. The proposed Chilwell route is
near perfect. When people say they support the tram but not the route
it’s a ridiculous statement. What do people propose instead
– that hundreds of homes are knocked down, or that we build
tram lines which run along roads and get stuck in jams? The proposed
Chilwell route takes in a very populous area, involves virtually no
demolition, runs mainly off road, serves old peoples’ homes,
provides a park ‘n’ ride facility and will rejuvenate
the tatty High Road. Two things Liz has emphasised: 1. the belief
that Gordon Wheeler / ENT is a supporter for the roads lobby; 2. trams
are cheaper than roads. Unless of course it’s a pro trammer
on a wind-up ! 21! 1; ho ho!
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Tram Funding
The site often makes reference to the PFI funding method. It’s
worth looking at todays FT. To quote “Companies have made millions
of pounds extra profits from refinancing private finance initiative
projects without either telling the government or sharing the gains
……….. John Edmonds ,general secretary of the GMB
union said : ‘ This is a scandal.PFI companies have effectively
been laundering their profits at the expense of the taxpayer ’
“ As this is the way the tram is to be funded look forward to
increased Council Tax.
JC, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
trams - Do something, then
So the Chilwell objectors are going to have a public meeting. What
about the Wilford embankment protestors? The Chilwell people held
a march in a snowstorm last winter, but not the Wilford protestors.
And the Wilford anti-tram lot have not had a demonstration for a year.
Why not then, if hundreds of people are supposed to have sent letters
through Ken Clarke right now?
B. Meakin, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
TRAMS TO CLIFTON
Few!!! Liz of Clifton must win the prize for the longest-winded comment
so far. Still,on two points she was spot on - it IS cheaper to lay
tram lines than build roads, and tram schemes ARE the cheapest way
of easing trafic congestion. That's exactly why they are being built.
Think about it. Keep up the good work Liz!
Donald, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Wilfordgate scandal
Well now. It looks as though the ENT claim that the Ramblers have
opposed the Wilford tram has been fraudulent. And if the written opinions
of the wildlife organisations are as ancient as the ENT website, which
rarely gets updated, what next? If the tram objectors refuse to publish
correspondence they themselves are supposed to have received, it sounds
like Watergate. Rushcliffe Borough are to be lobbied again by the
antis for the umpteenth time. The Council own the embankment, but
neglect this wonderous wildlife haven, this paradise of dog-poo, this
Hanging Garden of Babylon. And are the committee of the antis practicing
walking on their knees when they next meet the tram bosses to beg
for a few more trees?
Pete de Silvera, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Work journeys
I am interested in the trams debate, especially the question of trams
down Queens Drive. The ROF site is to be redeveloped, and in 5 years
from now 5,000 jobs will be provided, and a tram to Beeston will serve
the area. Or will it? Not much if the workers live scattered miles
away from the tram route. But it occurs to me that because the ROF
site is a proposed redevelopment, the fresh firms could come from
outside the Nottingham area, bringing their own workers, at least
skilled and professional, with them. This is what Inland Revenue did
next door some years ago. The newcomers to Nottingham will want fresh
housing. And where to go? Maybe Beeston or Chilwell, to use the tram
to commute to work. (Since the tram stop will be called Kings Meadow,
I assume this will also be the name of the new business park). How
may this idea relate to a Clifton tram down Queens Drive? I don’t
want to sound snotty, but Clifton, though as big as a town, is still
really a council estate. Whilst a few firms on queens Drive have manual
workers in true “industries”, the vast majority have office employment.
This is the case with the Riverside business park on the old power
station site, and how it will be with the future ROF site. Middle
class office workers don’t want to live on Clifton estate. And Line
One areas do not have the right sort of housing for these workers
either. It’s not surprising. A major function of Line One is to cater
for economic revival. Hyson Green housing has lately leaped up in
value, but the area is still really for working-class folk and students.
Beeston and Chilwell, however, have a mix of middle class and working
class housing, all sorts, Maybe the ROF tram stop on the Beeston route
could also serve the firms a few minutes walk away down Queens Drive.
In summary, it looks as though the ROF site could be served OK by
the Beeston tram, but a tram down Queens Drive does not look so good
for attracting traffic.
RA Catchpole, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Letters
Come on Gordon - you've two options.... produce the letters or shut
up.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
07-November-2002
Mr Wheeler no need to apologise
MR Wheeler you never disappoint me so there is no need to apologise.
What you do do is constantly amaze me. Firstly you state in your pro
road mode that there is plenty of open space near a certain road so
we can use that, which flies in the face of your views when in tram
mode. I don’t doubt you have had letters from the people you say you
have, so again no need to apologise. I had the impression from your
campaign that all these bodies were strongly supportive of ENT and
were fighting along side you, ENT have made a big song and dance about
this in the press and writing to ministers about the support of the
groups. One of these bodies on this board has said they have some
concerns but generally think the tram is a good idea and want net
to do a proper environmental assessment, which they have to do by
law. So the spin you put out seems to me (related to this group only)
to be at best a bit tenuous, plus from my interpretation of the tone
of their statement they now seem a ! bi! t upset by your claim. That
then begs the question what have the other groups said (which was
the point of my last message) now your spin seems to be unravelling.
You have had the decency to make their statements public so credit
where due and we can all see what been said so thanks. I have not
looked yet I am sure Mr Darling and co have registered the level of
support you have.
Sa , notts |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Cheapest isn,t best
If the tram is the all singing, all dancing,congestion busting, super
silent, environment friendly, smooth running transport we are led
to believe it is, then could someone please explain to me why the
Government have put a price limit on it? Surely, if it is as good
as some people make it out to be, every city in the country should
be given funding for a tram system rather than having to bid for it.
Why should each line have to meet government criteria. If the tram
is the bees knees of transport then surely the routes to be chosen
should be routes that serve the population best and not just the cheapest,
most direct routes between A & B. Is it not true that Neil Bates admitted
that Dr Nick Palmers alternative Beeston/Chilwell route would have
greater patronage than NET's chosen route? But because it would cost
more to construct then it would be a non starter. NET choose to take
the route straight through some of the last green areas of Chilwell
just because it is a cheaper ! pr! oposition. Surely this cannot be
right and it should not be allowed to happen. The same also applies
to the CW route. The CQD route would serve the south of our city much
better. It would take in Pork Farms industrial estate, Riverside industrial
estate and riverside retail park plus the riverside park and ride
then it would go on to serve two of Nottingham's biggest employers,
Imperial Tobacco and Boots. Sure, another bridge would have to be
built across the Trent for the tram to continue on it's journey to
Clifton, but look at the proposed CW route. It would serve a handful
of people in Wilford Village before continuing on to skim the edge
of Compton Acres, under the A52 and skirting Silverdale and on to
Clifton, nearly all of this journey through green land. Why? because
it's cheaper to construct. It appears to me that NET are not concerned
with the wants or needs of Nottingham's people, all they they are
concerned about is getting people into the city centre from the M1
! co! rridor as quickly and directly as possible. A tram system designed
to serve the people of Nottingham would take a more meandering route
reaching out to the more densly populated areas and not just a direct
line from A to B along unpopulated green areas. Is the CQD route a
non starter because it may jeopardise Nott'm City Councill's plans
to introduce a workplace parking levy at Boots and Imperial Tobacco,
which must now go ahead because N.C.C are recieving advance fundings
from Central Government on the back of this scheme. Is this then a
possible reason why Boots and Imperial Tobacco have not climbed aboard
the tram bandwagon? Ultimately though, I think that the Government's
decision to make tram funding available is an admission that the country's
road network is totally inadequate and that tram schemes are the cheapest
way of trying to ease congestion. Similarly, Nottm's bid for tram
funding is an admission by them that OUR road network is inadequte
and again it is cheape! r ! to lay tram lines than it is to bulid
new roads. There are now 30 000 000 licensed drivers in this country.
This must now be approaching the maximum number of drivers we are
ever likely to have. So surely the Government must realise that now
traffic as reached it's likely peak now must be the time to start
restructuring our roads to accomodate the traffic. After all, if one
travels around Nott'm, one would realise that our roads are more or
less identical to how they were 30 years ago. Nothing much has changed
on the ring road except for the underpass at QMC. We still only have
3 crossings over the Trent, when in reallity we need 5 or 6. The A453
should have been dual carriageway years ago but still remains a massive
bottleneck for traffic coming in and out of our city. I could go on
and on but in the end the truth is that so little has been spent on
our roads over the years it means that it would now cost £billions
to put it right, so £300 on a mini train set seems a viable! a! lternative.
But remember, the cheapest option quite often turns out to be the
most expensive in the long term. To Gordon Wheeler. Keep up the good
work and stick to your principles. Do not be swayed or deterred by
the pro tram brigade who can only see the world through rose tinted
blinkers showing the pretty picture they want to see, but are totally
out of touch with reallity. Keep pushing for what you think is right
Gordon.
Liz, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Environmental group letters
Mr Wheeler…. It is you who are making claims regarding environmental
organisations therefore it is you who must produce the evidence to
back up your claims and not NET. I have been to visit your site and
found letters from two of the organisations you mention (RSPB & Notts
Wildlife Trust (NWT)) That leaves two others (English Nature & CPRE)
for which you MUST produce evidence or we shall all be obliged to
disregard anything else you claim here or elsewhere……To examine these
two pieces of evidence: I note the dates RSPB Oct 24 01 and NWT Sept
06 01 both over a year ago. The NWT state that they feel unable to
comment accurately due to the very outline plans at that stage. Both
organisations support the tram, The RSPB insist on a “comprehensive
environmental impact assessment” but raise no other objections. The
NWT object strongly to any development which may harm Whitwell cutting
or Iremonger Pond. They describe the disused railway as a “valuable
wildlife corridor” but do not raise any obj! ections to it being removed……I
understand that NET will have to do these studies as part of the TWAO
application. Furthermore the County Council voted to order these studies,
particularly the hydrological study…..I see these letters as pretty
flimsy evidence of opposition dating from before recent information
was available. I think both organisations need to re-issue statements
in the light of events over the past year. I look forward to seeing
the other two letters.
George, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Caoital One
See the advert on page 45 of tonight's (Wednesday) Post for how a
forward thinking employer goes about attracting staff.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Eskdale Meeting
Thanks Nellie.... I'll be there to ask about their £250000!!!!!(BCBRA
MEETING)
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
gordon wheeler
I'm glad to see you have stopped calling the railway embankment at
Compton Acres "a wildlife haven" . Instead I notice you are now calling
it a possible tram route. You have to think of the future. Roads will
be so clogged up nothing will move. Is the reason why you don't want
the tram a case of not wishing to mix with the good folk of Clifton
and The Meadows? You could have your own open tram car so you could
soak up the environment.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Trams – the letters
Hmm, is Gordon Wheeler is, in an around about way as possible, stating
that he cannot produce the letters which supposedly support his cause,
other than the ones (RSPB, Notts Wildlife Trust) that have already
been criticised by numerous people on this website and elsewhere?
Incidentally I thought the Data Protection Acts related to personal
information, not to information like this, so I reckon that is another
red herring. No, Gordon must produce the letters himself – its
ridiculous to suggest that we should ask a third party for them. Either
he produces them or we must assume they are not letters of support.
After all, if they were letters of support, they would have written
directly to ENT / Stop the Tram! Many of us have already seen the
collected direct submissions to NET by environmental organisations,
anyway. I think that what has happened is that ENT have clutched at
the idea of correspondence, that they have become aware of indirectly,
which simply says all the! s! tandard stuff about the need for environmental
assessments and needing more of that type of information before endorsing
routes in great detail. Which is what the pro tram groups say anyway!
I consider it completely inappropriate to claim that this is support.
I have had made available to me, copies of every one of the fourteen
handouts that ENT have distributed in the Wilford and Compton Acres
area, and most of them mention this support from these environmental
organisations. It’s a bit rich!.
AW, Nottm |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Apology
Some of you may have noticed that some of your contributions have
been deleted. This was a technical error on our part, we're sorry
if this causes any inconvenience.
Have your say editor, |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Tram Debate
SA (whoever you are) Sorry to disappoint you and any others who may
feel the ENT has invented letters from environmental bodies citing
their opposition to the CW corridor for a possible tram route. I can
but reiterate the letters in their entirety have been included in
the ENT report submitted to NET, DfT (ETC). Feel free to write to
Alistair Darling. He or his office will have the full text of the
letters from all of the environmental bodies I identified in my earlier
missives. Gordon Wheeler (Chair ENT) 6/11/02
Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
The Tram
Eskdale School Chilwell. 15th Nov 2002 BCBRA are planning a public
meeting. I hope to see many smiling faces of Pro and Anti Tram peeps....
7 00 pm kick off...... See you there Nellie
Nellie F, beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
06-November-2002
Tram debate
George It would seem postings on this site have "diappeared". Recent
contributions are no longer to be found. You ask where you can view
the letters from the vatious environmental bodies warning of the consequences
to wildlife if the CW corridor were to be developed. Earlier letters
can be found on the ENT web site (you will need to go into filing
cabinet). As I have said in earlier missives, the full text of the
letters formed part of the ENT report submitted to the NET, DfT (and
others). I suggest you ask the NET if you can read the ENT report.
The ENT would have no objection. The NET must assist under the Freedom
of Information Act. The latest letters from the various environmental
bodies will appear on the ENT website when the site has been revamped
and we have the appropriate authority to display the correspondence.
Hope this helps. Gordon Wheeler (Chair ENT) 6/11/02
Gordon Wheeler, West Bridgford |
|
|
|
|
|
05-November-2002
Environmental Groups
My last posting seems to have evaporated but to repeat the important
bit:........ If any readers are members of Nottinghamshire Wildlife
Trust, English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds,
the Council for the Protection of Rural England or the Green Party
would they please ask their respective organisations to make a clear
statement on this forum as to their position regarding future NET
lines. The Ramblers have done so and I think this currently puts their
organisation on a higher tier.
Jim, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
05-November-2002
Overhead wires
Wires are now going up around the depot and Wilkinson Street check
them out - they don't look half as bad as I feared they might!
John, Basford |
|
|
|
|
|
05-November-2002
The Ramblers response
I'm pleased to see that such a reputable organisation as the Ramblers
have made a clear and concise statement regarding the Wilford Embankment.
They are an organisation which strongly believes in the environment
and so see the advantages of the tram. Of course the Whitwell cutting
issues must be addressed and work is being done at this moment. A
full environmental impact analysis must be presented by NET.
Steve Barber, Beeston |
|
|
|
|
|
05-November-2002
Letters of support
There seems to be a hiccup with this site so I'll re-post this as
I consider it very important: Mr Wheeler, you claim to have letters
from all these environmental groups supporting your cause. Then you
MUST let us see them. Please transcribe them in their entirity on
to your website or other public place and include the date and the
addressee so we may scrutinise them. Please respond here once you
have done this.
George, Clifton |
|
|
|
|
|
05-November-2002
Trams in Nottingham
I worked for many years abroad and used trams every day. I think they
are great, but the locals took them for granted. I come back to Nottingham
and find half the population have gone mad, opposing trams. Especially
in Wilford, on an old railway route. I voted for the tram on the street,
and the embankment as well. Let's have a tram here. Good luck, Mr.
Bennett.
Mark Denison, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
05-November-2002
ENT, Ramblers and Mr darling
ENT is bombarding Mr Darling with letters. It would appear they have
said in there letters to him they have the support of the Ramblers
(I have checked their sample letters on their web site letter 3).
Perhaps the pro tram group and the Ramblers need to write to Mr Darling
informing him this is not the case, as was stated on this board. A
letter to Mr Clarke perhaps should also be sent. Poor old ENT it wont
do their case much good if it turns out they have been economic with
the truth when writing to a government minister, and have been misleading
their MP. It is vital now ENt confirm the support of the other groups.
SA, notts |
|
|
|
|
|
02-November-2002
Cry, baby, cry, Part 3
G. Wheeler says G. Bennet is the only person in Wilford in favour
of the tram. I wonder. A bloke from Wilford wrote a letter to the
Post recently and said (in so many words) that the idea of putting
the tram on Queens Drive was obsolete, a waste of time to advocate.
The chap called the embankment objectors “Gordon Wheeler and his cronies”.
I was surprised the Evening Post printed such a remark (actual words).
So G. Wheeler replied about personal insults and then lunged into
the same old hypocrisy about defending wildlife. Dear Gordon, the
wildlife and countryside around West Bridgford was destroyed by Compton
Acres. And since these “respected” wildlife bodies you are always
on about could not stop your house being built, what chance do you
think you’ve got of stopping a tram replacing a dog-mess wasteland?
Pete de Silvera, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
02-November-2002
CW can serve Queens Drive !!!!
So Gordon Wheeler tells us he cycles to work somewhere around Queens
Drive. Mr. Bennett says the vast majority of the people who work in
the industrial estates there would not use the CQD tram, because they
live miles away off the route. Mr. Wheeler himself could not use it
for this reason. But he could use the CW tram instead. He can board
it in Compton Acres close to home, get off at Queens Walk, and walk
the rest of the way to his workplace. Well I’m damned. I knew CQD
was a phoney for serving workplaces on Queens Drive, but it never
occurred to me that CW could do this job better for some people, especially
the tram-phobics.
RA Catchpole, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
01-November-2002
CW tram
How many CW tram opponents are there? In July last year 150 people
created ENT at a public meeting. The same number (though including
children) attended a peaceful demonstration in Wilford three months
later. By this time NET had received 170 written objections. These
figures are about three per cent of the population of Wilford/Compton
Acres. Any more figurework becomes fuzzy. Petitions on any topic are
an unreliable guide to public “opinion”, and public authority pay
the figures little regard. But I will quote with reason. Last January
ENT claimed in the Evening Post that they had handed in a petition
to NET containing thousands of signatures. “Thousands” is plural,
meaning a minimum of 2,000. A Compton Acres lady supporter of CW quizzed
this at the time with the tram company, and wrote about the matter
to the newspaper. The petition really contained about 1,350 signatures.
Ever since ENT have claimed the figure to be 1,500 and “NOT a minority”
(indeed it is a ! minority). The point I am making is that ENT cannot
be relied upon to tell the truth. They now claim their meeting with
Ken Clarke attracted “hundreds” of people. Really? CW has survived
every onslaught from ENT, with no supporters’ group before now. It
not so surprising. The economic case is solid, the environmental restraint
modest, and the local public objection pure uninformed nimby in motive.
What next? ENT can go on fruitlessly flogging their guts out lobbying
to Kingdom Come, whilst CW YES! can soft-pedal the rest of the way.
The tram still gets built. The councils and NET know damn well as
we all do the local objection is confined to the embankment, and little
elsewhere. NET know the objectors cannot win a Public Inquiry, and
that wildlife is negociable beforehand – otherwise the route would
have been scrapped by now, wouldn’t it? Finally, not a single syllable
of the leaflet or website of CW YES! was written by NET or BACIT.
Geoffrey Bennett, Chair CW YES!, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
01-November-2002
Gordon Wheeler
Gordon........How much longer are you going to call that disgusting
eyesore a wildlife haven? Go and have a look for yourself. It was
always put aside for future transport uses, so, you anti brigade shot
yourselves in the foot by buying a house before finding out this obvious
point. When the tram is running I can bet you will all use it.
robert, nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
01-November-2002
he's got it
"There are still a few people who seek to rubbish the environmental
qualities of the CW corridor" Has Mr Wheeler got it? Rubbish is the
main environmetal assess of the corridor.
The bin Man, medows |
|
|
|
|
|
01-November-2002
Mr wheeler
Can I ask why the CW yes leaflet was rubbish, presumably it contained
information similar to that from net on the strength that it might
be accurate researched fact. Secondly perhaps the Protrammer you have
outed was not the person but I could not comment!!! Thirdly can I
ask ENTs view of intergrated transport what do they think are the
most viable solutions for improving the links to and from the city
from south of the river. CQD is the ENT route which they know wont
get funding so forget that as an tram option for this prolem. How
do these fit in with expected traffic growth. It would appear that
ENT do agree more transport space is required if so what should it
be used for.
Burke, West B |
|
|
|
|
|
01-November-2002
Risk to FLOOD bank
It may have passed public notice but the CW route will run on the
Wilford Flood embankment - protects Wildord and West Bridgeford. NET
are proposing this with at this stage no formal consultation with
the Environment Agency. This is they tell us is the environmentally
better (Cheaper) option that simply replacing the Great Central Bridge
across the river. Mr. Prescott did promise no development near flood
backs.
Soon to be flooded, Wilford |
|
|
|
|
|
02-November-2002
The Tram Debate
In response to the comments made by Gordon Wheeler and "The Rambler"
I would like to point out that whilst the Ramblers' Association (RA)does
have some concerns about parts of the proposed tram route in terms
of minimusing its environmental impact, it has never made any blanket
objection to the proposed tram route along the disused railway embankment
adjacent to Wilford and Compton Acres. Notts RA strongly supports
the provision and use of environmentally friendly public transport
and is in favour of the Nottingham Tram project. Notts RA has at no
time given any official support to the "Environment Not Trams" group,
and any claims or suggestions that the RA is an ally of ENT are not
true. Our own Area Countryside Officer is continually monitoring the
situation and the RA will continue to make its own representation
directly. www.ramblers.org.uk
Notts RA Publicity Officer, Nottingham |
|
|
|
|
|
01-November-2002
Tram antis' non event
As the person who came to observe the non event at Compton Acres (and
I am not Geoffrey) I can refute the claim that I just drove away after
observing it – I actually entered the shopping centre on foot!
Interesting that they are resorting to personal insults about me needing
help, it’s a sign that they are very much on a losing streak,
so I welcome it! In fact I returned and observed the non event from
a distance about once every half hour for the next three hours. No
doubt various others did the same as me, curious to see a bunch of
odd bods pushing their lost cause. Nothing happened except that the
small protest group always seemed to outnumber the number of people
who were stopped to have their ears bent. I missed the press being
there, no doubt they alone (proportionally speaking) vastly inflated
the number of people who were around at the time. I did see them succeed
in stopping someone to sign their petition although I reckon he was
around the age of 14 or! p! erhaps less. Even if they had got a reasonable
number of signatures, the authorities always stick petitions in a
drawer and ignore them – they know that people regularly sign
petitions just to get pain-in-the-neck protestors off their backs.
Alistair Darling will already be aware that ALL the people named on
the latest ENT leaflet that I have received appear to live immediately
adjacent to the route. So they are aware that the protestations about
the environment are completely hypocritical. By the way we are on
an Internet discussion group in CW Yes and people keep popping up
that I’ve never heard of, so we must be outnumbering the antis
now, especially given my observations of the ‘team’ at
the non –event.
Observer, Nottingham, UK |
|
|
|
|
|
01-November-2002
Well done Mr Bennett
Well done to CW yes it must take some courage to raise your head above
the parapet and take on the nimbys whos sole aim is to imtimidate
the rest of the locals for their own purposes. It is clearly galvanising
the local population and more CW suppoters appearing on this site.
I read recently how wildlife groups had tried to get a naviable canal
(an industrial transport route) closed after nearly 200 years to save
the wild life. I am not surprised at their suggested support, I will
perhaps set up my own group called save the brown RAT, because of
my own fears over their local habitats.
rodent boy, ruddington |
|
|
|
|
