BBC - Nottingham Have Your Say

Just to let you know, we're no longer updating this site. More information here

18 July 2009
Accessibility help
Text only

	BBC Homepage England

»	Nottingham News Sport Weather Travel News Entertainment Features In Pictures Faith Robin Hood Groundswell Saving Planet Earth How We Built Britain BBC Local Radio Site Contents
	Contact Us Like this page? Send it to a friend!

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

Top | Have Your Say Index | Home

Buildings we hate!

Rebranding Nottinghamshire

Smoke-free city

BBC Nottingham website
London Road
Nottingham, NG2 4UU
(+44) 0115 955 0500
nottingham@bbc.co.uk

About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy