The tram debate - have your say

This page exists as an archive. If you would like to discuss this or other local topics or issues with other visitors to BBC Nottingham website, please visit our new message board.

	31-December-2002 Old track, new trams David of Nottingham appears to suggest a tram to Arnold at least partly off-street. I suppose the town will eventually be served by a ring road guided bus (the hospitals link). It is true the tunnels on the Nottingham suburban railway at Sneinton, Thorneywood and Sherwood still exist, but little else of the railway does. The station sites have long been built over. Ironically the railway closure to local traffic in 1916 was brought about by competition from electric trams. Lenton station on the Midland bit the dust in 1911 for the same reason. But the A60 and A614 are traffic corridors too modest for a priority park-and-ride? The City Council appears to prefer heavy rather than light rail for Gedling village and Radford-Trowell. Surely track and platform capacity at Nottingham Midland station are limited, even for services less frequent than trams. A tramline could leave the existing rail track from Gedling and run on-street through Sneinton to assist eastern area r! egeneration. A pity the curving Great Northern viaduct from Sneinton Hermitage to Weekday Cross was demolished as recently as 1999. Its segregated elevation might have been some use. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	30-December-2002 Message forwarded Don't worry George. I've forwarded your message on to a private email address I have for an ENT committee member. Steve, Beeston

	30-December-2002 Reply to AW > NET looked at trolley buses and rejected them but I hope they will one day again look at areas that they may be suited to, i.e. areas that are too hilly or built up for trams e.g. Mapperley.............................. The hill didn't stop Victorian trams up Mansfield and Woodborough road. The main issue in that route would be most of the running would be on the main roads, and there just isn't the space these days (buses and trams would just be competing). That being said have they considered running a line along the old local rail route (City, Sneinton, St. Annes, Thorneywood, Sherwood, Daybrook), since quite a bit of that is in tunnels which still exist. This could connect the city up to the A60/A614 roundabout (perhaps via Arnold), and with a park and ride it would reduce traffic coming in from the north. David, Nottingham

	30-December-2002 Sent to Stop the tram, but they have now blocked their address. Does anyone have a contact for ENT? - or have they gone underground?-----------"Dear Sir I note that you claim in your recent newsletter that "...We have heard from the Department for Transport that they have been overwhelmed by the number of letters received and because of the volume will not be able to respond individually...." I find this quite surprising in view of the facts that Government departments are not normally desposed to such remarks and that there is now very little (16%) public opposition to the tram as proved by the recent survey. Could you please substantiate this claim? As you are aware I expected substantiation of your claims regarding the environmental bodies. I note that no recent claims have been made regarding this issue, however, I shall be checking with the department of Transport as to their exact response to you. George" George, Clifton

	30-December-2002 Beestons Bus service Having travelled by bus along the Himalayas and in Soviet Bulgaria I now feel that our bus service to Beeston is approaching those levels of overcrowding. Whatever must the overseas visitors to the University think of us? These low floor buses are supposed to be fully accessible to disabled and to people with prams or pushchairs but my last few experiences would say forget that. The driver today was kindly allowing on elderly mobile people only once we left Slab square and people were giving up their seats to stand crammed in to the point that the driver had to repeatadly ask passengers to move back for safety reasons. This is not an isolated case, everyone I speak to says the same..... I find it incredible that people can say we have an adequate bus service..we don't and things will only get worse. We need the tram as soon as possible. S.B., Beeston

	30-December-2002 Trams and trolley buses In response to DW Hardwick, there are lots of reasons why trams were chosen over trolley buses. I say this as a bit of a trolley bus fan myself, but there is no denying that trams are better. Modern trams can: * Carry more people; * Are more attractive to car drivers; * Are more energy efficient; * Generally run off the road where they won’t get caught up in traffic; * Offer a much smoother ride (compare walking along any type of moving bus to walking along a moving tram); * Provide level access for wheelchairs, kids’ buggies etc; * Are roomer (wider); * Only need half the number of overhead wires (as the rails provide one side of the electrical circuit).... I would disagree about trams breaking down – they very rarely do so. Also trolley buses only offer limited manoeuvrability when on the wires, especially where you have more than one lane of traffic in each direction on a busy road. You don’t want to be going on and off the wires the whole time a! s it is time consuming. Once trolley buses are off the wires and start to use their onboard generators, they are of course as unattractive and inefficient as ordinary diesel or hydrogen cell buses. NET looked at trolley buses and rejected them but I hope they will one day again look at areas that they may be suited to, i.e. areas that are too hilly or built up for trams e.g. Mapperley. AW, Nottm

	29-December-2002 Another Alternative Anti-trammers have also proposed another alternative:- A heavy rail idea which would cost at least 6 times the tram, involve demolishing dozens of houses, a listed building and Beestons best pub. It would take land from the Attenborough nature reserve and the finished item would have about a tenth of the impact of the tram. But it's main asset - it does not go through Chilwell! It goes near me and through Long Eaton but the two councillors don't consider a station for us plebs to be worth it. A.M., Toton

	28-December-2002 Navvy Road Navvy Road - that brings back memories! I used to travel along that line every day to school. The real name is "Navigation Road" but locals call it Navvy Road and it's the first stop out of Altrincham. Yes your observations were almost correct. The two tracks through Navigation Road are independently owned by National Rail and by Metrolink. Both are single track and are completely independent of each other. The National Rail line carries mineral traffic (limestone & coal) to I.C.I. at Northwich - and has done so for at least 70 years. The heavy mineral trains could not go on to the street tram sections for reasons put forward by AW. The powewr for the trams comes from the National Grid and so is generated at the already existing power stations such as Radcliffe on Soar. Steve Barber, Beeston

	29-December-2002 trams Can anybody tell me why on earth trams were chosen over trolley buses? Having visited and worked in a number of continental cities where both are used I have noticed the following: 1) Trolley busses require less infrastructure than trams (only overhead wires, no rails) and are therefore cheaper and faster to install with minimal disruption. 2) Trolley busses are quieter and vibration free compared with trams as they run on pneumatic tyres not steel wheels on steel rails. 3) When a tram breaks down or comes off the rails (a not infrequent event) it causes considerable congestion and stops all service whilst it is jacked up and towed away since those behind cannot pass it. Nor can it take an alternative route to by-pass obstructions such as road works or a damaged section of track. If a trolley bus breaks down those behind can pass it. It also has an auxiliary engine that enables it to pass any 'dead' sections of cableway or take an alternative route to avoid obstructions thus providing continuity of service. D W Hardwick, Wollaton Park

	27-December-2002 Darren,Aspley You are talking absolute rubbish. It hardly warrents a reply at all. robert, nottingham

	27-December-2002 Tram and train tracks Dear Bob Price of Cardiff, Careful what you sat to anti trammers about alternatives! They have over the past few months come up with ludicrous alternatives like hydrogen buses which are one sixth the energy efficiency, get stuck in jams and are still buses which are unattractive to most car users. Or they have come up with silly routes which go nowhere near anyone lives and are therefore unworkable. Ah but seriously, thanks for your input, you tell ‘em! As for Darren, ordinary standard gauge (1435 mm) railway vehicles cannot travel on standard gauge tram tracks because of the flanges on their wheels. The gauge of the tram would have to be I think over 10 mm less for the ordinary trucks and locomotives to run on them (anoraks - please confirm). The old Glasgow trams were designed to do this so that railway deliveries could be made to industrial area via tram tracks but it caused a headache for the tram operators because axles etc were non standard. It even caused a head! ache for Crich Tramway Museum, as when they acquired old Glasgow trams, they had to widen then axles, before running them at the site in Derbyshire. Darren, you definitely did not see a trains on a tram track! In some places in Manchester the tram runs close to where a railway runs because some of the tram routes there run along former railways. By the way standard gauge trams can run along standard gauge railway tracks so in the future, somewhere in the world, we are likely to see trams using railway lines – but not vice versa! AW, Nottm

	27-December-2002 Tram Extensions It is unfortunate that the anti tram campaigners don't offer another solution. The comment that "we have our cars and busses" does not solve the fact that the roads are filling up and cheap rapid transit systems are a solution for the future. Alas the short sighted town planners of yesteryear seemed hell bent on building on any disused railway tracks wirth the result that few towns and cities have the capacity for trams in the 21st century. Nottingham is luckey that they can get a system built. Evidence from elsewhere in the UK have shown property along the lines rise in value, car journies fall and the demographic spread of users is far wider than those on buses - people really do leave their cars at home. Look at the evidence from others systems in the UK and you will see positive results in every case. So an alternative please Mr Anti. And cars and buses have already been proven not to be the answer......... Bob Price, Cardiff

	26-December-2002 Coal trains I went to see me mate in Manchester. We got the tram from his stop to Old Trafford, I think his stop's called Navvy Road or something. When we were waiting a massive coal train came through. Me mates mam says it's for the power for the trams. I've seen some waggons that look the same at Basford crossing. Does this mean that we're going to get massive coal trains going along Noel Street? I think that'll be too noisy and dangerous. Darren, Aspley

	26-December-2002 Rubbish Tramworrier - thanks for at least crediting us with knowing the facts. Unfortunately too many have listened to the ridiculous scaremongering stories circulating. Such absurd statements by BCT as "...it will devastate the lives of hundreds of old people" and BCBRA stating that it will terminate at Midland station are mild compared to "90 foot high pylons down the road", stories of an old lady terrified because she understood that she would be homeless within 3 months and a small shopkeeper believing that he would be ruined when his shop was demolished ....Rumours started by malicious people with their own interests. That is the reason BACIT & CWYes! were formed - to re-assure people that these stories are ...RUBBISH. Unfortunately too many, especially amongst the elderly and other vulnerable sections have been manipulated by people with few scruples and vested interests. A lot of this rubbish is still believed and it is this causing stress and ill health not the true facts be! hind the tram. We went into a retirement home along the route and linked to a retirement home in Croydon. The residents were much assured and we have been invited back. I hope that by next Christmas all the rubbish has been dispelled and those spreading it feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I wish you all a happy and informed new year! Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	24-December-2002 The Tram Tramworrier sounds like they are scripting a "B" movie. Evil v Good. Only intelligent reasoning of the facts and honest debate, NOT scaremongering by anyside will avail. Nellie F, Not A Worrier, Beeston

	24-December-2002 Jims law JC do you agree with Jim that for every pound we put in locally we get five back? Or have you any evidence to disprove this? Steve Barber, Beeston

	24-December-2002 JC vs Jim Will someone please translate JC's gobbledegook into language which we can all understand?-------Jim are you trying to say the tram is justified by avoiding the deaths of 625 people (500*1.25 ) or 1,800 ( 30* 48*1.25 ) ?------- What are these figures? Christopher, Wilford

	24-December-2002 Happy Christmas How can we have a happy Christmas with the threat of this railway over our heads (literally) with the pylons and platforms and bridges over streams. The people of wilford and Chilwell will continue to fight to save their homes and their wildlife from the public transport plague that we dont need when we are more than adequatly served now and for the furture. BCT BCBRA and ENT know that evil men will do harm while good men stand round and do nothing. They will redouble their efforts to see off the self serving bacit and CW yes. We will fight for our bussinesses and we will STOP the TRAM and fight for the right to drive we know best and BACIt may have facts but we have the support despite what the poll says. Tramworrier, chilwell

	23-December-2002 cator lane stop A tram stop on Cator Lane near College house will do more to promote the favourable aspects of the tram, as I have already argued, then having one at the middle of Cator Lane. My argument about having the tram at the Cator Lane/High Road Junction is that if the tram went that way it may cause sufficient inconvenience to road traffic that more people may be encouraged to use the tram, with the benefit of less traffic pollution for our children and an increased awareness of public transport. Having also become interested in the conduit saga, the only open water I know of at the back Broxtowe College is a large pond. Does anyone know if it harbours newts, since there will have to be some special kind of magic (mitigation measures?) if the tram is going to built and run as close to Richmond Court and Greenwood Court as proposed without distressing their residents. PAS, "Well where Children play"

	24-December-2002 Nottingham Express Transit The Positive Perceptions of Light Rail I present a précis of the Croydon Tramlink Impact study, published in the autumn of 2002, which I hope will be of interest to both the pro & anti tram campaigners in Nottingham. The most frequently cited reason for switching to Tramlink from each of the alternative modes was that the service is perceived as being faster than the mode used previously. The other primary reasons cited were that Tramlink is more reliable and more comfortable and, in the case of those who previously made the trip by car, respondents reported Tramlink is not as expensive, compared to the car, Croydon Tramlink will/has reduced local traffic congestion; Croydon Tramlink has/will make traveling locally easier for me personally; Croydon Tramlink will/has encouraged me to travel to Croydon more often. In comparison with car, perceptions are that Tramlink performs better by being: More environmentally friendly than the car; Faster than the car; Easier to get in and out of than the car; and More reliable than the car. Personal safety and reliability remain the highest priorities. This is a common theme in all public transport research. Speed, reliability and comfort were cited as the key reasons for switching to Tramlink A review of the change in perceptions for different age categories and both genders was completed. All respondents found that Tramlink had made local travel easier for them than they had expected. Respondents over the age of sixty were particularly impressed by the system. Analysis of the results across the two periods illustrates that there was a marginal increase in the positive view towards Tramlink amongst bus users. Car users expressed a more positive attitude towards the ‘personal space’ aspect of Tramlink compared with car. A review was also undertaken of the attitude of those respondents who indicated that their current main mode was now Tramlink. Those respondents who previously used the car indicated a high level of agreement with the statement that Tramlink is faster than the car. IMPORTANCE OF TRAMLINK ATTRIBUTES illustrates that the reasons for switching modes to Tramlink are: Faster More reliable More comfortable Needs less walking Cheaper Fewer changes The effects reported by the business community, with respondents report the following: Town centre retailers report increase in foot fall, increase in numbers of shoppers; with corresponding increase in number of purchases; with more up market purchases. This was reported as:- ‘…a shift from a basket full of economy products, to a trolley full of branded ranges’ Overall the perceptions of Tramlink in general have improved and there is evidence of benefits experienced by many in the retail sector. David Cockle Chartered Engineer Leewood Projects Ltd Kingston upon Thames Project Engineer, Manchester Metrolink Project Planning Engineer, Croydon Tramlink Engineering Integration Manager, CTRL/ISSL King’s Cross/St.Pancras Redevelopment Technical Director, K-SMART Light Rail Project, Kingston David Cockle, Kingston upon Thames

	23-December-2002 The Tram Debate - Merry Xmas To all those who have argued intelligently, and even to those who haven't, A very Merry Christmas to you all. May the New Year bring better transport. Now, would anyone like to get out from behind their entrenched positions and have a game of football? ;) The Insider, Nottingham

	23-December-2002 Trams Jim,i'm not fudging anything .The fudged cost benefit case is the property of NET.I'm just pointing out what it means in hard cash on an annual basis. JC, West Bridgford

	20-December-2002 JC JC stop fudging. If you have any influence with ENT then do something useful & get us these missing documents! Jim, Beeston

	20-December-2002 JC & JIM I can see Jim's arguments and they make perfect sense. The lives saved at £1m each are only a part of the equation. JC I'm afraid I always find your train of thought very difficult to follow. George, Clifton

	20-December-2002 Trams Jim are you trying to say the tram is justified by avoiding the deaths of 625 people (500*1.25 ) or 1,800 ( 30* 48*1.25 ) ? Either way I can’t make sense of your argument and i'm sure the tram can't be justified on this basis. JC, West Bridgford

	20-December-2002 ENT Yet again we have claims by ENT that they have letters supporting their cause, this time from the Dept of Transport,no less. OK lets see the evidence. Gordon Wheeler are you out there? If they are as like the other letters not produced then ENT stop waffling. Your cause is lost. robert, nottingham

	20-December-2002 Soft benefits Yes JC human beings are soft. They are the ones who will benefit by not being killed in quite such large numbers on the roads. These are significant sums so is the misery caused by road accidents, ill health caused by air pollution and time wasted by skilled people sitting in traffic jams. The Government puts a value on this (£1m per death) and it comes to 125% of the TOTAL cost of the tram or 500% of the LOCALLY FUNDED component. Sound economics! Jim, Beeston

	20-December-2002 Trams For clarification on the funding .For every £ 1 funded locally £ 3 is funded centrally.(25 % and 75 % ). This means that to fund the £ 500 million mortgage over 30 Years £ 12 million per annum needs to be funded locally ( and £ 36 million centrally).These are not insignificant sums especially when they are only offset against soft benefits. JC, West Bridgford

	19-December-2002 The old railway embankment I have just returned from a walk along the old railway embankment at Wilford that has been the subject of so much debate on this forum. It was the third time I have walked it since all this began and the first time in winter. I saw a few birds, but these were all garden birds which I don’t think would be displaced were a tram put along the bank. There was quite a bit of dog dirt about, but most striking was the phenomenal amount of litter. There were also some instances where people had used the area as a dump - big bags of rubbish thrown in the bushes. This might explain why a previous contributor to this forum spoke of seeing a rat on the path, although whether it was the same one I saw today I don’t know. I have to say that I am not sure I would be keen on having such an environment at the bottom of my garden. I would also say that on each occasion I have walked the ‘trail’ I have not seen anyone else there, which suggests that at present th! e amenity derived from it is minimal, and it would be better put to use as a route for a tram, abandoning the proposed footpath alongside the line in favour of extra mitigation for those living nearby. Interestingly, at the end of Barnfield, where the houses lie quite close to the old track bed, one of the houses has just been extended TOWARDS the proposed route, a strange thing to do given that various anti-trammers would have us believe that the effect of the tram is likely to be akin to the effect of the elevated railway on Elwood’s apartment in The Blues Brothers. David, Wilford

	20-December-2002 Cator Lane/High Road/Meadow Lane pas - The traffic at this junction is currently high. There are two schools and a pedestrian crossing. Most of the traffic converging here comes from High Road, Hallams Lane, Woodland Grove and Cator Lane. Only a small amount is from Bye-pass road. In other words most of the traffic originates from Chilwell and heads towards Beeston & Nottingham or is parents dropping off kids. If we get a Cator Lane stop then some of this traffic will shift on to the tram. I can't follow the argument that traffic will divert away from tram routes - it's just not logical. Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	19-December-2002 A desperate plea from a desperate organisation The ENT newsletter said".....The ENT group is voluntary and entirely made up of folks with full time commitments. We would greatly appreciate assistance from people who could spare a few hours in the day to undertake some activities to help our case...." So PLEASE is there a webmaster out there who believes in the future of road transport and NIMBY groups. BCBRA & ENT are now getting desperate. Jim, Beeston

	19-December-2002 Costs The latest blurb from ENT states"....What would have been the answer if those questioned knew how much it is going to cost? " I'm sure that if the opinion poll had stated that "for every pound found locally (not entirely from council tax) we all benefit by £5" (thanks Jim) then not 16% would have opposed the Wilford route - more like 6% or less. I look forward to seeing these interesting details. Full marks to ENT for obtaining the full report at last, that must have been tricky. We put it up on our website for all to see over 4 weeks ago - the day after it was released! Since then the BACIT website has been updated a further 5 times. I see the front page of the ENT site has been changed but the bulk still contains such discredited statements as "Significantly reduce the value of many properties along its route, most of which will be subjected to the noise, light and disruption, but will be too far from the planned stations to derive any benefit" The discussion page has been! deleted - it contained almost entirely pro-tram comments. Steve Barber, Beeston

	19-December-2002 ENT claims ENT in their latest newsletter claim: "...We have heard from the Department for Transport that they have been overwhelmed by the number of letters received and because of the volume will not be able to respond individually...." Your last claim proved to be unsubstantiated, so I shall insist that you produce the evidence for this one. Let's all see in a public place (e.g. your web-site) a statement from the Department for Transport that they have been overwhelmed. Looking forward to a prompt reply. George, Clifton

	19-December-2002 Trams, sewers and roads I refer to the stream conduit between Cator and Bramcote Lanes, and also the storm water sewers under Lower and Fletcher Roads, where I understand the water table is high. Will the Environment Agency be liable to pay for a proportion of the resulting betterment with sewer/watercourse diversion? What happened in Croydon when the tram was responsible for the diversion of a main sewer under front gardens – was this Addiscombe Road? Further to the comments by Drew on the local newspaper, I was amazed by the opinion column of the Evening Post last week on the A453 (Tuesday December 10). The writer said the Clifton tram would “not reduce the load on the road between the M1 and the {Clifton} estate”. He then said the future East Midlands Parkway rail station at Ratcliffe “will take some Nottingham-bound traffic off the road – but only a small percentage”. What a load of cobblers on both counts. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	19-December-2002 Wildlife, Wilford and the tram In answer to Christopher of Wilford, Notts Wildlife Trust do not express favour to the trams, but instead want electric/hydrogen cell buses to improve transport in Nottingham. They support this impractical and expensive technology because they are especially concerned about nature conservation at Kings Meadow and along Wilford embankment where the trams would impact. But nor will they endorse a tram along the Trentside at Wilford (CQD), a point ENT will never mention. CQD has a fair whack of enthusiastic support – mostly from people living along Wilford embankment for whom Queens Drive is a tram dumping ground. For as long as ENT think they can fob the Clifton tram onto QD, they ostensibly profess to support trams in principle. They have never expressed any firm ideas on bus promotion, any more than detail of how QD workers will use the trams, since they live miles away from any route. So much for the ENT/wildlife alliance. ENT’s last two newsletters claim that hundreds of people handed in protest letters bound for the Transport Secretary to Ken Clarke 3 months ago, and hundreds more afterwards sent prepared letters in response to a further canvass. This sounds remarkable since there are only 220 houses immediately adjacent the proposed tram route in Wilford, and the recreational use of the embankment is very sparse. And the antis forgot to mention only 16 per cent of locals definitely oppose the tram didn’t they? The campaign against the tram from the Wilford embankment comedians gets more frenetic and corrupt. Why the councils next Spring should scrap the Wilford route just to appease a SMALL number of people full of contradictory and poorly-argued nimby rubbish, I don’t know. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	19-December-2002 Wilford Andy Walpole of ENT and yours truly have an argument going in the Evening Post letters column. Some of the ENT people take my own words, or those of NET, and try to turn them round to their advantage. The argument now used by Andy is that Wilford is of interest only to a minority of people living outside the area, or, in other words, it is an unpopular tram destination. Therefore providing a tram for Wilford is an unwise venture. How much better it is to put a tram down Queens Drive to serve workplace destinations. CQD = QED. The Wilford embankment geniuses do not appear to consider where people live, or how they would get to the tram stop at the start of their journey (miles away, sporadic, individualistic, travel patterns, so the car is favoured and this won’t change). Of course ENT don’t consider the point, because they will not admit that Wilford/Compton Acres to the city centre is a major traffic flow, linking where people live to where they (usually) want to go.! ! Every letter to the Evening Post against the Wilford tram, without exception I believe, has come from someone whose back garden abuts Wilford embankment – and out of this, mostly from the Compton Acres side. Add on a few more uninformed people and we reach the dizzy heights of as many as 16 per cent outright opposed to the tram. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	19-December-2002 Cator Lane stop Question to BACIT & NET- If the tram runs down Chilwell High Road entering via Broxtowe college instead of Cator Lane, the latter of which is by far the msot environmental friendly and healthier option, have estimates been made of the expected increase in motor traffic flow, pollution and noise down Meadow lane and its expected impact on the health & learning of the 200+ infants atttending meadow lane, also possibly to a lesser degree those attending College house School: the future of Nottingham's prosperity! pas,

	19-December-2002 Tram – letters to newspaper I see that a local paper is starting to print lots of anti tram letters after a long period in which there were more pro tram letters, which was reflecting the general high level of support for the proposed tram routes. Why are they doing this? Presumably to shift newspapers in the short term. How cynical. All the antis arguments have been well and truly trashed, and an opinion poll shows that their views are not popular. Yet the paper prints regurgitated old rubbish from the antis. Well, it makes me even more likely not to buy the paper. I will look at it on-line and ignore any pop up adverts. The Manchester Evening Post has supported tram extensions in that city. Doesn’t the local paper realise that if more people use the tram, they will shift more papers? You can’t read the paper when driving and its hard while standing on a bus (although quite easy while standing or sitting on a tram!). I have always been suspicious of journalists and their superficial attitu! de! s and I can only say that the paper’s activities make me suspicious all the more. Drew, Chilwell

	19-December-2002 3 feet high stops Tracey - I'm not sure whether yours is a genuine contribution, but I think you'll find Steve said that only the Manchester trams (the first of the new generation) have 3 feet high stops. The others are 20cm high. I can barely believe I'm having to type this! Stanley, Basford, Nottingham

	19-December-2002 A few rumours Once again a few rumours seem to be circulating, let's correct them; Tracey & Mandi - As AW said Manchester's trams are unusual in so far as they have high floors throughout, Nottinghams will have low floors throughout and be the only UK trams with this feature. This is excellent news for elderly people, disabled and people with prams or pushchairs. There will be no high platforms at the stops and you can now see this for yourself along Radford road (not yet completed). BACIT mebers have travelled every inch of the UK tramway systems and we do know what we are talking about. C. Air - you are correct about this stream and it is still partially open through the Broxtowe College grounds. NET intend to culvert it and effectively build a longitunal bridge over it. There may have to be side-entry manholes as was the case on line 1. Concerned & Mandi, it shall be entirely up to the bus operators which buses are taken off if any. A quick calculation shows that the hourly capacity o! f ! the trams will be about the same of the hourly capacity of the current bus service - between Beeston & Nottingham. As anyone who travels this route will testify it is well overstretched at present. By 2008 the buses will not be able to cope, there will be a massive employment site en route and the trams will produce a modal shift from cars. Therefore it is most likely the bus service to Imperial Road could well disappear but all others remain with at least their current timetable. There could well be local services to link the tram to places such as Beeston Rylands, Inham Nook, Toton and Stapleford. This has happened in Croydon where service T3 to New Addington has become the most reliable service in London. So the people of New Addington had the worst and now have the best. Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	19-December-2002 All the tram doubters I have to admit that i dont live where the tram is to be built but i cannot beleive the negative reception the tram gets whenever it is mentioned. I have been to Manchester, Sheffield and Croydon and actually seeing the tram on the streets makes the city look more impressive to tourists. There may be many that cannot see how great the tram is for nottingham (especially the group of people who deprived West Bridgford of a tram) and their minds cannot be changed, but if Nottingham is to be taken seriously as a major european city, insalling a tram network is one of the ways forward. At the end of the day, altough there is strong oppostion at the moment, by 2010, Clifton, Beeston and Chilwell will all be benefiting from a fine mode of transportation. John Collins, Arnold, Nottingham

	19-December-2002 Evade Not Talk website update ENT are clearly ailing. They've now taken their discussion board down as it was becoming too embarrassing having it filled with pro-tram comments. Perhaps soon Mr Wheeler (such an ironic name) will be able to visit we Basford folk by tram. Stanley, Basford, Nottingham

	19-December-2002 Tram - latest ENT offering This is the text of the latest ENT newsletter, apparently the 15th (!), almost every bit of which I consider to be inaccurate! Environment Not Trams Newsletter, December 2002. Merry Christmas everyone. The NOP survey says: Nope I don’t want a tram! What is ENT about? We have been formed for over 18 months now - remember that leaflet drop from NET in July 2001. A lot has gone on since then - we are still actively opposing the Clifton via Wilford tram route. So what are we about? ENT is opposed to the destruction of a local haven for wildlife; ENT supports public transport development and the development of systems to ease freedom of movement; ENT is not anti tram. It supports tram systems where they can be sympathetically installed, do not devastate the environment and where they can fairly be shown to be cost effective. Thanks everyone! We were able to hand over two great packs of signed letters to the Department for Transport. Residents objecting to the Clifton via Wi! lford route on both environmental and economic grounds have signed hundreds of letters, in addition to those sent directly. We have heard from the Department for Transport that they have been overwhelmed by the number of letters received and because of the volume will not be able to respond individually. In their response to the ENT chair the Department said "Ministers are aware of your group’s concerns and we have taken note of them and they will be taken into account in the assessment process once the promoters submit their final appraisal documents.” So the clear demonstration of wide support that you have helped us provide has hit home -this is a serious issue. Help please! The ENT group is voluntary and entirely made up of folks with full time commitments. We would greatly appreciate assistance from people who could spare a few hours in the day to undertake some activities to help our case. If you can help, please give Gordon Wheeler a call on 945xxxx. The N! ET opinion poll. Did you see the recent article in the Evening Post reporting on the findings of an NOP opinion poll commissioned by NET? Convinced? Did NOP question anybody around here; we’d like to know? The ENT team now have the full NOP report and will be bringing you some interesting details from it shortly. In the meantime consider this: Out of 2,058 people questioned about the possible mute to Clifton, only 990 approved. We make that only 48% approved i.e. less than half and certainly not a majority, significant or otherwise. This little lot of research cost £20,000 and was considered a ‘gamble'. What would have been the answer if those questioned knew how much it is going to cost? It has recently been confirmed that 25% of the capital cost to fund further tram line extensions will have to be met by Nottingham City and County Councils. It is the Council Tax payers in all of Nottinghamshire that will have to pay. Yet the NOP poll was very silent on this iss! ue. What would the response have been if those questioned were made aware of the hidden cost of tram line extensions? Net balls. “I think that to do a special poll was a brave step to take”. How brave do you need to be to spend £20,000 of other people’s money? Wishing you all a good New Year. AW, Nottm

	18-December-2002 Tram stop heights In Nottingham, as you can see in Old Market Square or elsewhere on Line One, the tram stops will be about 30cm high. Trams will stop flush with the platform - no step and no steps in the trams either - 100% low floor. Manchester is different beacuse the trams also run on old railways that already had high platforms and it was cheaper to keep them that high. Oh and ENT - do shut up about the NOP poll saying 'Nope we don't want a tram" - you lot talk rubbish all the time. So what was the disapproval rate then ENT? A sorry 16% is the answer - or 82% not disapproving! Andrew, Nottingham

	18-December-2002 Tram Stops There are 2 types of tramway - High Floor and Low Floor. Modern tram design has progressed rapidly in the last 20 years and traction equipment, gears and motors are smaller, allowing a modern tram like NETs to be 100% low floor. Manchester is an older design (Opened 1992 but to a much earlier, proven design) and is High Floor hence needing higher platforms. This also saved Manchester a fortune as they reused old railway platforms on the main Bury and Altringham Routes. Nottingham will be Low Floor and that means platforms 350mm, thats 13.8 inches above the top of the rails. For full details on what you can expect at a Modern Tramstop, see http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/stops.shtml Stephen Parascandolo, West Wickham, Kent

	18-December-2002 Utitlity Diversion Services are primarily diverted so you don't have to stop the trams every time some company wants to dig them up! They are re-routed nearby but clear of the tracks. Where they have to cross under the tracks, the pipe or whatever is obviously renewed in the process (meaning less chance of a problem in the first place) and then a second duct is laid so that should a problem develop, they can dig each side and re-route the service into the second duct. Only when this needs replacing, many years later hopefully, would any disruption to the tram be needed. The tramway would not collapse if a large pipe collapsed - the Concrete base should prevent this but if it was very large, perhaps a speed restriction would be imposed. Obviously all utilities are carefully assesed in the planning stage and decisions taken on the best way of dealing with them. You are allowed them to pass under the tracks - you'd be a bit stuck if they were not! It's just some sensible precautions to avoid future tram delays. Stephen Parascandolo, West Wickham, Kent

	18-December-2002 BACIT talk rubbish Steve said that the stops aren't going to be 3 foot high. I know he's wrong. Our Darren went to Manchester and saw the stops there and they are 3 foot high. Say you're wrong now cause our Darren knows - he's senn them. Tracey, Strelley

	18-December-2002 Stop the Tram I got one of these Stop the Tram leaflets through my door as well. I thought great - someone has started a group which might do something now that BCBRA have given up and BCT are just being plain ridiculous. But alas no it's the pro-tram group ...again. At least they're now trying to do something FOR Chilwell so if we're going to have this tram let's at least have it so we can use it. Will the busses be taken off? Concerned, Chilwell

	18-December-2002 tram down cator lane Drew-Thank you for your support. Apparently the water course that is conduited between Bramcote Lane and Cator Lane use to run along the end of the gardens of properties on the north side of Brookland Drive (deep & wide enough in some places to swim in I hear). This was replaced some 20-30 yrs ago with a conduit. I do not know where. I also assume that the water course (and hence conduit) ran (runs) at the back of properties on the East side of Gwenbrook Avenue (Richmond Court), under the Chilwell High Road finaly emptying into the trent somewhere near Beeston Marina, any further information would be most welcome. I also note that many of the properties with the notram signs are multiple car owners, any signficance? C. Air, Beeston

	18-December-2002 Tram stop at Cator Lane Mandi is out of touch. She talks of a tram stop having three foot high platforms. Clearly this lady has never been to Croydon, Sheffield or Birmingham – or for that matter, the tram stops that have already been constructed on line one. Tram platforms are about 20 cm high, i.e. about the same as the slightly raised bus stop kerbs that are currently being installed in Chilwell near where she lives. Manchester is the only exception, the tram running along former railways lines which had train services until the tram was put in. They’re still less than the height of a parked car and like the low platform variety they allow easy straight on wheelchair access. Please don’t talk of buses Mandi, you obviously never get on one otherwise you would be gagging for the tram. I bet you’ll be one of those people who’ll be looking for an excuse to turn pro tram, when you realise you were completely wrong about it. AW, Nottm

	17-December-2002 trees the only people who have been wasting paper are those I idiots at BACIT, who have put a Stop the tram leaflet through my door telling me we should ahve a tram station with its 3 foot hig platform at CAtor lane. We dont want the tram so wont be needing your stop you fools we have cars and busses. Mandi, Beeston

	18-December-2002 Tram down Cator Lane C Air and PAS have both been on this site recently suggesting that the tram go down Cator Lane in Chilwell instead of down the side of Broxtowe College. I have to say that I agree. That was the original route idea anyway. Given that nearly all the people on that part of Cator Lane which was to be affected still display anti tram posters (apparently some still believe that it will go that way – how out of touch can you get?), one may as well campaign for it to go this way anyway! That way more of Chilwell gets served by the tram. Regarding the underwater conduit, I thought that this ran underneath the valley corridor from Cator Lane to Bramcote Lane. This underused area is wide enough to have a tram route, an underground stream, sewers, etc as well as a path and cycleway above and more space for recreation. I wasn’t aware of any underground stream under the Broxtowe College ‘new’ route. These artificial underground streams tend to be large enough for a! ccess by humans along them anyway. Drew, Chilwell

	18-December-2002 Tram route I love the idea of the trams and I am pleased with how the work is progressing. As I live in the city centre, I can see the tram lines are going down very quickly, which is good. I am annoyed at the routes chosen in & out of the city. For example Hucknall have a fantastic train line, and a great bus service. However, Stapleford/Sandiacre have only a bus service which can take up to an hour to get to get into the city. Also, the tram connection nearest to Stapleford/Sandiacre is apparantly going to be Toton which is a very awkward place to get to unless you have a car. Why were towns chosen for tram lines, which already have great transport? Maria Muttick, Nottingham City, England

	18-December-2002 Water conduits C Air - NET are fully aware of this conduit, we raised the issue in one of our meetings with them. Their engineering consultants are currently working on detailed plans of the proposed route and the details will be available for public consultation in the spring. Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	18-December-2002 Following Manchester's confirmation of a massive expansion of it's tram network, London now has plans see http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/news/index.php A deciding factor has been the success of the Croydon system (the one most like ours). To quote the unofficial site: "Firstly, good news on Passenger Numbers (These figures are rough as they are read from a graph): 2000 - 16m (6m Predicted); 2001 - 17m (12m); 2002 - 22m (20m). It can't be stressed enough how much of an effect Tramlink's success has on the future of trams in London. Croydon was the only London borough which achieved increased economic growth with a reduction in (road) traffic levels." So much for the NIMBY arguments that trams are detrimental to business and don't reduce road traffic levels. Steve Barber, Beeston

	18-December-2002 Chilwell extension Can anyone inform me how NET proposes to lay the tram lines over the (substantial?) underwater conduit (Severn Trent Water?)that lies along the proposed route of the Chilwell extension: between Cator Lane and Broxtowe College. I understand that services cannot lay beneath tram lines for reasons of access. I suppose a damaged or blocked conduit presumably could pose severe subsidence problems if it was not repaired immediately. I am also particular interested to know if the conduit will have to be rerouted (where and at 200-300 M in length?) and at whose expense and inconvenience) or would it be simpler and cheaper to take the tram, as it has already been convincingly argued, around College House School and up Cator lane, reducing the traffic pollution (and danger) that infants at College House and Meadow lane Schools have to currently endure. The sooner we have a tram down Chilwell High road & Cator Lane the sooner less children and pedestrians who travel by foot & bicycle do not have to suffer respiratory problems due to traffic pollution. C. Air, Chilwell

	16-December-2002 Doug's confusion I see that in tonight's Post Erin Mc Daid of Notts Wildlife Trust is making it very clear that he is against the road "improvements". We know that ENT are in favour of them. Notts Wildlife are too mature to make the mistake of stating that nothing should be done so they must favour environmentally friendly transport - heavy & light rail. The only feasible light rail alternative to building more roads to the south of Nottingham is the CW route. Therefore, either Notts Wildlife are very niave or these letters from them supporting ENT never existed. Are you less confused now Doug? Christopher, Wilford

	17-December-2002 Trams I don't konw if anyone else has noticed this - but there seems to be a real lack of public transport going East/West accross the city. I live in Sneinton and work in Bridgford, to go by bus would take an hour in rush hour, changing in town. By car it takes 15 minutes. I would have hoped that to maximise the polution reducing effects of trams they would place them where currently there is a lack of connections. Alternatively perhaps the trams will free up buses to fill this role. The City itself is obviously a centre for transport, however everyone who has to cross the river knows that this is also a MAJOR route where demand for road space out strips supply! Ruth, notts

	16-December-2002 Excrement Not Trees Have ENT recently chopped down any more trees to produce more leaflets which no-one has the slightest interest in? I've not seen any recently even though Mr Wheeler's parting words were that this was his intention. Christopher, Wilford

	13-December-2002 Looking good - Darling Despite all the road money announced recently there is a lot of good news for light rail... three new lines in Manchester and one in Liverpool. This statement was made about our scheme:............."19. And in Nottingham, where the first phase of the Express Transit System is under construction, and is due to open next year. I accept the East Midlands study’s recommendation that plans for a second phase should be developed." (Alastair Darling).........So it's all looking very promising now, it's a question of the paperwork being finalised (ongoing) before central government finance (75%) is agreed. That leaves 25% to be found locally over 30 years. Some (if not most) of this will come from the private sector. The worst case scenario is that for every £1 we put in we get £5 back in social benefits. Even that sounds like an excellent deal to me! Steve Barber, Beeston

	13-December-2002 The Tram London in Gridlock no never. The traffic moves, yes it does, it moves at about 5 mph. So when traffic in and around Nottingham and the 'Burbs gets to as high as 5 mph we can still shout from the roof tops "NO GRID LOCK HERE". On yer bikes Nellie F, Not yet Gridlocked, Beeston

	12-December-2002 I am now very confused I read in the post last night that CPRE and Friends of the earth, and various other national boddies are against the expanded roads programme in the east mids. The paper made special reference to A453. Now we know ENT are in favour of an improvements to the 453 as Mr Wheeler has been in the post to say so. He also has said that some of the bodies that were quoted are against the tram and support ENT. ENT have refused to prove this and of cousre the Ramblers have completely removed all credability from this claim in the absence of any evidence. Now this confuses me do these bodies reject the fact we have transport problems, and reject all infrastructure changes which has to be considered an unrealsitic position, which therefore errodes all there transport positions. If they support ENT do they also support them in their support for raod improvemnets, or does this cast more doubt on the ENT reports of their views. Doug, Carlton

	12-December-2002 Mr wheeler Mr wheeler I dont know if you look at this board anymore, but can I ask what is ENTs view of the planned road improvemnts in the east mids particularly the A453 at Clifton. How do you see this integrating with a city wide transport policy. I ask this as your group is called environment not trams I would expect you to have a view. SA, Notts

	12-December-2002 Reply to George on trams While I can understand your frustration about the U-turn on transport, different eras called for different means of transport. Up to 1900 or so trams and local trains were the means of getting around the city, but they were outcompeted by buses. Buses were fine until we have the problems with traffic congestion in the city and the high levels of pollution. Until the 1960s there were three routes to the south but two of these were closed diverting all the passengerrs onto one line and hoping people would use the then new M1 (of course no one then could forsee the situation today). Now we find a jammed M1, poor connections to the A1 and overexpensive trains with poor journey times due to lack of investment in better railyway and lack of space for more services................................. More roads may help alleviate some of the rush hour traffic problems, but as was shown by the M25 construction/improvements, it doesn't take long to fill them again as even more people w! ant to use their car. Nor does road building make unreachable cities reachable. The more places that can be reached from Nottingham in reasonable time the more jobs there will be for Nottingham residents and more prosperity for the city. Business want access to other markets and so at present locate in the South which is getting too expensive for them. Nottingham would be ideal if only it had decent transport links. It takes almost 2hrs to reach places like Leeds, London, Coventry(!), Warwick(!), etc and more roads won't improve the journey times, faster public transport (trains) will. This has to be part of a city orientated transport system and the tram is a good option for certain routes, particularly those that encourage the cars of incomers to be left at the city borders.................................... While road improvements are needed how do you intend to improve the roads leading into the city (ask if Lenton, St Annes, Radford, etc residents mind if they have their homes knocked down while the existing roads are made into dual carriageways and the ring road triple laned)? Homes in Lenton cost 100,000 upward - that's going to be one expensive scheme even if there weren't a huge number of NIMBYs to that idea (and quite rightly). And it doesn't work - see Birmingham........................................ If you have the impression trams will take us back to the 1960s, go visit a place with trams. Sheffield is fairly close (though Croydon is supposidely more like our system will be if you can make it) and our trams will be newer and better. The trams in Sheffield look pretty modern and a single trams is certainly quieter than a single car, yet carries more people and most people are happy once the tram is running. I don't think the road lobby are so much about wanting more roads as their right to own a (or several) cars wanting to zip from A to B at huge speed irrespective of everyone else; their dismay at the lack of service and cost (eg. long distance trains) of public transport being the driving factor in that attitude.................................... With congestion set to increase, finite space for roads and pollution, something must give eventually. Let's hope for some alternatives so those that really must use the car can. David, Nottingham

	11-December-2002 Kindrid spirits Sue wrote:"........... However if everyone uses tram great it will make it even quicker for those in a car. ........." Congratulations Sue you've mastered the anti-tram art of self contradiction!.....May I suggest that you visit the open forum where you will find a kindrid spirit---Mr Smythe-Wilberforce. Stephanie, Nottingham

	11-December-2002 BOB can i add that I agree with bob I was canvassed by one of the loacal parties at the Chilwell by election and I was told there are no transport problems in west Nottingham so the tram was not required. this same person told me she had been told that London was near grid lack 15 years ago (when she lived there) and the traffic still moves now so it just showed the forcast were wrong. Never let fcats get in the way of a good policy. MF, Chilwell

	11-December-2002 Tram Farce Of course some of these fears about the tram are false but some of them are definitely right (flames and pylons and noise etc) as I have heard them off this board. Also some are definetly put round by the antis to scare people after all when have they let facts stop there claims. And on that subject any news of Mr Wheelers letters from the Environmental boddies he does not appear to be able to prove the support of (re the ramblers) SA, notts

	10-December-2002 Tram etc surveys The NET poll was conducted by a national professional organisation and looked at a small but representative sample of people over a large catchment area for the proposed tram routes. This sounds quite appropriate. The Conservative Party survey on the workplace parking levy had a very large sample, but was not conducted by one of the five leading national pollsters, and nearly 80% of the questionnaires were unreturned. That sounds like mass apathy. What’s the good of asking people if they enjoy paying taxes, especially a new tax, anyway? By the time the WPL is introduced, Line One will be in full swing, and the other two routes given the go-ahead by the Secretary for Transport. Since the trams are popular with most people, and the only politicians against are localised nimby backers, it would be unwise for the policy of any party to be anti-tram. It may not even be prudent for local antitram councillors to stick out their necks. Wait awhile, and see which way the wind! b! lows. RA Catchpole, Wilford

	09-December-2002 “Insider” wonders if NET is paying people to write nonsense on here in order to discredit any rational anti-tram sentiment. – I can offer some reassurance here. I had several anti-tramers call at my door during the Chilwell by-election last year including a politician from an established political party. All the arguments listed (save perhaps for the one about trams being responsible for recent earthquakes) were used during that campaign period. The latest concerns listed here about undesirables invading the suburbs and the one about 10000ft electric poles were certainly voiced by one of the, I presume now defunct, anti tram groups. We also had people telling us that the trams would be so silent that they would injure children but so noisey that they would deafen elderly people. We had the point made by Hilda Jenkins i.e. that these overcrowded trams would not be used. We had the scare stories about the electric rain clouds and the burning fuel tanks. The last few months hav! e been a living hell in Chilwell. I live in constant fear that I or one of my children will open the door to one of these merchants of doom. Bob Mountfort, Chilwell

	09-December-2002 CCTV on trams Stephen I got the reply to your question regarding CCTV on the trams from NET within the hour The delay in posting is due to me:........ There are no CCTV cameras inside the tram itself. However, we will have conductors and the chance to put cameras in later. The CCTV along the tram sides is visible by the driver only, but it is recorded and can be played back later. These cameras replace the need for wing mirrors. CCTV on the tramstops is linked to the control room 24 hours a day......... If I were a burglar, paedophile or mugger then I would regard trams and their viscinity a hazardous area. Perhaps these people have a legitimate reason to object..will they be represented at the public enquiry? Steve Barber, Beeston

	09-December-2002 Easing Congestion * Four day week * More flexitime * Work from home one day a week * Companies move out of city centre * Pedestrian bridges over the road * Traffic light timings adjusted morning & evening to allow quicker flow * Put back all the lanes on road that have been taken out Congestion has been made worse to justify the need for a tram - political! However if everyone uses tram great it will make it even quicker for those in a car. Sue, Nottingham

	09-December-2002 Queens Medical Centre Nick Palmer M.P. reports in his electronic letter to constituents that he had a meeting with QMC chiefs at which various issues were raised including:”…………………. Car parking remains awful, and is likely to stay that way till the tram hopefully relieves some pressure….” So please lets get on and build it. Jessica, Bramcote

	09-December-2002 The Tram Debate Some people are ALWAYS against any kind of change. Whenever something new and different is proposed they object to it, whatever the potential benefits. The anti tram protesters are a classic example of people afraid of change. At first they make valid comments and ask sensible questions: - will people use the service, - is it safe? - will it affect property values? When these are answered they start to raise bizarre and ridiculous objections, such as: - trams stalling on hills, - trams bursting into flames. It doesn't matter how patiently and carefully people like Steve Barber answer their objections, they just raise more - they are afraid of change. Long term residents of Beeston have been through this before. Around 12 years ago plans to turn Beeston shopping centre into a pedestrian area were announced. Local shopkeepers were outraged at the proposed changes, despite evidence to the contrary, they were certain that the change would be a disaster. Meetings were organised, letters written, just about every shop in Beeston had a petition objecting to the proposed change. There were dire warnings of Beeston centre becoming a desolate wasteland of boarded up shops and a haven for criminals and drug users. Of course this never happened, Beeston town centre is booming, and it is almost impossible to find anyone who objected to the proposal. But they are alive and well - now it is the tram that they are objecting to. Colin, Beeston

	09-December-2002 Tram system lacks design flair. A real opportunity has been missed in Nottingham with the quality of the infrastructure currently being built for the tram. The new bridge that crosses Canal Street is the first in a catologue of urban design mishaps. Do we have a key gateway to the city, an architectural icon, (note a new bridge in Newcastle recieved this years Royal Institute of British Architects Building of the Year Award) NO. We get a slab of concrete and steel connected to a 'flyover' of ugly concrete which connects the tram lines to Middle Hill. No design invention just a cost engineered solution. Around the city a number of stupid changes in level have appeared between pavement edge and roadside. Look at the top of Middle Hill, so far 3 kerbs have been built on top of each other to try and reach the pavement level - it still is not there. Presumably a standard ugly pedestrian barrier will appear soon to finish off the mess. Limestone pavements now also have attractive blacktop edges - beautiful. Perhaps most importantly, where have all the trees gone. Areas of the city centre, once lush with mature trees are now desperate wide hard surface areas, this is bad. I am sure the contractors will say that they were in the way - perhaps they should visit Brusells, where trams run through avenues of trees, which overhang the lines, they also have beautiful streets with public art and great contempoary design. Nevermind, I look forward to seeing more Victoriana in our street furniture for the tram. I wait with baited breath for the station designs to appear. Fed Up!, Nottingham

	09-December-2002 Unpopular, irrelevant The ENT tram objectors come out with some serious false claims and fiction in the Evening Post, occasionally requiring correction by NET staff or political leaders. Hence the scolding by Cllr. John Taylor in the Post 06/12. Of course the anti-tram people are obstreperous. Poor lambs. Majority support for the tram. Only 16 per cent against it. Only 12 per cent think it’s wrong to build the tram on the old rail route. I cannot begin to wonder why or where these people live. They are wasting their time, and their homes will go up in value anyway because of the tram, better than if it were not built at all. Mark Denison, Wilford

	06-December-2002 Cator Lane stop It is a shame that NET has decieded not to take the tram down Cator Lane (or/and) Woodland Grove. Since it surely could have obviated the daily school run and substantially reduced the associated exhaust pollution for many of the children who attend College House and Meadow Lane Schools in that area. It could also replaced the dirty old buses that ply that route. Further more the proxmity of the tram would also act as an educator to the potential car drivers of tommorow, of just how efficeint, clean and easy to use good public transport is. How can we move away from the car culture if we condone the daily car run and do not replace it with something more sustainable: good public transport, a good opportunity lost in this case. Unfortunately the alternaive route that has been choosen is in very close proximity to two old people complexes, requires compulsory purchase of several homes and will make a larger environmental footprint than is actually neccessary with loss of wil! dlife, trees etc. Plus the loss of privacy and introduction of noise into several tens of homes on currently quiet cul de sacs that border the alternative route. The question I ask NEt and your contributors is once the tram is running alongisde Broxtowe college, will Meadow lane become a rush hour rat run for commuters travelling into the city who would have orignally used Chilwell High Road? I am thinking of the increaed pollution and traffic danger that the first School pupils of Meadow lane, some 200+, will have to endure when they go to and from school. To have had the tram down Cator land would have essentially made this potential rat run far less attractive and probably reduced the traffic and associated health risk (asthma) to the youngsters at Meadow lane below presnt levels. It is not a stop at Cator lane that is needed but one alongside college House School. pas, Chilwell

	06-December-2002 CCTV In Croydon, at least 1 CCTV camera is provided at each stop. Images suitable for use in prosecutions are recorded 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year from every camera. Controllers can choose which cameras are displayed on a bank of monitors or can select for them to flick through them all regularly. Controllers have full control and can zoom right into any image with great clarity even in low light. They can also pan the camera wherever they need to (except areas programmed to be excluded for residents privacy). A dedicated BTP team are based at the depot and at peak times for vandals, it is not uncommon for a Police Officer to be monitoring the CCTV in the Control Room. Croydon is looking to experiment with on tram CCTV transmitting live to the control room - I thought NET may have this feature already? - worth checking. In any case, you will have conductors which will bring a number of benifits - I don't believe they are practical or necessary in Croydon but they certainly will deter the yobs. Stephen Parascandolo, West Wickham, Kent, UK

	06-December-2002 Earthquakes My God Insider you're right. Haven't Manchester suffered loads of earthquakes lately? When did trams start there? We MUST stop the building works IMMEDIATELY and forget any ideas of having more trams. I don't want to live in an earthquake zone. Tracey, Aspley

	06-December-2002 Modal transfer Sue you haven't yet met anyone who will transfer from car to tram - well I know several. A member of our family lives in Beeston and works in Forest Fields. She used the bus yesterday and got back at 7.00 - to a ruined dinner. Usually she uses the car and it takes a minimum of 35 minutes and anything up to an hour and a half. To get to a meeting on time with any degree of certainty means leaving early and usually hanging about for half an hour or chancing it, arriving stressed out and not in the best state to conduct business. Once the tram is running it will take a predictable, stress free 35 minutes and cost a fraction of the running cost of a car. She will have considerably more leisure time (about 5hrs per week) and be better off financially. A definate modal shifter! Steve Barber, Beeston

	06-December-2002 nottingham Sue. Why do you think Nottingham will be unusual or different from any other city with a successful tram? robert, nottingham

	06-December-2002 Reply to Sue Sue should consider that only one tram route opens next year (though it will serve two traffic corridors), and only two more routes are planned. Reducing car journeys will really hinge on the take-up rate of car spaces visible in the 5 car parks for Line One. These traffic corridors, with the M1 also served, are the most overloaded in the Nottingham area. Well, the proof of the pudding, then.... Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	06-December-2002 Tram comments -2 I have been reliably told by NET that the CCTV at tram stops is actually on all night - 24 hours daily. Strewth, that was a fast response to my question. The editor of this website published my posting in a matter of minutes, and other people replied quickly. Well done! Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	06-December-2002 Tram- Sue’s crazy logic Sue’s logic is typical of anti trammers. Just because SHE doesn’t know someone who travels to work along a tram corridor, she has convinced herself that no-one will switch from their car. Sue, the news is that I have met plenty of people that COULD switch to tram from car, even if you haven’t. And furthermore, they say that not only could they switch, but many say they WILL switch. Please feel free to comment when you actually have talked to some people who could use the tram. I am sure many of them will say that the WILL use it. AW, Nottm

	06-December-2002 Whats the answer the sue Sue Assuming you accpet there is a transport problem in nottingham, what is the answer to conjestion if the tram wont work. More roads?? if so where Doug, Carlton

	05-December-2002 The proof of the pudding will be in the eating! No matter how many bus users take the tram, congestion will not be eased unless considerable car owners use it. Yes many people keep quoting statistics in Croydon and Sheffield but I remain unconvinced for Nottingham. I have still not met a car driver who is going to change to the tram. Mainly because most use their car for their job or do not go on routes the tram will be taking, or go out straight from work in another direction. We shall see!!!! Sue, Nottingham

	05-December-2002 Tram comments The arguments used by the anti-trammers living next to the proposed track are emotional and unproven, eg the assertion that their homes will plummet in value. There are also plenty of contradictions, by people who want to stop the trams altogether or dump them elsewhere. The antis form a conclusion, then invent some “reasons” to justify their unobjectivity. Someone please tell me – is the CCTV at stops on all night from midnight to 6 am or switched off? Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	05-December-2002 Comments on this site Insider...mmm....I wonder if these comments are real. I find it very difficult to say because we have heard some equally outrageous remarks from real people and at BCBRA meetings. I honestly thought the 90 foot high pylon one was dead. However, we at BACIT like to ensure the facts are known so I shall answer all the comments made recently: Hilda - I think your comments have been answered - If I were up to no good I would avoid the tram with it's conductors and CCTV linked up to the central control room where a police officer will be on duty. You contradict yourself perfectly with your vision of overcrowded trams which no-one will use.......... Gerald, I'm sure that you're real because I'm sure I've met you. I remember you complaining bitterly about road tax & fuel duty for the 4 cars you own. You think that a professional organisation such as NOP fix their results? - I doubt it!........... AH yes we often get pseudo research from your neck of the woods. The rubber membrane (resiliant wheels) has been used in tram design for years and there is zero incidence of it bursting into flames - I have asked the countries top experts. The sound levels will barely increase according to loading and the tram is powered and designed to easily carry 200 people with spare specification. The current produced by a single tram i! s a maximum of 660Amps. Our domestic wiring carries a current density of about 5A/mm2 - without getting at all warm and the cross section of two rails is about 10,000mm2. This gives a current density of 0.067A/mm2 or 0.75% of that in our domestic cables. The higher the current density the greater the heat generated. Even allowing for the poorer conductivity of steel there is no way even with 4 trams in a section, the rails will ever get hot...... Mandi, I too have kids and my greatest worry is that they get knocked over by a car or van. Cars & vans do drive on the pavements up our road (Foster Ave) Trams will not deviate from their predicted path. I am happy for my children to visit Beeston Square crossing the tracks. There are no harmful radiations from a d.c. supply system and trams do not have fuel tanks. The platforms are not 3 foot high more like 1 foot of raised kerb.....Have I missed anyone or anything? Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	05-December-2002 Safety of trams I was sorry to see how uninformed AH is regarding trams. Germany pioneered the way using trams taking up to 200 passengers back in the 1960s. The "rubber membranes" in the wheels - correct name resilient wheels - we pioneered by operators in the US as far back as 1929! Vehicles are designed to carry these loads - or is AH going to avoid using an ordinary trains? These scare stories are put about by malicious people who cannot or will not see the benefits of a modern tram system. Go and speak to people in Manchester or Croydon or Sheffield or any of the other 72 systems which have opened worldwide since 1978 (7 in France, 12 in the US). Geoff Bannister, Porlock

	05-December-2002 Trams Trams are so much nicer than Trains or Buses. I love Tramlink that wisks me from Birkbeck, (Near Beckenham, Kent,) to Wimbledon in half the time it would take to use any other public transport. Nottingham Needs Trams! Andy Barber, Anerley/London

	04-December-2002 APOCALYPTIC TRAMS Reading the predictions of doom and gloom that the trams will bring (comments from Insider, Mandi and AH)I suppose it's only a matter of time before we're told that they will also cause floods, droughts and plauges of locasts! However, I am indebted to The Insider for putting me right about the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake. I'd always believed that it was caused by the San Anreas fault, but obviously I was wrong - it was really all down to the vibrations set up by the trams! If NET can get on with construction quickly, we might even have an anniversary earthquake in 2006 in Beeston. Insider, please promise one thing, that you'll go to the public enquiry and use this as an argument against the tram. BEV, BEESTON

	04-December-2002 getting silly It's getting silly on here. All you non technical scared flappers, go somewhere else. "Fuel tanks" "burning wheels" "90ft pylons" "electric shocks" "litter collecting in tracks" "house prices falling" "vibration damage" and anything else unrelated to the experience of other cities and countries. You have got to be taking the p***. Mind you it is amusing and very funny every time someone shows themselves up to be ill informed or just thick. robert, nottingham

	04-December-2002 city centre policeing It angers me so much to constantly hear the higher echelons of nottinghamshire constabulary moan about lack of manpower in the city centre too many bars too many trouble makers blah blah when for example i often spend most of my social time in our great city and to see police officers probing every back streets like BLOOD HOUNDS for cars with out of date TAX disks parking offences is to be honest taking the micky like normal they target the british motorist when they should be policeing ON FOOT the areas where the trouble is IE trinity and the market square the sooner they do this the sooner the notts public will appreciate there efforts Nigel, Nottingham UK

	04-December-2002 This is terrible Are you now saying that the trams require electric cables to run down the street. This is terrible what about concerns to do with health risks (mobile phones are supposed to give you brain damage what will the tram do with high woltages) what about the risk of shock when it rains. It will be worse than dropping a hair dryer in the bath. This madness must be stopped. Its all very well you tram people making fun of non technical people like me I have kids to worry about, I have heard the stories from the tram campaigners 90ft pylons. I have major fears I dont want 3 foot high platforms along the road at the stops it will not be safe. MANDI, Beeston

	03-December-2002 Wheels on fire It seems to me that some of the correspondents here would do better to get their facts straight before firing off their comments. Wheels on fire? No, I don't think so. Set fire to the fuel tank on the tram? Trams don't have fuel tanks. If trams were dangerous why would cities in many other countries be investing heavily in them? The answer is that trams improve the quality of public transport, reduce car usage and parking, and increase shop takings in city centres. Have a look at Croydon for just one example. Stuart Johnson, Peterhead, Scotland

	03-December-2002 Trams in general I live in south London near to the Croydon Tramlink line and have also travelled on the Sheffield Supertrams. Both systems are very good, comfortable and well used by a public that was not at all sure about them when they first arrived. Nottingham, the only thing you have to fear is that the NIMBY brigade will slow down the building of your system. Get the lines built and running as quickly as possible and even 90% of the NIMBY brigade will think they are wonderful within a few weeks. One branch of the Croydon system took over the old BR line between West Croydon and Wimbledon which used to have a 45 minute service that rarely had more than a handful of passengers. Within weeks of opening the 10 minute service by tram was getting loadings of over 50% on most services with journey times that matched or bettered anything on offer before (rail or bus). Nowadays you can't get on a Tram in Croydon without hearing someone saying how much better they are compared to the buses and trains that people had to use in the past. Don't think of Trams as being the 1920 type vehicles that used to be in city centres, what you will get is a true 21st century transport system that will NOT catch fire or stall on hills even when overloaded I can asure you all. Chris Jones Chris Jones, Wandsworth, London

	03-December-2002 Tram plants I'm beginning to wonder if NET is paying people to write nonsense on here in order to discredit any rational anti-tram sentiment... I've got hilarious visions of paedophiles fleeing the police in high speed trams, with police pursuit vehicles dodging the huge sheets of flame spontaneously flaring from the tram's wheels, green goddesses scattered left and right in the darkness of an apocolyptic post-tram Nottingham... At least Smythe-Wilberforce is obviously fictional, but this recent stuff... scary. By the way, did you know that the rumbling of a tram is at exactly the right frequency to generate a harmonic vibration that will induce earthquakes within a 20-mile radius of the source of the vibration? (though it takes up to 5 years before the sound bounces back from the earth's core). So look out for major earthquake destruction in the next 6 years and remember where you heard it first. The Insider, Nottingham

	03-December-2002 re; overloaded trams Don't you think someone might have looked into this - NET, Bombardier, The Railway Inspectorate?? What a load of absolute garbage! 1) Trams are designed to hold 200 people and in practice could hold an awful lot more without any danger. 2) Trams will not get stuck or slip! Trams continued running in Sheffield during heavy snow - even up those hills - when buses and most cars had given up! The design of the vertical alignment will not allow trams to get stuck! 3) There is no fire risk in relation to the polymer coated rails. 4) No 'huge electrical current' will pass through them anyway. The trams use 750v DC and the return current is very small due to regenerative braking. 5) There are no fuel tanks on the tram - its powered by electricity!!!!! So no, the tram will not stop, slip or stall when 'overloaded' , there are no 'huge currents' and no fire risks! Stop making up absolute rubbish and getting people like Mandi to believe it! And why, can I ask, did you not put this point to NET first, before posting such garbageous piffel on here! Andrew, Beeston

	03-December-2002 Economic experts Gordon Wheeler, having failed to prove his environmental claims, has now become an economic whizz-kid. I've no doubt he'll soon be able to quote such eminent bodies as Price-Waterhouse, No 11 Downing St and the EMF (or is it IMF?). However, we'll first want to see documentary evidence before anyone listens to another word he says. Christopher, Wilford

	03-December-2002 Fletcher Road Rubbish I've heard some rubbish on this forum but this latest coming from Fletcher Road must take the biscuit. Tram lines and wheels spontaneously combusting? How often does this happen in Croydon? Did the trams have to stop running diring the fire dispute? If the people from Fletcher/Lower Road are to be believed then the whole of Croydon must be deaf, devastated and now incinerated. Is this true? Concerned, Chilwell

	03-December-2002 Wheels on fire This is the first time I have been to this board having been advised to look by a friend. I did not realise that the trams were so dangerous and could potentailly catch fire I think this is a very important issue. It is vital with such risks that BCBRA and ENT STop the tram from being built. What would happen if the wheels caught fire near the fuel tank on the tram, what would happen if this occurred in a residential area near a school, the fumes the risk to the kids the delays, it does not bear thinking about. We all need to write to our MPs on thsi issue. Mandi, beeston

	02-December-2002 Good point george ENT have not been able to show support for them from the green boddies. The poll shows ENTs views are in the minority. ENT proposed a more expensive less value for money route then moan about waste of the public money on things that are not good value. ENT have lost all credabilty now. SA, notts

	02-December-2002 Costs and crime -CW One quarter of the cost of building future tram routes must be raised locally, and the preferred method by the councils is the workplace parking levy, rather than council tax. The levy will be introduced long before the two proposed tramlines get built. Gordon Wheeler says in the Evening Post that NET should tell people the real costs of the trams. The day has yet to dawn when Environment Not Trams does likewise. ENT advocate building the Clifton tram along the defunct Queens Drive route, rather than through Wilford. This would cost an extra £26 million, more than the purely local contribution to the cost of the superior Wilford route in the first place. Or is ENT now against trams in general? The CW tram is an excellent investment. There is no other transport improvement that would give a 40 per cent social return on capital. With regard to crime, we might see less of it in Wilford post-tram. I don’t need to regurgitate the NET reports to the councils. I was head of neighbourhood watch here in Wilford a decade ago, and cases were reported of loners knocking about on the embankment top at 2am next to the housing south of Wilford Lane. And there could be an end to dumping and torching abandoned cars next to the toll bridge, on the Wilford side. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	02-December-2002 Overloaded trams Hilda mentioned overloaded trams. I wonder how much work has been done into how sluggish a tram is with 200 people on board. Will it stall and slip thus blocking the road? I also suspect that a heavy tram will create an unacceptable amount of vibration due to the rubber membranes in the wheels being crushed. These membranes will of course become distressed and generate a huge amount of heat. This is a fire risk, especially when running through quiet residential areas. The rubber compound surrounding the rails could easily catch fire especially when we consider the huge electrical currents involved. BCT were very careful to note the loadings of the trams in Sheffield before taking the noise samples. I'm sure all this is significant. AH, Fletcher Road

	02-December-2002 Poor losers One of the Wilford tram objectors says in the Evening Post that the supporters of the Wilford and Chilwell trams are a minority. This is untrue. Gordon Wheeler says part of the cost of the CW tram will have to be found from Council Tax. But this unproven scaremongering would apply to the Chilwell route as well, so is ENT now attacking all the tram routes – how about the Queens Drive route as well, with its extra cost? It would seem appropriate that a City political leader should answer the question of finance, rather than the tram company. The fiction and distortions of the ENT nimbies, a bunch of spoilt brats defending a heap of dog excrement, has been corrected many times in the newspaper. No doubt what upsets these poor darlings is the simple fact that their showing in the opinion poll was a measly 16 per cent. Mark Denison, Wilford

	02-December-2002 TRAMS, CRIMINALS AND CROWDS Hilda Jenkins of Chilwell has all the makings of a fine anti-trammer. Apart from spouting nonsense, I see she has quickly learned the trick of self contradiction. First she tells us that the trams will be overcrowded, then in the next sentence states they will not be used! Which is it to be? I think you must be the same lady who was on a very overcrowded train from Nottingham to Beeston last week who was complaining bitterley to anyone and everyone how useless the railways were to allow such conditions, and then finished by stating "there's no wonder nobody uses trains much". BEV, BEESTON

	02-December-2002 Squandering money The anti-tram people seem to have changed tack somewhat. Previously we had Gordon Wheeler et al shouting for the more expensive option of CQD - never mind the cost but it means that our precious embankment is saved. Now they realise that they've lost that one they are saying the better option costs too much and we don't want to pay. Please make your mind up, you don't seem to mind wasting public money on a proven failure but won't spend it on a proven success. George, Clifton

	01-December-2002 Gerald Smythe-Wilberfarce hey up Gerald. It's your old mate Leftie Dude. How are you. I hope you are out of the clinic for good. I have missed your messages on these pages. You still make me laugh. I bet NET are "really worried" about what you can tell us, hey Gerald. Go on give us another laugh. Still your best mate. Leftie Dude, Beeston

	30-November-2002 My disbelief... I am shocked, actually more than shocked, that people sush small minded, uncultured, idiotic opinions, and therefore people, still exist. I thought that the following was some kind of sick joke "Is there not a danger that these trams will attract paedophiles, muggers housebreakers and other undesirables who will be able to travel quickly from the inner city out to the suburbs? With the buses the driver has at least some control over who is using the service." All I can say is "What". I do not understand, and not for my lack of intelligence or understanding, but simply because there is no logic or reasoning behind these claims. Where on earth did the person who put this on the notice board, get such aubsurd ideas? Undesirables will be able to travel quicker on trams... umm, well may be the huge sandwhich boards drapped over their necks with the tick boxes 'mugger' 'paedophile' 'thief' and 'other' may stop them from getting through the doors? Bi, Beeston

	30-November-2002 Trams In reply to Hilda's concerns might I point out the desirability of Criminals using the tram for transport rather than adding to the large amount of car crime by nicking a motor. I might also add that the cameras on the trams would give a good indication of "who nicked what when" a la crimewatch. BIGFATDAVE, Beeston

	30-November-2002 Riff Raff Well said Hilda I've always maintained exactly what you say. These trams will only serve to attract all the riff raff, layabouts and burglars into our beautiful suburbs. They will hold up the traffic and will be useless. The only reason the opinion poll gave the result it did is because it was fixed and my comments never get published - they make too much sense and NET are afraid. Gerald Smythe-Wilberforce, Compton Acres

	30-November-2002 hilda jenkins hilda, you say a load of rubbish. If you read the NET web site you will find that the trams will have a driver (obviously) and a conductor. Now isn't that going to increase the security of children and elderly. I wish people would first of all get the information from the appropriate sources before spouting out utter rubbish on here. robert, nottingham

	30-November-2002 TRAM Is there not a danger that these trams will attract paedophiles, muggers housebreakers and other undesirables who will be able to travel quickly from the inner city out to the suburbs? With the buses the driver has at least some control over who is using the service. Why should our council taxes be used to allow criminal to travel in comfort? Law abiding car users will find their journey to work delayed by overcrowded trams which will be a danger to children and old people. The service will be a white elephant and will not be used. Hilda Jenkins, Chilwell

	30-November-2002 Save money with the tram! A recent study in Berlin shows that a single kilometre of bus lane saves the City EU40 million to EU70million per year. Conversion to tram increases the saving to EU100 million per year. No more arguments about the effect on Council Tax, then. We in Newport can only look on in envy. Julian Sadler, Newport, Mon

	29-November-2002 Jim's comments For God's sake Jim learn to spell CHARDONNAY. No there is no merger but I think you'll find that our aims may start to converge - a fair deal for all and a system to serve Beeston and Chilwell. Mr Williams and I try to have constructive dialogue, if you want to see a mud slinging match Jim then I'm sorry to disappoint you. Steve Barber, Beeston

	28-November-2002 Mergers What is going on? One minute Messrs Williams & Barber are like two childish politicians bashing it out on this site then....silence. Suddenly I see in the Post that BCBRA are talking about compensation packages - instead of their usual mantra --- and the council are listening! Has there been a massive Chardonet social party somewhere and is there to be a merger between BACIT & BCBRA? The old boy network I suspect alive and kicking. Any business deals done? Or have your wives taken over?Comments please from at least one of you. Jim, Beeston

	29-November-2002 Cator Lane stop NET's consultants are drafting detailed plans for both routes. I believe that the current thinking is for there not to be a stop where the tram crosses Cator Lane. We at BACIT believe there should be one and have identified 750 households & an old peoples complex who would make use of this stop. We are leafleting all 750 homes and have given a presentation in Greenwood Court. Only with public support will we get this stop. If you want to help please post a message here (NET monitor this site) and send us an email - info@bacit.org .Also letters to the Evening Post would not go amiss letters&poems@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk. Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	28-November-2002 Cllr White's proposal Thanks AW - this sounds like quite an interesting idea. I've no doubt that these councillors, being elected people, will have thoroughly researched this. I wonder how they get around the problem of track capacity through Attenborough and Beeston. I know there are problems but I'm sure that they will have the answer. A new station at Long Eaton would be ideal for us poor people in Toton struggling with the unreliable Barton buses - it's not their fault they're always getting held up in the traffic nearer Nottingham which means that we don't see any for ages sometimes - then 3 come along. AM, Toton

	28-November-2002 Short campaign This tram controversy started summer last year. ENT said in the Bridgford News that the fight had only just begun, an idiomatic rallying remark. Two weeks later a poll shows their following is abysmal. That was a quick campaign wasn’t it? Harry J., West Bridgford

	28-November-2002 Life is tough When politicians lose elections, they accept defeat and do not whinge. Otherwise the public would have a poor opinion of a bad loser. Life is full of rejections – and compromises. One quarter of the cost of building the new tram routes will be raised locally. Developer contributions are possible at the redeveloped ROF site, but not along the Wilford route. The Workplace Parking Levy can provide the funds, without raising Council Tax. If 1 in 15 households were interviewed for the opinion poll, that sounds a high enough sample. I dare say a majority against the tram could be contrived by restricting a poll to people living next to Wilford embankment, or for the antis to hold another stage-managed public meeting, where at the end people are asked to vote by a show of hands. Nearly twice as many people say they will definitely use the Wilford tram as those opposed to it. RA Catchpole gets it wrong over tram timing from Wilford/Compton Acres to the ROF site, changing tra! ms at the rail station – I reckon 15-16 minutes. But he is right to say Wilford is a good place for the workers to live and commute by tram – it is the closest middle class housing area to the site. Of course property values will rise in Wilford with the tram. Mark Denison, Wilford

	27-November-2002 Secret Polls "How do you conduct a survey of 2000 people in seceret?"---- With great difficulty when the first person you ask is the local M.P.'s election agent's wife and the second is chair of an anti-tram group! Inside knowledge, Beeston

	27-November-2002 Tram survey JC is wrong when he says that the NET / NOP survey was conducted in secret – news about it was widespread. I even asked NET about it. Most surveys are conducted in a similar way – its not done secretly but neither do survey organisations don’t go the streets with a loud hailer! I think this must have been one of the most anticipated surveys ever because news about it spread like wildfire. Ah well, here we go again, you can just guarantee that anything an anti trammer says is laughable! JC’s assertion that the (alleged) effect on council tax ought to be shown on the survey form is amazing bias. If that was the case, then information ought to be included on the form about how trams transform cities for the better and reduce accidents and pollution. JC I have news for you – survey questionnaires are for collecting information, not spreading propaganda! What’s more JC, NOP wouldn’t allow NET to ask biased or leading questions – it ! would damage their reputation. This survey has been a great big loss for the anti tram movement. Please accept it. Drew, Chilwell

	27-November-2002 Tram- the rail alternative For MA’s info, Councillor John White has created the rail idea with a Councillor Bell (from Stapleford I think). It involves sending trains around a loop from Nottingham Midland station, through Beeston and Attenborough and round onto the line through Toton Sidings. Then it goes over a new short connecting line onto the Wollaton line and back east into Nottingham, via the very bottom bit of the Robin Hood Line. There are a number of new stations proposed and a ten minute service in each direction I think. They reportedly had some well drawn displays based on Ordnance Survey maps but no handouts. What happened to the GNARDS rail proposal which would partly have done this (and gone east of Nottingham too)? AW, Nottm

	26-November-2002 Funding JC you seem to think people are all scrooges! If so then how come 75% "supported the idea of a locally funded financial assistance package to help the traders along Chilwell Road/High Road"? I think that you underestimate people's integrity and intelligence. Steve Barber, Beeston

	26-November-2002 JC How do you conduct a survey of 2000 people in seceret. However you have said in your last mail they asked the wrong questions so presumably they asked the wrong people. Or perhaps becuse it was done in secret they have just made it all up, which may explian the result in favour. ajh, bullwell

	26-November-2002 The last rites Once you've lost the poll and the argument then the only thing left to do is to rubbish the methods. The last acts of a dying organisation. RIP Jim, Beeston

	26-November-2002 Trams I do agree with The Insider ,unfortunatley the tram seems an inevitability. Funding continues to be a concern and if questions had been included in the survey showing the direct impact on Council Tax there may well have been a different view shown. As was pointed out the survey was conducted in secrecy and I wonder if we would ever have heard about it if the result was the other way, still the way the questions were asked ,as prepared by NET that was never likely to be the case. JC, West Bridgford

	26-November-2002 Anti-trammers cannot recover The opinion poll shows a majority of people within the catchment areas of the two proposed routes support the tram. The majorities are certainly not outstanding, but still sufficient for NET to claim a mandate. The long-term trend favours the tram, so the number of antis and undecided are unlikely to increase. In the CW case at least, the antis are much too far behind. NET must necessarily have a low profile as public servants. It is for the pro-trammers to pour hot wax and vinegar into the nimby wounds. RA Catchpole, Wilford

	26-November-2002 The rail alternative AW wrote "..........local councillor has now proposed a ludicrous scheme to use the over stretched rail network...." What is this scheme please? I've heard about a few but none that go near the tram-route...details please. MA, Toton

	26-November-2002 Tram – Funding and opinion poll Insider is back and has raised the subject of funding the tram. All I can say is that the current vogue is for PFI (Private Finance Initiative) and we have to live with it. As compared to other PFI schemes, the one for the tram looks pretty good. Unquestionably, no matter what the funding, the cost of not building the tram will be more than the cost of building it! As for the NOP poll, it was taken before CW Yes was set up and before BACIT became influential (for instance, it had not organised its trip to the Croydon tram). Since then the anti groups have become moribund so the best interpretation would be very pessimistic for the public becoming more anti. Unlike with most political party surveys, this one shows an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in favour of the tram routes. Furthermore, re “undecided” people, it is standard practice to assume that they will be split in the same proportions as the “decided” respondents. AW, Nottm

	26-November-2002 Trams Once and for all...trams will make through journeys across the city centre - you could travel from Chilwell to Hucknall without changing trams if you so wished. You will not have to change at the station. This means that the journey time from Compton Acres to the old market square is approx. 11 minutes (without needing to change trams) - try doing that in a car (after parking as well!). And, try doing that in a car in 10 years time! Andrew, Beeston

	26-November-2002 Cross-city trams In my message of 22 November, towards the end I said BACIT do not tell the truth about cross-city tram services. I meant to say BCBRA, and made a typing error, for which I apologise. BCBRA have stated on a previous occasion that the Chilwell tram service will finish at Nottingham Midland rail station, which is incorrect. There appears to be a widespread belief amongst the public that trams on the various routes will terminate in the city centre. Since, from the opinion poll, even more people south of the river are apparently unaware of cross-city tram running, compared to Beeston/Chilwell residents, BCBRA are not the only ones at fault. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	26-November-2002 Gordon Wheeler Gordon.........from your silence I assume we can put an end to your letters then? I had a feeling we would not see them. I look forward to seeing you on the first tram. robert, nottingham

	26-November-2002 The Tram Poll etc. I hate to labour this point (particularly as we all know the tram is inevitable, as is its support), but those figures do not show overwhelming support! Even NET's response to the poll was suitably muted. Pro trammies have argued, rightly, that the big undecided figure shows that those people do not object to the tram - but neither do they support it. If those were popularity poll figures for political parties then the minority party (anti-tram) ought to be pretty excited about the prospect of capturing the hearts and minds of the undecided. Anyway, these days my biggest concern over the tram is its funding, though no good will come of my concern. The funding is so complicated and so well hidden no-one will ever really know the full cost of the tram to the people of Nottingham or the country as a whole. NET's literature descends into doublespeak when you examine the issue of funding (and tram braking performance, incidently). I've pointed all this! out before, so I won't go into the details. I was very amused by something I read from them about why trams' braking is better than other vehicles (though actually I don't think they say that outright, they just imply it). They cite the fact that trams brakes are electronic and operated with little force on a lever as a contributing factor as to there superior sustained performance - as if a car ever hit anything because someone's foot got tired of pressing the brake! I've only examined a few of NET's statements and arguments in any great depth yet every time I find the same spin, gloss and half-truths. It makes me wonder whether everything they say is similarly misleading. Okay, the anti-trammers do the same thing, usually worse, but NET should not. The Insider, Nottingham

	26-November-2002 Tram - BACIT and BACBRA RE AJH (of Bulwell) point: the very nice Mr G Bennett has made the amusing error of mixing up the names BACIT (Beeston and Chilwell for Integrated Transport) and BACBRA (Beeston and Chilwell Beeston and Residents Association) – we all do it occasionally. How very droll it is that the names are a bit easy to confuse but their aims are definitely not! BACIT backs the tram and always checks its facts. BACIT has a regularly updated website www.bacit.org . BACIT is forward looking. Mr Bennett is a friend of BACIT! BACBRA (or BCBRA) is different, I believe. Perhaps someone from BCBRA might like to come on-line and say what these notram people stand for, now that an absolute majority of surveyed residents have indicated that they are in favour of the tram route. Is there anyone from BACBRA left? Might they update their website for the first time in four months? We all know that it wasn’t BACIT who made silly claims about trams only going to the Midland Station. Ironical! ly! , a prominent anti tram campaigner and local councillor has now proposed a ludicrous scheme to use the over stretched rail network instead of building the tram. Guess what – their proposed trains would only go to the Midland Station! This turkey is early for Christmas! AW, Nottm

	26-November-2002 Web sites Concerned don't expect much. When you visit the ENT web-site the heading is "the latest news" - no mention of the opinion poll and the site hasn't been updated since....they gave up the fight. Same story across at BCBRA. Let's get on and build the ruddy thing! Christopher, Wilford

	25-November-2002 I taught I taw a twam! I did I did! I saw trams in Sheffield this weekend. A single tram was much quieter when in town than a single bus or a car. I assume our tram fleet, being newer, may be even quieter. Given the choice between a new road or a tram line past my house I know what I'd choose. David, Nottingham

	25-November-2002 Mr Bennett Mr Bennett, are you suggesting BACIT who pride themselves on getting things right, are telling fibs about through services. This point that trams would NOT continue through was made ages ago. Bacit said this was not true and now you say they are wrong and are lying. Do BACIT have no credabilty like ENT now, are they telling half truths to suit their own aims. ajh, Bulwell

	25-November-2002 Uninformed nonsense I see a minority of shops on Chilwell Road are displaying a picture of a tram with the caption "Not Wanted" and the BCBRA contact details. I wondered what point they are trying to make as they can no longer claim that a tram is not wanted because as they know this is untrue and would they would fall foul of the advertising standards agency. No--look closely-- the tram is not the one coming to Nottingham (and on display at a prestigious internationally acclaimed exhibition in the NEC next week) but a picture of an obsolete type. So I suppose they mean that they don't want obsolete trams ----Or is the whole thing just a double bit of uninformed ignorant nonsense----yet again? Jim, Beeston

	25-November-2002 Unprecedented statistics This debate will now start to slow down. The anti-tram people have lost - the opinion polls have conclusively proved that. Pity really I was just begining to enjoy myself! One point though - if the Chilwell Rd traders rubbish the poll then they throw away their greatest weapon that is the 75% or 7:1 in favour of paying more tax to support the traders. People asking to pay more tax is virtually unheard of and the Labour Party have avoided that over 2 elections - hence the mess over university funding. The only other example I can find is from the USA where referenda have got a yes vote for increased tax to pay for light rail (including trams). I strongly advise the shopkeepers to accept this opinion poll and use this massive unprecedented statistic to help themselves. George, Clifton

	23-November-2002 Anti trammers The poll shows the tram has majority support across the whole proposed system, and the anti trammers are fighting like wounded lions, thrashing round trying to grab at anythink they can. The wrong questions were asked in the wrong order to the wrong people. Bernard Cooper, Fressingfield

	23-November-2002 Dane I am sorry I was offensice you just made me cross. If i live in lenton and think the tram is good as it will get me to work better, i can say so with just as much right as you living in clifton and working in beeston and not wanting it. Appalled,

	23-November-2002 Dane's undemocratic flawed personal poll Dane I have looked at you argument with applalled and I agreed i think he/she is being offensive. However your arguemnt against appalled is flawed and undemocratic and therefore possibly just as offensive. If you have the right living in clifton to comment on the tram in chilwell because you work in beeston, Appalled by the same arguement has the same right if he/she lives in the city,lenton near the route and needs to get to chilwell for work to say they want the tram. They have a right to say they want it is the same as you have your right to say you dont, you just dont agree with them and that is no reason not to allow them their say. You initially said people away from chilwell have no right of comment, so applled right of reply is valid but poorly worded. Finally do the people who live in beeston and chilwell who want the tram as it will be of use to them have the right to comment if they dont agree with you. Burke, West B

	23-November-2002 Pots and Kettles and a request Oh dear. ""why should someone livng 3 miles down the road be allowed fo foist the tram on the people of chilwell"". Why should someone in beeston have the tram rejected by someone who lives in clifton and happens to work in chilwell/beeston especially when clifton is going to have their own route. Then they say someone is being offensive and then says in the next sentence say that person needs to learn to read. As a request call everyone please think before they post as the arguments are getting personal and daft and we do all have a right of comment even if we cant agree sa, Notts

	22-November-2002 A pinion pole Gordon Wheeler (whose anti-tram group represents only one in six people in Wilford) can do us all a favour and pack up producing newsletters. This nimby trash of unproven ideas, trying to dumb-down CW traffic prospects, trying to pretend CQD will enable people to get to their workplaces, telling us all a tram is going to be dangerous for speed, (even though it will follow the footprint of where a busy mainline railway once ran).... is great comedy, but is not brainwashing people at all. Most people living within the catchment of the CW tram would like to see it running and use it. Most people think it appropriate to put a tram where the railway once ran. Only 12 per cent think preserving wasteland for dog stools is more important. ENT have not been successful in capturing the imagination of most people in Wilford/Compton Acres. ENT can spoof about “hundreds” of people at a recent event with an MP because attendance was brief and spasmodically spread over 90 minutes. ! Why not hold a public meeting or demonstration instead? Steve Williams thinks the Chilwell tram will only improve journey times to the city for park-and-ride commuters by a couple of minutes. However, the tram will be at least ten minutes faster off-peak from Bramcote Lane compared to bus timings, and much better still in business hours. The opinion poll did not say 45% are not in favour of the Chilwell route. It said 30% are not in favour, and another 15% are undecided. We all know which way the latter group are gradually going to swing, and of course the same applies to Wilford. Surely Mr. Williams you are not going to tell us you can produce a poll unbiased in sampling or questions. A nimby census in Chilwell or Wilford is on a hiding to nothing. Yes, more public information and awareness is required – as on the subject of cross-city services which BACIT do not tell the truth about. A year ago 320 people attended a public meeting in Chilwell called by the anti-tr! am group. A week ago fewer than 90 bothered to turn up. It is time for the Chilwell shopkeepers and Wilford embankment objectors to negotiate with NET on mitigation – there are signs that this is coming up soon. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	23-November-2002 Appalled Dunkirk I never said that people in Lenton and Dunkirk do not have the right to an opinion on the tram route. What I did say,and if you could learn to read you would have understood, is why should we who live and work in Beeston and Chilwell have it forced upon us just because someone who lives 3 miles down the road want it? If you want the tram running through Lenton/Dunkirk that is your choice and fine by me, but if you didn't, then I wouldn't call you a NIMBY just because I couldn,t get to the White Hart by tram.For the record, I don't live in Beeston/Chilwell, I just work there. All I am trying to do is to protect my job so I can keep providing for my familly. I live in a Councill house in Clifton, so house prices are of no concern to me. I drive a clapped out Sierra and not a BMW as your pre-emptive narrow mind suggested. I found your comments rather offensive, but that is what I have come to expect from you ignorant, self opionated pro trammies. Dane,

	23-November-2002 Fluffed it. So only 16 % are against the Wilford tram. If it was GCSE, it would not be called a fail. What is it, bottom grade. Well, I thought somehow this silly tram campaign was a phoney, but not that bad. 16% that’s terrible. Give up. Pete, Clifton

	23-November-2002 Reply to Dane ENT said earlier this year that the public consultations did not give the tram company the answer they wanted on public opinion in Wilford/Compton Acres. Now Dane says the opinion poll is a fix. (I comment on both proposed tram routes interchangeably, since many attitudes are similar). As regards alleged gerrymandering of poll boundaries, we must take account of feeder buses and car parking at tram stops. If anything, tram support is underplayed, since no account is taken of future park-and-ride passengers – and it would be difficult to see how people living in settlements south and west of Nottingham could have been interviewed. There is nothing wrong with asking people living in Lenton, Dunkirk, the Meadows or Clifton about their views on the tram routes, since they have every right to use the trams. They do not have to obtain permission to do so from small pockets of malcontents situate a few feet from the proposed track. The Beeston back streets, Chilwell Hi! gh Road, Chilwell Valley and Wilford embankment are not the private property of people living or working alongside, who are going to be better off anyway from increased trade or enhanced house values. Of course people in various places have indulged in tram-tossing games, trying to fob the tram off into parallel streets, other areas or whatever. None of this proves the attitude is reasonable, or that a nightmare truly awaits the immediate neighbours of the tram. Wilford is the touchstone, not Chilwell, because of what the embankment was built for. RA Catchpole suggests 1 in 15 households were covered by the poll. Well, if the sampling was truly random (and there are a number of ways of doing that) it sounds better than interviewing everybody living within 200 feet of the route and no more (bias) or everybody within 1/3 or 1/2 a mile (far too many to interview). Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford