Is the tram system
a waste of money?
This page
exists as an archive. If you would like to discuss this or other local topics
or issues with other visitors to 91热爆 Nottingham website, please visit our
new .
30th
April 2002
Spot the RANSID!
I have come across a new term for those annoying people who object
to everything new 鈥 they鈥檙e simply RANSID - Reject Anything New, Spurn
It if its Different! We have had NIMBYs but now its time to recognise
that we鈥檝e got the RANSIDs on the tram issue. Is Judith one of those
NIMBYs that doesn't want the tram past her front door? Or perhaps
she鈥檚 just a RANSID? After all, she offers a ridiculous reason for
rejecting something new, better and different. Who in Chilwell is
going to walk for three quarters of an hour from say Inham Nook, to
Beeston rail station, to get into Nottingham, and then have to walk
up for a further ten minutes into town from the station? The train
times have very variable intervals and sometimes a good part of an
hour can pass before a train comes, and if its coming from elsewhere
can be seriously delayed. Those who don鈥檛 want our transport system
to catch u! p ! with the rest of the developed world perhaps should
go and live in the Third World. But there its usually the lack of
money that prevents any progress on issues like transport, rather
than depressingly tiresome attitudes. Of course being a RANSID could
have an explanation 鈥 like simple jealousy from those who are not
going to get a tram. Do we detect some envy from the east side of
Nottingham?
Drew
Chilwell, Notts
and in reply...
1st
May 2002
Reply to Drew It is an sad trait of the BODWIQs (Bent On Destruction
Without Question) that they have to resort to name calling! As with
NIMBY, RANCID is just another pathetically cheap insult we HIPFOLC
(Highly Intelligent People Fighting Oppression and Legalised Chaos)
can see right through. Those people who resort to such lowly mudslinging
are almost sure not to be affected directly by such new schemes and
no little of the issues. Are they suggesting we should all become
BAAs Blindly Accept Anythings in which case they should become NOCOFANS
(No Consultation For Any New Schemes) and lobby for removal of any
consultation leaving the whole planning process in the capable hands
of our beloved councils!
S. Powell
Chilwell, Nottingham
another
reply...
1st May 2002
drew, seeing as you have so much knowledge and time on your hands
to debate this topic i wondered if you would be so kind as to buy
my retail outlet of me and eliminate my worries so YOU can be the
one in the hotseat.Somehow I dont think you would have so much to
say then, you never know you could become a RANSID, as you call us.
Stan
Chilwell
another reply...
3rd May 2002
Oxygen
thieves
So Drew of Chilwell has only just discovered the concept of 鈥淩ANSIDs鈥!
He may be interested to know that the term he uses in relation to
the people who don鈥檛 wan the tram, RANSID 鈥 "reject anything new,
spurn it if its different", is a well known social phenomenon, and
has a number of variations. Everybody鈥檚 favourite is Oxygen Thieves,
which I think originally came from down under. Pretty good way of
describing people who waste their breath ranting on with unfounded
opposition. In this case its doubly appropriate because preventing
the tram will lead to more CO2 pollution. I was toold recently that
government departments and environmental projects now realise that
there is an awkward class of so and so who get in the way of all sorts
of plans these days, without givin any substantiated objections, and
that they waste a lot of resources. To me the arguments that the notram
people gi! ve! are nonsence. But I鈥檝e more time for NIMBYs (Not In
My Back Yard) than RANSIDs鈥 at least NIMBYs think they may be affected
whereas RANSIDs simply get in the way of progress for no good reason.
Mind you I鈥檓 wondering whether I have any sympathy for nimbies now
that I鈥檝e read Greg Lock鈥檚 tirade 鈥 I think he is giving himself a
lot of gyp for no good reason. Calm down, fella! Wouldn鈥檛 bother me
at all to have a tram gliding past my house 鈥 and I love peace and
quiet!
MrD
Beeston England
|
30th
April 2002
Tram
People from Stapleford won't benefit either because the park & ride
site is too far from where most people live, and the roads approaching
it are already near gridlock in the rush hour. It will only cause
more traffic congestion in the vicinity of Stapleford. We, too, have
a good rapid transit system already - in the form of an excellent
Trent & Barton bus service which runs along a bus lane.
Brenda Manders
Stapleford |
30th
April 2002
tram
As neither a nimby nor a blindly trusting pro-tram council yes man,
can I join this polarised debate and say the main reasons I am against
the tram for Chilwell are that the proposals are extremely vague and
there has been little or no consultation. I would say to NET and the
councillors behind them: Don't treat us like children. The route through
Chilwell is to give a direct connection between the rest of the line
and the park and ride at Bardills, not to serve the local area. Overall,
the whole attitude of the council and NET has been "the tram or nothing
- trust us to build it ". I'm afraid I simply do not trust the council
with its numerous vested interests in getting the tram built to pay
any heed to the real needs of the Chilwell community. Trams might
be a good idea in theory but the lines need to be built in the right
place and much other information - road pricing, funding? - is needed
to give us the full picture of what is being planned for us. James
Lawson
James
Nottingham |
29th
April 2002
tram
Chiwell and beeston residents will benefit??? The proposed tram through
Beeston and Chilwell will only benefit Stapleford, Derby and possibly
a few other out of town visitors. Beeston and Chilwell already have
a rapid transit system... its called a train!! We do not need money
wasting on providing yet another method of getting people into Nottinham,
there are buses, trains and cycle routes for those not wishing to
use a car. Maybe the "nimbies" are the ones with sense.
Judith
Chilwell,Nottingham |
29th
April 2002
Trams vs cars and trolleybuses
A lot of comments revolve around the disruption that trams cause to
raod users. As trams are meant to discourage car use, this is surely
a good thing. Do these Saturday shoppers moan about the pedestrianisation
of town centres as well, that which makes it safer for all of us regardless
of how we travel. When trolleybuses are cited as an alternative, I
expect that these same people would moan about the catenary work,
and trolleybuses emit the same magnetic fields as trams. I would welcome
trams in my home town as an alternative to buses on the Gloucester
route at least, as there are buses every ten minutes here, and lateness
is normal in spite of bus lanes. Indeed, in any town where there are
circular bus routes I would prefer to see trams, as I have been suffering
many more resperatory problems since moving into a large town, and
my doctor is certain it is the f! um! es of cars and buses.
Richard Bucknall
Cheltenham, UK |
|
27th
April 2002
Trams have always been around
The anti tram lobby must understand that they are again speaking
from a point of view entrenched in ignorance. It is only in Britain
where tram systems were scrapped, due to short sighted fads and
a reluctance to invest. Our trams were converted to trolley buses
because the tram vehicles had come to the end of their lives but
the power infrastructure had remaining life in it. Once the power
infrastructure had run out and the trolley buses were nearing the
end of the lives, the switch to diesel buses was made. Elsewhere
in the world, tram systems were constantly modernised or upgraded
to other light rail systems. I have been to cities (e.g. Berne)
where trams, trolley buses and diesel buses all work together 鈥
a horses for courses arrangement. Now of course we have the worst
transport in Europe but for once an investment is being made. Unfortunately
it is challenged by! t! he nimbies and those irritating people who
simply don鈥檛 like anything new (is there a psychological term for
this?). However, I asked NET about level of support for the Chilwell
line. Despite the fact that they were expecting the negative people
to write in more letters than would fairly represent their cause,
there were more than twice as many letters in support than against,
and the proportion later rose to an even higher level! This has
restored my faith in the ingrained decency of many people, in that
they have taken the time from their busy lives to support something
good. I have since discovered that those who are against have each
been writing many letters to the same people or organisations, so
even their current low representation is exaggerated.
Drew
Chilwell, Notts
and in reply
29th April 2002
trams in chilwell
In reponse to the comment from drew on being a nimby i am disgusted.
I run a business on Chilwell High Road and have done for six years
now, since the passing of my father,me and my family have worked
our fingers to the bone trying to survive and have suceeded, now
we employ some staff and all of us earn a moderate living only to
have letters posted to us from the council and NET saying that businesses
can relocate, due to a new tram thats going to steamroller all we
have worked for! And your OPPIONION is that we are narrowminded?
I think your the one who is that, vote NO TRAM.
stan
chilwell
|
|
26th April 2002
The Tram
We do keep getting this old "visit Croydon or Sheffield or Manchester
to see how wonderful trams can be" argument from the pro-trams.
None of these cities have been problem free when it comes to their
tram systems. Take the 'WONDERFUL CROYDON TRAM' for instance, in
an interview with 91热爆 News online, Peter Morgan, of Croydon council's
South Divisional Road Safety Committee, said there are major concerns
about the impact of Croydon's new tram service. He said: "Bus services
have been cut and diverted, and it is much harder to get into the
town centre by car." He said there were also safety concerns for
pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. If our tram was going to be cheap
to use, like in some continental cities, then it might be more acceptable
but the fares will not be cheap! The fact the operators will now
have to use old fashioned conductors, instead of automated ticket
machines, means that fares have increased before the system has
even got off the ground. People will only use the tram because bus
services will be cut, parking in the city will be drastically, reduced
(intentionally) and any remaining parking will be charged at an
exorbitant rate. The tram will force a reduction in travellers free
choice.
George
Mapperley, Nottingham.
27th
April 2002
In reply
trams in Croydon
George,
as you're aware, the article is generally very bullish about trams
e.g. "Croydon's trams are not just credited with reducing car travel
and boosting high street sales in south London suburbia. They are
also central to revamping the town's image from a maligned, concrete
suburb to cosmopolitan city-to-be." As for changes to the bus network
- well you would, wouldn't you? The two modes are supposed to be
integrated, not in wasteful competition. Unlike other businesses,
where you can still provide a full service with only a small market
size, public transport service (for all) is proportional to market
size. As far as choice goes, currently for many it's pretty much
car, unless you don't have one; the bus is not considered. The tram
will even up the choice for everyone, car owners or not. We shouldn't
expect the car option to be always the most convenient.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham
and in reply
27th April 2002
In
reply to Stanley, Basford.
I
must point out that the tram will NOT, 'even up the choice for everyone'.
No one on the whole of the eastern side of Nottingham, i.e. Sherwood,
Carrington, Arnold, Gedling, Mapperley, Netherfield, Carlton, Daybrook,
etc., will benefit from the tram, as it is NOT coming to their area.
George
Mapperley, Nottingham
and Stanley
returns
29th April 2002
Trams
in other areas of Nottingham
George? Do I hear you advocating further expansion of the NET network?
Brilliant!
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham
|
26th
April 2002
TRAMS
The hopeless fight against the Wilford tram. The decision has been
made to progress the Clifton-Wilford tram route. This tramline cannot
be built fast enough for my liking. What are we going to do with all
these nimbies along the embankment? They think they speak for the
whole of Wilford/Compton Acres. Most people here could not care less
about preserving the 鈥渘ature trail鈥, superfluous for public recreation.
It is derelict land only useful to the people living next to it who
think it is their private God-given amenity right 鈥 鈥減ersonal environment鈥
and 鈥渜uality of life鈥. The campaign against the Wilford tram must
be one of the most idiotic in the history of Nottingham, opposition
to a tramline being built where a busy main line railway once ran.
Nobody in Wilford in the past ever complained about living next to
the working railway when it existed. The trams will be quieter than
the old steam trains, and NET will provide extensive landscaping,
the like of which never existed with the railway. Right now the building
of Line One in Cinderhill and Hyson Green is bringing about much disruption.
Notwithstanding this, house values are rising. Nimbyism is an expensive
burden on the Exchequer. The extra cost of building the Clifton tram
down the alternative Queens Drive route is 拢28 million. That鈥檚 enough
to pay for another line like the Chilwell route. Is the wildlife of
the 鈥渘ature trail鈥 worth that much? NET could replace the wildlife
for the tiniest fraction of the cost, and improve the landscape significantly.
The Wilford tram objectors are anxious that their homes may fall in
value. Even if this did happen, of course they could claim compensation.
But 拢28 million could pay for purchasing almost all of the 200 approx.
homes next to the embankment. Thus the houses would have to fall in
value to almost zero to make the Wilford tram plus compensation higher
cost than shunting trams into the Queens Drive traffic graveyard.
The latest spoof from the embankment crowd is that just because they
would not want to use the tramline themselves, nobody else in Wilford
would. We shall see. The arguments against the tram are fiction, distortion
and one-sided prejudice. The objectors will be taken to the cleaners
at the Public Inquiry next year. And that is exactly what should happen
to the dog toilet.
G. Bennett
Nottingham |
25th
April 2002
tramsvbuses
We do keep getting this old "we want the bus" argument and "trams
were ditched once already" from the anti-trams. If the tram system
proposed was the old single vehicle with no segregation, sure a trolley
bus would make a better alternative (although trams do have better
ride quality). Better still, electric buses, which don't have catenary.
However, the tram proposed has a much higher capacity, and the high
segregation means it will offer vastly improved journey times. You
just wouldn't get the modal transfer with buses. Please will you see
that the tram will greatly improve the area? Visit Croydon or Sheffield
or Manchester to see what it's like now! The tram is designed to serve
Chilwell and Beeston - let's make it the best system we can! How can
you use poor public transport to justify always using your car when
you oppose the step change improvement in public transport the tram
will bring? This argument exasperates me. Perhaps you believe you'll
never consider public transport, so don't care if it's not improved
for those that will.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
|
Last reply...
24th April
2002
Outmoded forms of transport
The majority who are in favour of the tram will be glad to know
that there is now an organisation and a website for them, in the
form of BACIT (Beeston and Chilwell for Integrated Transport) and
www.bacit.org - apparently members are welcome from other areas
too! If we are going to get rid of outdated modes of transport,
lets go the whole way. Trams went through their original period
of growth in Edwardian times, so anything older would have to go.
Internal combustion was around in the 1870s so that rules out all
cars, lorries and diesel buses. Steel ships were around in mid Victorian
times, so we can鈥檛 have them. The railways were mainly developed
in early Victorian times, so they鈥檙e out. I know, let's all use
helicopters and jumbo jets to get from Chilwell to Nottingham! A
message to David Brill. You might ask everyone to vote against the
trams (although its not possible) but even as you ask, your audience
will see that you are speaking only for yourself. They will politely
listen (if you are lucky) and then ignore you. I was speaking to
a gentleman yesterday who has been in just that position. His friend
had been banging with his anti tram rhetoric because he is supposedly
affected, but this gentlemen just said he was not fooled an was
still quietly and mildly in favour of the trams. And I started out
thinking the gentleman might be anti! I have noticed the bandwagon
crowd are now fading away 鈥 even they are not fooled once they know
the facts.
Drew
Chilwell, Notts
and in reply...
Tram
reply to Drew, Chilwell. None of the forms of transport which Drew
mentions have been withdrawn from use with the exception of the
tram. Why is that,do you think? Perhaps it is time to start thinking
truly eco-friendly and follow the Chancellor's example by putting
more research in to proper 'green' forms of transport such as hydrogen
buses and cars etc. I wonder how many people have really considered
the true cost of a tram system in a society which craves independance
and privacy? We will all continue to use our cars (unless we are
legislated out of them) as we can go where we like,when we like.Even
Neil Bates concedes that the tram in Nottingham will not ease peak
traffic congestion. If that is the case then why is it being built?
Because government money is on the table for trams and nothing else.
For sure ,there are too many cars on the roads and most roads are
inadequate anyway. So out ! of! town park and rides would easily
(and cheaply ) solve the congested Nottingham problem. I am all
in favour of that. What will happen to the tram line if it is under-patronised
and the cost of maintenance much higher than anticipated? Who do
you think is going to pay then? Not the p.p.p.'s that's for sure.They
are only in it for profit and you can bet that as soon as the going
gets tough they'll be gone. Then you and I and every other rate
and tax payer will pick up the tab. Let's utilise what we already
have. If we can't maintain our existing roads and public transport
how are we going to maintain a new system with all it's complexities?
Paul Williams
Beeston
and in reply...
Tram
Reply to Drew of Chilwell, I believe you are deluded if you think
that the majority of people in Beeston and Chilwell are in favour
of the tram. The main benefits will be to the A52 commuters and
not the people of Beeston and Chilwell. I suspect your organisation
will have very few members. Maybe this is why you are trying to
sign up members from other areas, because there is not enough pro-tram
support in Beeston and Chilwell. I've also heard that your group
has a political bias with backing/leadership from Broxtowe councillors
who have a vested interest in the scheme i.e. ego boosting and Government
money to spend. Is this true? As for your earlier comments on the
anti-tram support dragging the community down, this is precisely
the opposite of what is happening, with the common cause bringing
together lots of different people in the community. You don't seem
to have much sense of community spirit as when it comes to the point
where local businesses need the support of local people more than
ever because the tram threatens their survival, you start to boycott
them. Paul Williams seems to have a much better grasp of what the
situation is i.e. the Government money must be spent no matter what
the cost and it must be spent on a tram whether it's needed or not.
As for David Brill he should visit the www.notram.net web site again
and put his details into the on-line membership and join the large
number of people in this area opposed to the tram.
Nigel
Chilwell
|
22nd
April 2002
The Tram
I have just been to the notram.net web site and think that the idea
of a protest vote is great. I'll see to it that everyone I know will
be voting against the councillors in my area when the elections come.
The tram will ruin the quality of my life. sorry, its www.notram.net
David Brill
Chilwell |
|
22nd
April 2002
Tram/Compton
Acres
My mother is a Compton Acres resident and I work in Chilwell. I
think everybody should get together and march into Nottingham, I
bet we cauld get a thousand people. I also think the Beeston residents
association have got a great idea with this vote thing.
Mike Caunt
Chilwell, Nottingham
|
20th
April 2002
trams
So, NET finally announce that the clifton via wilford route will go
ahead. Well wasn't that a turn up for the books? They will now be
able to destroy the environment with their "environmentally friendly
trams" that no one will use, will make a loss, and we'll all end up
paying for in our taxes (there's no such thing as free money) Did
you know that line one was supposed to cost 拢100m? but will cost 拢200m.
But did you know that the 拢200m will actually be 拢635m over the loan
period? And what do you think lines 2 and 3 will cost in the end?
Oh well, all you short sighted people who think the tram is a wonderful
idea, I wonder if you'll still think so when you start paying for
another white elephant in your community charges and taxes. The only
good thing about the tram is that it will be as "quiet as a MILK FLOAT"
Good god, not only have we got white elephants, we've now got flying
pigs too. One last thing. All you people who have quoted the compton
acres / wilford nature walk as being just a dog toilet, where do you
think the doggies will do their doo doo when the tram is there? probably
outside your house. Good luck to all who are against the tram and
keep on fighting.
Alan Phillips
Compton Acres |
19th
April 2002
TRAMS
The money for trams cannot be spent on anything else - that's the
rules the Government lays down. These tram routes will have to prove
they will be viable both to Government and to the private company
who takes the project on. Its not a waste of money - the project wouldn't
happen if it was - the Government and private companies wouldn't cough
up the money! Subsidising buses is basically a totally different argument
- you can't subsidise buses with the money Nottingham would get for
the tram. So stop saying - it won't work, we should spend the money
elsewhere beacuse that argument is fruitless. Lets make sure that
NET give us the best tram route we can get - that should be the strategy.
Andrew
Beeston |
19th
April 2002
tram
Couldn't all the money being spent on the tram be used to subsidise
the buses? I was a student in Sheffield in the 1980's and the subsididsed
buses were excellent. No one thought of using a car when you could
get anywhere on a 5 minutely service for 10p! Now in Nottingham you
can't even travel to the Victoria Centre from the A52 since they stopped
the R2. Previously I never took my car into nottingham since I caught
the R2 in and the R4 home and just walked through Nottingham one way.
Lets get the buses sorted before we embark on the tram!
A> N> Other
Beeston, Nottingham |
|
19th
April 2002
Trams
This is a stupid idea being upheld by councillors and is being done
for political reasons and is not needed for Nottingham. They look
to Sheffield and say "We want one" instead of actually dealing with
the traffic problems head on. Ask yourselves these questions:- Has
a study ACTUALLY been done to find out what journeys people make
in Nottingham? (For instance at the bottom of Hucknall Road, the
traffic goes to two main places - the Forest Ground and down Huntingdon
Street. Also stand at the Hucknall Rd/Mansfield Road junction and
count the traffic, count it also at the A60/A614 roundabout - guess
what - all the traffic going up Mansfield Road disappears at Arnold.
Has a study been done to find where the drivers are going? I've
only recently seen traffic counters - too late now). The Forest
Ground Park and Ride actually causes congestion and should be moved
further out of Nottingham to try and force people inside the Nottingham
area to use buses. Legitimate journeys from outside of Nottingham
are then still taken care of and the bus ride should be quicker.
Hucknall already has a bus route but there are problems with getting
the buses along the route because of traffic. A DEDICATED Bus lane
all the way to Nottingham would improve this. The tram lines are
running along bus (and train!) routes - so people are going to switch
to using the tram - where does that leave the buses and the train
companies? Instead of wasting money on trams the money could actually
be used to fund worthwhile projects such as widening roads to allow
bus lanes). It could also be used to subsidise the cost of travel
to encourage more people to use buses (say 40p max per journey -
no matter how far you were going). Bus drivers should have a link
with the police to remove parked cars in the bus lane. Bus routes
are planned like a web they connect the outer lying areas with the
center, this means that to traverse from one side of the city to
the other (to areas of employment say) 2 bus journeys are needed.
This is why people drive, it gets them door to door without any
hassle (other than queues). Did anybody ask the bus drivers what
problems they had and how the services could be improved? They should
have more experience than ANYBODY else. And the ICING ON THE CAKE:
Trams are an outdated form of transport - the reason they were abandoned
and replaced by buses is that bus routes could be changed easily
and effectively. So when is the horse and cart coming back? I'd
gladly expand on this...
Paul Morris
Nottingham
|
19th
April 2002
trams
As someone who DOES oppose the proposed blue route through Beeston,
primarily because of the disruption to quality of life of currently
quiet residential areas, I resent some of the conclusions that are
being drawn from previous contributors. I DO support bus lanes, taxes
on fuel SHOULD be at a level to discourage irresponsible car use.
I suspect those who think the tram will be wonderful won't have it
running from 6.00am till midnight less than 10 meters from THEIR living
room. The local Green party are also opposed to the current route
proposals and are in favour of more efficient and eco friendly buses.
Let's stop this debate developing into a pathetic name calling from
opposing camps and be mature about it. Predicting a 'pasting' for
the anti-tram lobby reduces the debate to a teenage playground fight.
James
Beeston |
19th
April 2002
Trams
AT LAST - we now know that the tram will come through Compton Acres.
It's going to be a fast, well used route into the City. My family
will use the tram - I hope there will be a tram stop close to Wilford
Lane. Well done NET!! Keep up the good work and don't let the NIMBY's
grind you down.
ian
compton acres |
|
18th
April 2002
TRAMS
The route will cost 拢130 million to build and 拢3 million a year
to run according to the report, which also states that 拢147 million
of economic benefits would result. The system is expected to carry
5 million people every year, whilst reducing congestion and pollution
in our area. In terms of safety, line one will bring 拢5 million
worth of road safety accident savings. So all round its pretty good
for all of us in the south-west of the conurbation!
Andrew
Beeston
in reply
18th April 2002
Andrew
That's why there are proposals for the south of Nottinghamshire
too - the benefits are evident, but the minority against it could
ruin it for the majority! They already have in West Bridgford!
Bill
Carlton
|
18th
April 2002
I believe that the tram system could be a danger to the locals mainly
children when the trams are placed through clifton. this is the only
concern with safety that i would have. it is believed that it will
take 139 years to recover the full costs.
Chris |
18th
April 2002
i will like to know the cost and the benefits in regard to the
people
thobekani mabandla |
18th
April 2002
BEESTON TRAM
Finally NET has put forward their chosen route for the new Beeston
Tram. Some people will not be happy with the proposals and with good
reason but now is the time to start thinking positively and to the
future .It is in everybody鈥檚 interest to ensure that we get the best
possible working system and many issues have yet to be addressed.
A major concern is our friends and relatives who live in the Neville
Sadler Court, retired complex on Fletcher Road. It is understood that
they will be relocated to a site immediately adjacent to the existing
site. Hopefully that will ensure that their community is not split.
It must also be a precondition of the move, that these respected and
valued members of our community are consulted and reassured properly
during every stage of the process. Because these residents are to
be moved they deserve special treatment and only the best standard
and quality of new accommodation should be offered. All relocation
expenses have to be met in full and a reward for their cooperation
should be given. The tram Network can be installed in two ways, either
cheap and nasty or well constructed and environmentally / visually
acceptable. Overhead cables need to be suspended wherever possible
by using a central mounted 鈥淭鈥 support. This will eliminate the need
for a web of supporting wires strung between buildings, most notable
in residential areas. Foot paths should be re-laid and not just patched
haphazardly. Quality walling and parking bay /facilities for residents
are important. Double glazing should be offered, or compensation to
the equivalent, where the Tram passes through built up areas. Where
the Tram goes off street and through green areas it essential that
proper protection is afforded for children and anyone using the recreational
facilities. There has to be ample provision for landscaping and the
planting of suitable screening. In short it is paramount that this
new Tram forms and integral part of our community and does not appear
to simply cut through the middle of it. If we all insist on the best
choice and use of materials then it is very likely that all homes
and businesses will benefit and property prices in Beeston and Chilwell
will continue to rise. We will also have a reliable and regular public
transport system that connects Chilwell and Beeston to the QMC and
Nottingham and that can鈥檛 be all bad. A.R.T. alternative route trams
鈥︹︹. northroute@hotmail.com
A.R.T.
nottm |
11th
April 2002
I have found that most Beestonians of an anti-tram persuasion are
also opposed to bus lanes and are also in favour of reducing the tax
on motor fuel and raising speed limits, You will not find many non-car
drivers opposing the introduction of trams ! Dave McMichael
Dave Mc Michael
Beeston |
25th
March 2002
Boycotting anti tram shops
Like most people I am for the tram. I am tired of the anti tram lot
attempting to speak for me as a member of a particular group of people.
For instance, as a user of the green spaces in Chilwell (and there
don't seem to be many of us!), I don't mind at all if a thin strip
is used for the tram. Nor do I mind if something is done about the
High Road between Chilwell and Beeston 鈥 the parking along this road
is hair-raising, whether travelling along by car or bus. That reminds
me, I simply don鈥檛 find the bus services good enough. So, you car-driving
protestors, would you please stop telling the world that we have a
good enough public transport service? I am a car and a bus user, but
I want the tram, because it will be better. Thus my point about businesses
which join the anti-tram lobby (and I am glad to say that many businesses
on the High Road haven鈥檛) 鈥 I am now boycotting those shops. One shop
has already lost 拢800 of business from me because of its short sighted
stance. After all, if they are going to drag Chilwell down by potentially
preventing us from getting the tram, then you are not going to get
our trade. I have been to a couple of meetings about the tram but
have now given up going because you hear the same old anti-tram lies.
Just one example is a point made by one protestor, repeated at both
meetings, and minuted on the anti tram website, can be easily refuted
by reference to another official website. Although the rather modest
number attending the meeting is cited as evidence of anti tram feeling,
I was there on a pro tram basis, as was the person next to me, whom
I鈥檇 never met before. The only other people I knew that went to it
where also pro tram, but we all sensibly kept quiet when asked to
present ourselves because of the unpleasantness of the anti tram mob.
It would be interesting to turn this situation around. How would the
anti tram minority like it if, given that they are dragging our community
down, were abused and ostracised? Of course it won鈥檛 happen because
decent fair minded people, who naturally are for the tram, don鈥檛 behave
like that. Watch out though, if there鈥檚 a public enquiry, the anti
tram rent-a-mob will get a complete pasting.
Drew
Chilwell, Notts |
25th
March 2002
Is the tram system a waste of money?
NET does not now favour tram routes for West Bridgford for economic
reasons. Any local opposition and environmental constraints have no
relevance whatsoever. This is clear enough from the NET report to
the City and County Councils last October. Whilst the two Bridgford
routes are fair on enineering and operating cost, they are too short.
Last year both were about 2.75 miles. With timings in the order of
16-17 minutes, trams would be marginally competitive with buses for
most of the routes. Further, the low density of housing in suburban
Bridgford stunts traffic potential. The Gamston route is fair on timing
as far as Radcliffe Road, but it is the last few yards that provides
the problem. In respect of the terminal at Gamston, Pathfinder Newark
buses could serve a park-and-ride site twice as fast as the trams
could. With public consultation round number two this year, the Sharpehill
Wood route was projected to Lings Bar interchange for the A52 Ring
Road/A606 Melton Road, to serve a park-and-ride site. But this would
depend on 180 acres of farmland en route given over to 1700 houses
west of Edwalton. This development was suggested as a fresh policy
lately in the Replacement Local Plan of Rushcliffe Borough Council.
The Local Plan is still in the melting pot. RBC has had much difficulty
in recent years in finding enough brownfield land for new housing.
Half the land area of the Borough is Green Belt (or corset). The Council
is hoping that the County Structure Plan Review due later this year
will give a smaller requirement of 6-7,000 dwellings, say, for a 15
year span. This could negate the required extra housing at Edwalton.
Without this housing, the Sharpehill Wood tramline does not appear
viable. Nevertheless, it is Government planning policy to encourage
development in principle towards transport corridors. And rightly
so. The small number of West Bridgford tram opponents are no doubt
delighted that a tramline will not come their way, at least for the
time being. But they are concerned that shelving the tram routes for
a few years is not good enough, and look forward to outright abolition
of any proposals. Less than two years from now Line One will be in
full swing, with real estate values rising en route. Nimbies have
a desperate and frenetic desire to cut off the nose to spite the face!
GB, Wilford
Nottingham |
20th
March 2002
The NET War.
20th march,2002....So the NET people[or should I refer to them as
the city and county council members] are beginning to get the message
that residents to the south of the Trent DO NOT want their tram system.
According to the local newspaper, the tram route through West Bridgford
is being shelved [for the time being} for reasons given as a possible
lack of residential interest in this route. This lack of interest
has been expressed by the residents all along, but no-one in council
offices would stand up and be recognised as the 'ayes' to this proposed
route. Forget the 'nimby' accusations by certain people outside our
area. The matter of distaste for the proposed route is of no concern
to them and they should keep their remarks to themselves. I have no
problems with a suitable transport system being considered, whether
it be for West Bridgford, or Timbuktoo ! There is already! a! dequate
bus routes throughout the shire limits, and if any thoughts that they
are old, or outdated, then update them. I feel the cost would not
reach 拢m-200 by any means. And as for tramways with fixed rails....Well
!! I recall around 1930 that Nottingham decided to kick out the tramways
with fixed rails...AS OBSOLETE ! as did Sheffield. Nottingham pulled
up, or covered over, the rails, whilst Sheffield kept them for long
afterwards [I know this because I came off my two-wheeler whilst attempting
to cross those rails] So where has progress got to. The electric buses,
which replaced the awful and very noisey trams, were very efficient.
The power ratio was tremendous, due to the flywheel drive, which could
propel a laden bus up Derby Road like a rocket ! They were extremely
quiet, and at peak times extra buses went into service routes as back-up,
and returned to station afterwards. Now someone is going to remark
about gridlocks . Well, my answer to that remark is; "why haven't
the roads been improved since the end of WWII ? I have paid excise
tax since 1947, which was,originally for the purpose of road provision
and maintenance" My current input is 拢160 p.a. to the DVLA. How much
of this goes towards an end to all gridlock areas I don't know,but
I feel that most of my 拢160 will go toward NET, or can anyone convince
me otherwise . I've been told that a Euro donation will go toward
this NET project and there will be no charge to us, [me & you]. and
the NET will provide the balance over a 30 year period. But I thought
the council was the NET and they get their money from various taxation.
Ah,but who pays this taxation, to pay off this balance ? I would like
to know just how much the total cost to our county will be upon completion
of all routes envisaged, say in 20yrs time. 拢m500 ? 拢m700 ?. The No.1
route is already up to 拢m200. The worry is not mine, because I will
get my "wings" before then. So, what is an alternative system that
would be less expensive and environmentally suitable for all. I can
only suggest look into the electric bus system once more for citywise
conveyance, and put some hard cash into the widening of good roads.
Help private bus companies to look into their provision of eco vehicles
and have the Motor Vehicle Association responsible for the reprocessing
of obsolete cars. Have the Motor Vehicle Association pay a 拢25 award
for scrap vehicles delivered to an official site provided by the government,
or importer. If any query arises about the cost of such a system,
just look at the numbers of dumped vehicles throughout our country
and ask any council their cost of collection, for which you,again,
pay for through direct taxation. You may well ask at this point; What
the hell has this to do with an on-going tram system. May I reply
?.... It's a spin-off . b.clyde of Nottingham. p.s. Well GOATWHO ??
b.clyde
Nottingham |
Last
reply...20th March 2002
trams in west bridgford?
So Nottingham City Transport will be 'organising' the tram system?
They can't even organise buses!!! The 'top' end of Musters road haas
no buses after 6p.m. and those timetabled to pass Eton or Boundary
Roads frequently fail to turn up. If the residents of Musters road
and the immediate surrounding area are so 'unimportant' in the eyes
of Nottingham City Transport, why do they now want to uproot all our
trees, smatter our skyline with overhead cables, and run a tram line
straight through the only bit of Green we have left? (Sharphill Wood
). I expect its to justify their plans to build a few thousand extra
houses up there, which we don't want or need either. Do they think
the new residents will abandon car ownership and use the trams instead?
I doubt it!!!! Our roads and schools are already overcrowded. We don't
want any more houses and we don't want trams disrupting our l! an!
dscape and lives!
j wild
west bridgford
and in reply...
The objectives
of the route through West Bridgford are confused. It appears that
the only purpose of this route is to service a park and ride scheme
that will be built on the outskirts, yet it is marketed to benefit
the residents. Suggesting that this is for the people of West Bridgford
is ridiculous. Buses run frequently through the town, are flexible,
cover a wide area (rather than the single channel which the tram is
proposing), oh and when there are road works, can drive around them.
The works to implement the tram will turn this town upside down; it
will not benefit the town鈥檚 residents. The argument that they are
more reliable also seems a little bizarre given that they will share
routes with other vehicles. If they want cleaner transport have a
look at electric buses. If we had any sensible politicians looking
after our interests then this idea would not have gotten further than
the initial suggestion. Come on wake up - spend our money more sensibly.
Angelo Feliciello
West Bridgford, UK
and in reply...
As you have stated connections can be made at the stop near Eton Road
or Boundary Road on the hourly 9C service in the evenings and on Sundays.
I find it hard to believe that buses are frequently missing, more
a case of the odd one missing every now and then, just like other
parts of City. NCT are not organising the tram, they are part of a
consortium of companies who are overseeing the project.
Bill
Carlton
In reply to Angela
Angela, That is in fact the same line - the line to Chilwell via Beeston
goes past the QMC and the University. So it benefits a hell of a lot
of people!
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
13th
March 2002
the trams
With regard to the options for a possible extension line to Chilwell
through Beeston, i was wondering if anyone knows the number of people
this would benefit in comparison to the line which would run past
the QMC and along University Boulevard, which is undoubtly the most
beneficial route for the majority of people. Also, does anyone know
the populations of Beeston and Chilwell as this should be an important
factor when considering alternative possible routes.
Angela Varley
Manchester |
12th
March 2002
Vision of the Future
I see that a number of shops in Beeston/Chilwell are showing pictures
of roadworks to depict what might happen when the tramway is prepared
and laid. We must be thankful our victorian ancestors did not take
such a short-sighted view when confronted with the proposal to install
sewers. I have spent time working in a number of major cities around
the world where trams are installed and I can honestly say they are
the best way to travel quickly and easily. The short-term disruption
is the price we have to pay for long term benefit.
Chris Archer
Chilwell |
Last
reply 12th March 2002
Tram
Just a small point about the tram. With it being able to run along
a single fixed line only, what measures will be in place to deal with
the "sport" of dumping stolen cars on the route of the tram by the
local twoc gangs ?. Presumably 1 correctly positioned car could bring
the system to gridlock - or am I missing something ?
Bert Fegg
notts
In Reply..
Err... I think you might be Bert, if that's the best anti-tram argument
you have. Perhaps you should ask the Croydon Tramlink, Sheffield Supertram,
Manchester Metrolink, West Midlands Metro or countless tram operators
in Europe etc. how they deal with that mind-boggling huge challenge.
Do you think they maybe just move the cars?
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
9th
March 2002
Wilford tram route
I live in Wilford and it seems to me on a general basis that the tram
is a good idea both in terms of transport in/out of the City and of
adding value to property prices along it's route. The sensible route
to me is along the old railway line although I have some sympathy
with those living directly alongside and particularly with those living
on Coronation Ave. I would want to see measures taken to minimise
impact and grant compensation to thse so closely effected. What I
completely disagree with is the ridiculous conservation and 'natural
beauty' argument. People bang on about the old railway line being
natures corridor and Ironmonger Pond being a beauty spot. Have they
been there recently?? The pond is a dump. It is surrounded by rubbish,
burnt out motor bikes (two at the moment but for a change no dumped
stolen cars) The railway line from the pond toward Wilford Lane is
barely passable in places. I have walked my dog twice in the last
week along the old line from Wilford Lane toward Ruddington and have
seen but one person - a jogger. This cannot claim to be a well loved
public footpath. Could it be that people are using this rather weak
argument as a cover for their real reasoning - good old fasioned nimbyism
? If the argument is really one of conservation then the case should
be put for the improvement and maintanance of the area by the tram
operators as a condition of it's use. Ironmonger pond could be a nice
place rather than a danger to children with it's broken glass and
hunks of broken metal. That really would be a useful exercise - and
an argument that is both winnable and worth winning.
Ian ANDREWS
Wilford Nottm |
|
TRAMS
GRAHAM FROST IS RIGHT. TROLLIES ARE FAR BETTER READ HIS 10 SUPERB
POINTS FOR THEM IF HE IS SILLY ENOUGH TO COME TO LIVE IN NOTTINGHAM.
I`LL VOTE FOR HIM FOR MAYOR
ROBERT DEELEY
ng7
1)No track system
2)Uses lighter vehicles
3)Has the ability to get round obstructions
4)Has a much simplier servicing requirement than the tram
5)Maintaince of track is vastly cheaper
6)does not require special trffic control systems
7)can be quickly installed for little capital cost compared to the
tram
8)becauce the trolley bus runs on rubber tyres it has a much shorter
stopping distance than the tram
9)Becauce the trolley bus is lighter per passenger carried than
the tram , energy costs are much less.
10)new trolley route can be put into new areas as cities grow and
the passengers usage changes .Trams are inflexible.
Graham Frost
Hastings East Sussex
in reply
Trolley Buses
Most of those arguments also apply to buses, (and might suggest
our railways are better as bus routes!). The advantages trolleys
have over buses are due to the overhead power source, which improves
acceleration and has zero emissions at point of use. They are actually
less flexible than buses due to the catenary which fixes their routes.
Unfortunately, their capacity is much lower than trams, so assuming
they were as attractive as the tram, you'd need loads more of them
on the roads. Secondly, because they run entirely on roads reliability
and journey time are not good enough to attract car users. The fact
is the tracks are necessary for the higher capacity and higher reliability,
whilst having the bonus of giving excellent ride quality.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham
and in reply...
6th
March 2002
TRAMS
Why trolley buses are worse than trams...
1)Much more intrusive sets of overhead wires - twice what a tram
needs.
2)Less capacity than a tram to move people.
3)Stuck in same traffic as any other kind of bus - might as well
use fuel-cell/hydrogen buses.
4)because the trolley bus runs on rubber tyres it will consistently
underperform compared to trams in emergency stopping situations.
5) Trams are safer as they follow a predictable path
6) Much harder to provide a segregated route for a trolley bus as
would effectively have to build new roads!
7) Trams have suceeded where trolley buses haven't in persuaduing
people out of their cars.
8)Trams are sexier!
9) Trams will be faster overall in terms of journey times.
10) More trolley buses are needed to move the same amount of people
as a tram, hence more incidents of noise and more traffic impact.
12) We already have one tram line - it makes sense to build a network
A.N.Other
Nottingham
|
BEESTON
OPTIONS The latest NET publication, introduces publicly for the first
time, various route options into Beeston. A.R.T (alternative route
trams) would like to put on record our objection to the late introduction
of these variations. The earlier publication the鈥234 future route
options 鈥渄id not indicate any such variations. This has given an unfair
advantage to other Beeston residents who have had several months extra
in which organise themselves and voice their concerns.
It may be the case that opposition to the first route, now known as
the Blue route, has been given by some people who may otherwise not
have done so had they realised that these alternative routes were
also being considered. At this point we would say that we consider
the latest NET publication to be helpful and informative, even though
it has been prepared as a sales document biased towards a particular
route.
Newsletters have been circulated which are a reasonably concise insight
into the feelings of residents and business that would be adversely
affected by any route chosen that is already heavily congested with
traffic. Trams should run off road , on non congested roads or underground
wherever possible. We do however feel that it is highly unlikely that
any sane thinking consortium would actually be so foolish as to pursue
these options, when it has been so obviously demonstrated in the latest
NET booklet that these are the least practicable options based on
the criteria by which they are judged.
For the record and to demonstrate that the proposed options have been
studied, the route that is considered to cause the least amount of
disruption to homes and business and also fulfil all of the required
criteria is: Nottm to QMC / THROUGH THE UNIVERITY CAMPUS, on to Broadgate
/ High Road. From there a single line loop should be used along the
High Road and down Regent Street to Middle Street and onto Beeston
Square.
If NET would genuinely like to show the way forward and throw away
the cost objective then the stretch from Broadgate Island should go
underground as is done in so many other cities around the world. Then
NOTTINGHAM could have a public transport system to be envied.
A.R.T. There is a better way!.
|
This page exists as
an archive. If you would like to discuss this or other local topics or issues
with other visitors to 91热爆 Nottingham website, please visit our new .
Shout Archive Pages:
[9] [8] [7]
[6]
[5] [4]
[3] [2]
[1]
|
