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 .
13th
May 2002
Tram 鈥 less pollution
Tina鈥檚 posting helps emphasise the tram鈥檚 strengths. It will carry
a huge number of people who might otherwise go by car, mainly off
road, reducing congestion and pollution from stationary vehicles.
Andy鈥檚 points about joy riders have been addressed by NET long ago.
Like with all other tram systems, abandoned cars are not a problem,
mainly due to off road running, and because they have a fast response
system for dealing with a variety of problems that may come up on
the tracks. My suspicion is aroused that these are postings by anti
trammers that have run out of arguments, and are deliberately pretending
to be new to the debate and posting propaganda that has long since
been refuted. The quality of the anti tram arguments has been criticised
now in the Evening Post as can be seen on www.thisisnottingham.co.uk
in News 鈥 Letters section. A message for Dane of Clifton. At least
! the Evening Posts's editor keeps out the very poorest correspondence.
The quality of your argument is so weak as to actually emphasise the
fact that things will improve at the Bardill鈥檚 roundabout. There are
always vast improvements when a roundabout is replaced or supplemented
by traffic lights and M1 junction 25 proves that. If your point about
overspill parking is true, then there鈥檚 plenty of room at Bardill鈥檚
for expansion.
Drew
Chilwell, Notts |
13th
May 2002
trams through the inner city?
would there be delays due to joyriders abandoning stolen cars on the
tracks?just a thought?
andy gods
strelley,nottm. |
11th
May 2002
why oh why
the trams are probably reducing pollution, i know but that means that
the cars would be getting stuck in traffic even longer and the engeins
will be running for longer and that could cause alot more than now.
Tina Tunnicliffe
Nottingham |
10th
May 2002
Trams
I was initially shocked to see that 20% of the shops on Radford Road
where there are tram works are empty. However I then went to the part
of Radford Road off the tram route - the figure was 40%. A mile away
on Alfreton Road a very busy thoroughfare with lots of passing trade
- 30% empty. So the tram works are not causing the devastation in
this area and if the example set in Church St Croydon is anything
to go by very soon the traders on Radford Road will be laughing all
the way to the bank. It will be interesting how many empty shops there
are once the trams are running.
S.B.
Beeston
13th May 2002
Reply to SB
of Beeston
At last someone else who realises that the tramworks are not responsible
for the unused shops in Hyson Green. They have been empty for years,
although some people seem to use these images as propaganda (No Tram
people)?
Bill
Nottingham |
|
10th May
2002
Tram 鈥 relief for A52
I have had another gruelling rush hour experience getting past that
wretched roundabout at Bardill鈥檚 on the A52, where you turn off
for Toton and Stapleford. It was really congested and I was going
out of Nottingham towards the M1 鈥搃t was much worse inbound! The
coming of the tram terminus and park and ride at that location will
mean that the roundabout will be replaced by traffic lights. Hooray,
the A52 hold ups will be much reduced! Toton Lane (which I sometimes
use to get onto the A52) and Stapleford Lane will also be much less
congested. I reckon that the junction will be able to handle much
more traffic once lights are put in, easily accommodating extra
traffic that might be attracted by the park and ride. Why do we
have to wait so long for the tram?
Drew
Chilwell, Notts
and in reply
11th
May 2002
Trams
Please Drew, if you insist on writing to this page, please keep
your comments sensible. If you think that traffic lights at Bardill's
roundabout will make an iota of difference then you are terribly
mistaken. Picture the scene when the Park and Ride is up and running
with a capacity of 1200 cars, each one having to gain access to
Toton Lane. Traffic lights or roundabout? It doesn't matter because
at rush hour there will be gridlock with traffic jams much worse
than anything you have witnessed on the A52 before. If the tram
is a success, as Drew seems to think it will be, then the Park and
Ride will, undoubtedly, be full most of the time. What happens when
people want to park there and it is full? I'll tell you. They will
just park on the road as near to the tram as possible i.e Toton
Lane and Stapleford Lane. So now not only do we have much increased
traffic in this area, we will have half t! he road blocked with
parked cars making the congestion much worse.If Drew thinks that
there is a traffic problem at this junction already then he must
realise, that with the advent of the tram and the park and ride,
that the problem will only increase. Do not forget that park and
ride sites are dependant on cars. Also, doesn't Drew realise that
people in Derby and it's surrounding areas who commute to Nottingham
by bus or train would find it cheaper to DRIVE to Bardill's Island
and use the park and ride site, hence even more traffic at an already
over used junction.So please Drew, don,t just write for the sake
of writing, think about it first.
Dane
Clifton
|
10th
May 2002
tram
A regular theme of those opposed to the tram is what is perceived
as a lack of consultation by NET. Where I live in Wilford, the first
I knew of the proposals for the routes to Clifton was a leaflet posted
to my house giving basic details of what was being planned and inviting
me to comment, which I did. As it became clear that the plan to run
along the old railway line at Wilford and Compton Acres was controversial,
a public meeting was set up at Becket school to which NET sent a representative.
Despite the chair of the meeting claiming at the start that it was
a chance to look at the issues surrounding both of the proposed tram
routes to Clifton, sadly many of those in attendance chose to use
it as an opportunity to pillory the NET representative on the stage.
This was then followed by all houses in the area receiving a booklet
outlining the proposals in some detail with another invitation to
comment, for which a postcard was provided. This was complemented
by a 鈥榬oad show鈥 going around the areas involved. Those who responded
have since had a further booklet, 鈥榊our questions answered鈥. Let鈥檚
compare that with what happened to me when I lived in a house fronting
on to a beautiful wild field which is now the David Lloyd Tennis Centre
in West Bridgford. I received a letter from Rushcliffe Borough Council
informing me it was planned to build a 330 space car park, to be in
use for 16 hours a day, 15 feet (five 3x2 slabs) from my front door.
Only those whose properties shared a boundary with the development
got a letter: everyone else, even those just one house along, got
nothing. To see the plans I had to go to the Civic Centre in office
hours, difficult when you work full time. I and my neighbours had
21 days to respond. AND THAT WAS IT. In my opinion, NET have worked
hard to find out what people think about their proposals. It has been
possible to read about and comment on the routes only having to leave
your armchair to go to the postbox (although for the seriously lazy
there is e-mail). We will have to wait and see what the final decisions
are, but I for one am happy that I have been given sufficient opportunity
to make my views known.
David
Wilford |
9th
May 2002
Chilwell Extension
The consultation process on the Chilwell Extension was fundamentally
flawed from the outset, due to the fact that the route (apart from
a few minor tweaks), and its destination, had already been decided
by NET before the general public knew anything about it. I would also
question whether the consultation was extensive enough, given that
there appears to be a relatively low level of public awareness of
the proposals in Stapleford and Toton, both of which would be affected
by traffic heading for the park & ride site. There is a description
of the route on the BCBRA website (www.notram.net), including a list
of reasons why the proposed park & ride site is in a bad location.
Don't forget - our County Councillors will be voting on the route
proposals on 16 May, so anyone wishing to make their views known to
them should do so without delay.
Brenda Manders
Stapleford |
9th
May 2002
The hopeless
fight against the Wilford tram - Part 2
The commercial case and cost-benefit analysis for the Clifton-Wilford
(CW) tramline are outstanding. Overall, with its relatively cheap
engineering cost, substantial off-street running and consequent fast
trams, it is the best tram route ever yet planned in Nottingham. The
only proper argument against the tram is nature conservation, but
this is certainly not strong enough to defeat it. This constraint
is comparable or probably worse with the alternative Clifton-Queens
Drive route (CQD), having bigger impact on the Trentside wildlfie
habitats. The anti-CW pressure group supports wildlife when it suits
its convenience. Most of the signatures on the petition against the
Wilford tram are a phantom army. Last year the core opposition was
almost entirely confined to people along the embankment. In the recent
public consultations, the objections increased to embrace people living
next to the Wilford on-street deviations of CW suggested by NET. This
extra opposition will now wither away because the Councils want the
tram on the embankment instead. The vast majority of people in Wilford
are not interested in saving the embankment in its present condition
because they make no use of it for recreation. The landscape quality
is poor. The public consultation showed that 80 per cent of the supporters
of the Clifton-Queens Drive route would not make any use of it because
they live miles away along Wilford embankment. In contrast, the supporters
of the Clifton-Wilford route live near the tram stops. Just because
most of the traffic on CW will originate in Clifton does not prove
passenger loadings in Wilford will be abysmal. Wilford/Compton Acres
to the city centre is a major radial traffic flow. NET forecast loadings
up to three times higher than with the business and retail parks of
Queens Drive. The fast trams of CW will avoid peak hour congestion
over Trent Bridge, and enormously improve public transport for Wilford
village and Silverdale. An original direct north-south link to the
city centre is better than the current preposterous convoluted major
highways in and out of Wilford. It is ridiculous to campaign against
a tramway being built where a busy main-line railway once ran. Nearly
every house on the Wilford side of the embankment was built many years
before the railway closed. The tram objectors will have better amenity
next to the tramline than the past generation next to the railway.
It is by no means impossible that the houses along the embankment
will rise in value because of the tram. I speculate that they will.
Shortly NET will prepare the detailed scheme, and supporters and objectors
alike can make representations. The mitigation necessary will have
to be quite significant, but a fresh and better landscape will be
created. A Public Inquiry resembles a court of law, with witnesses
giving evidence and liable for cross-examination from other parties,
possibly through barristers. The purpose of this procedure is to seek
the truth, so of course the objectors baulk at the prospect. Defeat
stares them iin the face. But this will be for their own positive
benefit, and that of all the rest of us. The tramway will be a great
asset for future generations in Wilford and Conmpton Acres. Let us
welcome the trams.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
9th
May 2002
Tram - crime
and safety
Sue raises a very important point about the tendency to go by car
for fear of crime. But car use is insecure too 鈥 e.g. muggings in
multi storey car parks and smash and grabs particularly affecting
women having their handbags stolen while they sit in their cars at
traffic lights (even car jackings). Public transport is definitely
SAFER 鈥 you are three times more likely to be injured or killed in
a car, per passenger mile travelled, than on rail based transport
and twice as much as on a bus. Even more so for urban car journeys
- and rail statistics are distorted by suicides. Trams are even safer
than heavy rail. The great thing about the tram in other cities is
that it attracts people who would otherwise go out by car. With Nottingham鈥檚
trams set to have conductors just like Sheffield, then I鈥檓 sure it
will be a very safe environment. Being heavily used and running regularly!
, ! then people like Sue will feel they are in a safe environment.
Drew
Chilwell, Notts |
2nd
May 2002
NET Extension to Clifton via Wilford
NET are no doubt feeling extremely pleased with themselves following
last week鈥檚 council meetings. They appear, at least for the moment,
to have persuaded their Labour masters in the City and County to endorse
their proposals for the Clifton via Wilford route. However, in my
view they should all feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Following
an absolute sham of a consultation process, they have totally disregarded
overwhelming opposition from a large number of residents and unanimous
condemnation from several respected environmental bodies. They have
in fact demonstrated their determination throughout the whole process
to squander vast amounts of taxpayers鈥 money on a scheme that will
not only make our lives a misery but will also make us pay handsomely
for the privilege through yet another huge increase in council taxes.
Much has been made in the NET report of the 鈥渃ost-benefit ratios鈥
of the various routes under consideration. Perhaps they would care
to tell us just what 鈥渃ost鈥 has been placed on the wanton destruction
of a large piece of wildlife habitat, evicting and quite probably
wiping out a healthy population of thousands of birds, foxes, squirrels,
butterflies and hedgehogs, to name but a few? What 鈥渃ost鈥 has been
placed on the destruction of the peaceful environment currently enjoyed
by those who adjoin the proposed route? What 鈥渂enefits鈥 are my family
and I to derive from a tramway that passes a few metres from our house,
and yet requires us to walk around a third of a mile to reach a station?
What is the 鈥渂enefit鈥 to my household of a tram to the city centre
when I can already cycle to work far more quickly than the estimated
journey time, and my wife works nowhere near to it? Those of us that
live adjacent to the route enjoy relatively peaceful back gardens
where the most intrusive sound is likely to be the song of a blackbird
or the wind rustling in the trees. We do not enjoy that peace by chance,
or by privilege 鈥 we made the choice when we bought our houses to
live at a distance from main roads, and paid an appropriate price
for our properties as a result of that choice. What right do NET and
the councils have to force through proposals, in direct opposition
to our wishes, that will completely destroy those peaceful sounds
and replace them with the noise, vibration and light pollution of
a light railway rattling and grinding its way past at fifty miles
per hour every few minutes? What right do they have to take a conscious
decision to devalue our property and degrade our lifestyle? As Council
employees, NET are responsible for providing the local taxpayers with
services and maintaining our environment in accordance with our wishes.
They have a duty to ensure that plans and developments do not favour
one section of the community at the expense of another, and do not
cause unacceptable discomfort or suffering to any member of the community.
If they persist in promoting this outrageous scheme, they will be
failing miserably in that duty. There are too many examples these
days of officials, who are entrusted with extraordinary powers by
local and national government to carry through developments that are
ostensibly for the benefit of the whole community, abusing that trust
and misusing those powers for their own personal ends. As far as my
family and I are concerned this is by no means the end of the story.
We will do everything within our powers to defend ourselves against
the monstrous attack that they have mounted against us, our household
and our environment, and we urge everyone similarly affected to do
the same.
Greg Lock
Compton Acres |
2nd
May 2002
NIMBY or WAT?
Rest assured that the proposed tram routes are being opposed by more
than just nimbies. Much of the opposition is from people who are not
directly affected, but have enough local knowledge to understand how
detrimental the impact would be on their fellow residents, communities
and the local environment. These opponents to the tram care more about
other people than they do about themselves, just as (I hope) most
of the pro-tram people do. If we are going to complain about the NIMBY
attitude, then we should also complain about the selfish 鈥淲ant A Tram鈥
(WAT) attitude of those who want a tram and don鈥檛 care how many peoples鈥
lives are ruined by it. It seems to me that installing a tram network
is a disruptive and costly way of easing traffic congestion, but I
am more concerned about the choice of route than the tram itself.
What we need is proper public consultation on preventing traffic gridlock,
instead of merely the opportunity to comment on specific tram routes
after all the big decisions have already been made. I shall continue
to support BCBRA in their fight against the Chilwell Extension (www.notram.net).
Brenda Manders
Stapleford |
2nd
May 2002
After the initial contributions to this topic, which have come from
many people, there appears to be an even balance at the moment between
pro- and anti-tram. However, there also appear to be more contributors
who are anti-, and the pro-tram replies come from a small number of
people who prefer to abuse their opponents rather than consider the
arguments. Where are the reputed huge numbers of tram supporters?
Colin Page
Chilwell |
1st
May 2002
"Serving" Chilwell
James, I sometimes wonder what route WOULD "serve Chilwell" - if a
route that goes from through a major housing estate to the main shopping
street doesn't. You can hardly complain about lack of consultation!
Full details of the scheme were released as soon as they were available,
but if it was already fully completed (and not "vague") you'd complain
that you weren't consulted in their development. What are the "vested
interests" of the council? One of the pro-tram councillors actually
lives on one of the most controversial sections of the route (which
prohibits him voting on it) so if it really was that awful what would
his vested interests be?
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
1st
May 2002
I expect one reason we need a tram is that so many people use their
cars unnecessarily because they don't know what the existing public
transport options are. Drew is right that no-one would walk from Inham
Nook to Beeston rail station to get into Nottingham. They would quite
simply hop on a no 36 bus which would take them to where they want
to go.
Brenda Manders
Stapleford |
1st
May 2002
Tram - Chilwell Extension
Chilwell Extension. What many people aren't probably aware of is that
the Chilwell Extension was only 鈥榯acked on鈥 to the Nottingham to Beeston
route because the original proposals for a route to Beeston did not
meet the Governments' criteria. So in order to stand a chance of getting
funding, it was decided that the best option for improving the chances
of meeting the criteria was to extend the route beyond Beeston. and
where do you extend a tram route beyond Beeston centre? Well there
was already a proposal for a route out to Clifton, so what about the
A6005 to Long Eaton, or the A52 Derby Rd., or along the most direct
route to a large Park and Ride at the Bardills island on the A52 with
feeder bus services from Stapleford and with potential for extending
out to Hucknall and beyond. The most direct route to Bardills apart
from being the cheapest also happens to pass throu! gh! and next to
the most dense areas of housing in Chilwell taking it along narrow
streets and close to buildings. Cost and potential passenger numbers
are two factors highly prized in the bid to beat other cities competing
for the same funds from central government. Trams don't pass through
areas with expensive detached houses with high income residents owning
several cars because the population density is too low and because
it is known most of them wont stop using their cars whatever alternatives
are offered. So the tram wont be routed along the A52 from Beeston
for example. But what about the other factors for judging proposals?
The route out to Bardills also goes along stretches of green open
space and across green belt land, both highly valued for there amenity
value. Space for families to take their children, for older children
to play safely on their own, for people to walk their dogs or just
to walk in peace. Children would no longer be allowed to play ball
games or fl! y ! kites, dogs would have to be kept on their leads
at all times and any sense of peace would be destroyed by frequent
trams running day and night. Greenbelt designation would be under
threat from new development to meet the growing demand for new houses.
Despite assurances to the contrary the travel benefits to the Chilwell
community are highly debatable. During peak hours the Park and Ride
at Bardills will fill the tram all the way to Nottingham achieving
its aim of taking cars off the A52, but leaving Chilwell and Beeston
residents to consider alternative ways into Nottingham. In addition
it is no coincidence that after months of campaigning by residents
and businesses that NET made the following statement only weeks before
submitting their final report to the County Council cabinet - 'As
a direct result of your comments, our proposals have evolved and been
amended where appropriate. For example, we are now proposing two more
tram stops to better serve Chilwell'. So why was! n'! t the need for
these stops obvious at the early stages of planning; their were only
3 stops planned between Bardills and Beeston centre initially. Such
'improvements' ironically, can be put down to the efforts of residents
and businesses in Chilwell campaigning to highlight the shortcomings
and inappropriateness of poorly conceived route. These people should
be applauded for their efforts to turn the consultation process into
a meaningful exercise, rather than the fait accompli we were initially
presented with. Without their constant questioning and demands for
more information it would be even more likely that if the tram does
go ahead that it will prove to be an extremely costly white elephant.
How our proposals will be judged (NET) - http://www.nottinghamexpresstransit.com/network/ProposalsJudged.asp
S. Powell
Chilwell, Nottingham |
1st
May 2002
Why do James and others keep repeating that tram line only serve the
park and ride, not the local area? It will serve *both*! There will
be six tram stops from Inham Nook to the centre of Beeston 鈥 in what
way is that not serving the local area? If the tram only served a
park & ride then it would not get funding because its cost-benefit
ratio would be too low. NETs favoured route is now set and published,
so the proposals are hardly "vague". As for the current bus service,
the service along Chilwell High Road is frequent (at peak times) but
not reliable. The last bus I caught was running 20 minutes late, and
recently my wife had to wait 40 minutes for a bus at the Tennis Centre
(there should be 2 every 20 minutes). Trams will be more reliable.
Also the buses have limited space for pushchairs & buggies, and no
provision for wheelchairs. Trams will be much better for both and
will give people in wheelchairs and motorized wheelchairs easy access
to the centre of Beeston, QMC, Nottingham railway station, Market
Square and beyond.
Mark Ramsey
Chilwell |
1st
May 2002
It never ceases to amaze me how the 'Facts' can be made to fit the
result desired by NET. After spending 拢 4m and sending out 70,000
leaflets the result is the one they first thought of. Journey times
have miraculously reduced from prior reports to seemingly give a better
differential to buses. No where in the reports is reference made to
cost overruns incurred in Line 1,which Rushcliffe Council advise are
anything between 拢 60- 拢 100 million. Glib statements are made over
the impact of closing Wilford Lane for 5 minutes an hour,which I cannot
belive is a realistic estimate to allow 12 trams to pass.They really
ought to see how this area operates in rush hour !!! It seems to be
cost no object and steam on regardless.
NC
Nottingham |
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]
|
