| 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 .
|
|
|
12th
August 2002
A few replies
Steve Willoughby, how does changing the motive power of buses alter
anything regarding road traffic congestion, especially in the peaks?
Insider and Outsider give an answer 鈥 more roadbuilding. If Outsider鈥檚
friends do not conform to orthodox BCBRA policy, perhaps they could
leave and form a breakaway group - Blitzing Cities By Roadbuilding
Absolute. Suppose I suggest a new road along Chilwell Valley (one
might have been built 20 years ago). And whilst we are at it, road
widening along Chilwell High Road involving the demolition of all
the shops there, followed by demolition of Wilford embankment for
a new road there, restoration of vehicular access over the Trent at
Wilford, etc. Dave B., you are concerned that Chilwell should not
be invaded by riffraff coming in by tram. But if the present bus services
are fantastic, aren鈥檛 burglars using them right now? Thought for the
day -! just where do the tram objectors think they are going to be
two years from now?
G. Bennett
Wilford |
12th
August 2002
Arnold - Orbital and Radial RADIAL
Local authorities can safeguard existing roads or land for future
tram routes, so that no major road improvements or planning permission
for buildings would be allowed to obstruct the route. There is no
such safeguarding for a tramline along Mansfield Road to Arnold. The
A614 is not an overloaded inter-urban highway, and any tram direct
to Arnold would have to share the existing carriageway. Without special
priority at light-controlled junctions, the trams will be no faster
than(bendy)buses. The City Local Plan safeguards a tram route along
the ring road from the QMC to Sherwood, thus serving the City Hospital.
It is possible a guided-bus could be introduced here experimentally.
I presume either mode would use the central reservation. The Gedling
Local Plan shows no continuation of this route, but there are no legal
or logistical problems about that. Gedling Council is conducting a
feasibility study into passenger trains or trams on the old Gedling
colliery rail route. A ring road tram route would I presume run to
Arnold town centre via Daybrook Square and the Civic Centre. A branch
to Bestwood could be considered. Perhaps Top Valley and Rise Park
could be served by a branch off Line One. The possibility of an Arnold-Gedling
tram also occurs to me, to extend an orbital. The old railway trackbed
from Gedling to Basford via Daybrook (for Arnold) has long been destroyed
by housing. Called the BACK LINE, it closed in 1960 because of mining
subsidence in Mapperley tunnel. A tram could run along Arnot Hill
Road, then alongside, but segregated from, the A6211. A long strip
of playing fields is available. The trams would require powerful motors
to climb up Mapperley Plains 鈥 no wonder the railway had to tunnel!
New housing on the Gedling Colliery site is intended for the future,
so any City-Netherfield-Gedling tram should at least be projected
this far.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
12th
August 2002
Re: The Insider's loooong article
The Insider seems to be in a position where he can do something to
help our wonderful city. (But he does seem to be a jinx on all his
friends and colleagues - boy oh boy do they have some bad luck!) So
what are you doing, Insider, apart from posting anonymously to a public
website? Lobbying against a 拢5 fee to drive through the city centre,
or campaigning for the workplace parking tax? I'm glad you're in transport..
we might get some answers! Myself? I do voluntary work at one of our
top visitor attractions to ensure people who come here get more out
of their visit. And as for hitting someone with the chessboard - quoting
your qualifications doesn't make you the winner either! Best wishes
Mike Butler
Nottingham (of course!) |
12th
August 2002
Tram - Willoughby鈥檚 nonsense
For Mr Willoughby to claim that the Chilwell route has a detrimental
effect, economically and environmentally, is bound to generate suspicion
that anti tram people are not telling the truth. Why meet with BCBRA
again? One would simply hear the same old nonsense which has long
since been disproved. Instead, tell it straight! Your company selling
cars and petrol is bound to fear a tram. It won鈥檛 fear hydrogen buses
because a bus is a bus and it won鈥檛 attract car drivers and middle
class people. Hydrogen buses do emit pollution indirectly 鈥 you can鈥檛
claim that trams just displace the pollution and then not acknowledge
that hydrogen buses do the same. Trams bring about a bigger reduction
both by being more efficient, and by being attractive to car drivers.
What鈥檚 more track beds for trams are easier to build than bus roads,
unless of course you are suggesting that the bus! es! will run over
existing roads all the time, which makes them even less attractive.
All in all however, Mr Willoughby鈥檚 reply was very weak which is good
for the future of transport round here. Note that in June the city
council was named 'Transport Local Authority of the Year', beating
off competition from 90 other local authorities to win the accolade.
AW
Nottm |
12th
August 2002
Jim in Beeston
Message to Jim in Beeston I don't know who you are but from your messages
you seem to think you know a lot about me. Perhaps you would like
to meet with me and other BCBRA members to discuss what we really
think. Having read the messages on this forum today for the first
time it is obvious that this emotive issue has produced a lot of rash
untruths to be bandied around. For you interest, Jim, my company does
not make "huge profits" nor are we a multi national company. Nor do
I have any idea what you are talking about when you mention some big
multi national giving 拢250000 to fight our cause - though it would
be very welcome. We are a small local business providing a local service
and employing local people - and all we ask is that we be allowed
to survive. BCBRA are a group of local residents and businesses who
have formed together because we see the tram and its chosen route
as having an enormous and detrimental impact on our lives and on our
businesses. The more we looked into the tram as we did our research
the more fearful we became. These fears were not just economic but
also environmental. As an environmentalist yourself you will no doubt
be interested to hear that we have been lobbying for the installation
of trams to be replaced by investment in Hydrogen buses. These buses
emit zero pollution and are considerably less expensive than trams.
They are also far more flexible, less unsightly and quieter. The technology
is available now, but of course for political reasons grants are not
yet available (unlike for trams). In fact the only reason trams are
even being considered in our city is a political reason and the sooner
people open their eyes to this the sooner we can stop this appaulingly
costly system being implemented. Steve Willoughby, BCBRA
Steve Willoughby
Chilwell |
12th
August 2002
Phoenix Park Extension
I went to look at the possibility of extending the Phoenix Park branch
of line 1 under the motorway & into Broxtowe. The Great Northern Railway
alignment still exists under the motorway and there is a bridge, I
estimate 10m wide with ample height for at least a double track tramway.
It is now completely disused and overgrown but easily serviceable.
The approaches don鈥檛 seem to be any problem with ample room for the
tramway to change level. I understand that the Broxtowe plan allows
for substantial housing and commercial development to the West of
the M1 near to this bridge. A tramway should be built before development
starts. This could also feature another park & ride site to service
commuters using the A610 from Derbyshire and so relieve the pressure
on the Nutthall roundabout. As the developers would largely if not
entirely pay for this low cost extension, I think serious! consideration
should now be made.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
12th
August 2002
What a waste of money
Could someone please tell me why on earth Chilwell needs a tram, its
as much use as putting an ash tray on a motorbike. Bartons buses run
through every five minutes and are rarely full. Could the reason be
that county council have not wasted enough council tax payers money
recently and that Mr Warner did not run up enough expenses on his
recent trip to his ideal idea of a country Russia! Chilwell and the
surrounding area is a reasonably affluent area and by providing more
"public transport" it will only give the riff raff element more choice
as to a getaway after commiting yet another burglary. Would we not
be better in spending the money in a frivalous manner and provide
an extra police person or two. I know that the council would have
thought about this long and hard but because there is a labour majority
it could not be seen to be coming up with some thing like common sense.
Finally, Dr Palmer seems to have taken his role at the Houses of Parliament
a little too seriuosly, with taking both sides of the argument about
the tram recently he is beginning to resemble the local scenery. (more
faces than big ben)
Dave B
Nottingham |
10th
August 2002
In reply to Gary
Yes its a deliberate ploy by the government Public transport kills
very few people, and wont make them any money, but the reduced polution
will stop them having to spend on treating all the chest compainst
and road kill. So my advice to gary is You could get run over by a
bus tomorrow (or a baby eating tram next year) so go on have a fag.
As its clearly too late for you to stop banging your head against
the wall as the damage has obviously been done
AH
Nottingham |
9th
August 2002
NET monitoring
NET have confirmed to me that they are monitoring this forum. They
will not comment here but as I indicated you are all free to ask them
questions (tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk). It's good to see insider and
outsider so eloquently putting forward their sides of the argument.
Are the 91热爆 also monitoring this? Would they like to have a radio
debate? I'm happy to volunteer, is anyone else?
Steve Barber
Beeston |
9th
August 2002
The Insider
"Car accidents account for 0.03% of all deaths in the UK, and the
government makes an obscene amount of money from measures to reduce
this figure (e.g. speed cameras), while smoking is attributable to
25% of all deaths, and the government does very little to reduce this
figure and makes 拢millions in the process through taxation." At last!!!
I can stop beating my head against a brick wall I am among others
who can see this governments cynical money spinning policies
Gary
NG4 |
9th
August 2002
Reply to Insider
INSIDER is, of course, on the right lines (no pun intended) with his
comments about trams but he doesn't go nearly far enough. There is,
of course, a very simple solution to all this nonsense about trams
solving road congestion. The following six point plan should immediately
be adopted throughout the UK: 1. All public transport - buses, trams,
trains etc. should be abolished. 2. The money generated from no longer
subsidising loss making public transport and from selling off all
the vehicles and infrastructure etc. should be used to build more
roads and widen existing ones. 3. More car parks should be provided
in all towns and cities. Existing bus and rail depots and stations
should be turned into multi-storey car parks. The former public transport
staff could be employed to do this work. 4. Only cars and taxis would
be allowed on the roads during the day (definitely no cycles). All
freight traffic would have to operate at night, with the exception
of certain priority loads - e.g. fuel deliveries to petrol stations
and new cars to car dealers. 5. Road tax and fuel should be substantially
reduced in price to make motoring cheaper so more people can afford
to drive. 6. Anyone who doesn't want to drive would use taxis. I know
a few members of the anti- tram group BCBRA and they seem to agree
with the above, although they don't seem very keen to go public and
say so. I think they are being unneccesarily cautious. I suggested
that they should re-name their organisation so as to more properly
define exactly what they really stand for, and call themselves the
"Buy Cars Build Roads Association"
OUTSIDER
Nottingham |
9th
August 2002
Reply to Insider
Insider, in summary you appear to be saying that that trolleybuses
are better than trams because laying track on existing roads is a
nuisance, with traffic and public utilities diverted. You also make
the reamrkable assertion that a lot more roadbuilding in cities will
improve people's quality of life. With tram building on-street, there
is the concept of BETTERMENT. The pipes, sewers and cables of public
utilities diverted are replaced by fresh fittings better than the
old. The new fittings have a full life, with less frequent and cheaper
maintenance. It is like saying that if the tram were not built at
all, the road would eventually have to be dug up anyway for new infrastructure
of the public utilities. Insider, think about the greater disruption
in building new roads. One argument in favour of diesel buses and
against trams is that trams cannot swerve to avoid obstacles such
as jaywalkers, whilst buses can. But this does not make trams more
dangerous. Trams have a predictable and visible path, being restricted
to their own track. This is why trams can run in areas where there
are heavy pedestrian flows, even pedestrianised streets, with safety.
A trolley bus has limited ability to drive round obstacles because
of the catenary 鈥 it is neither fish nor fowl! Articulated or bendy-buses
do of course take up more room on the roads, but like trams have bigger
capacity than a diesel double-deck bus. A bendy bus can take up to
150 passengers, and a tram even better at 200. The emergency triple-braking
system on a tram is superior to the braking of a trolleybus. And isn鈥檛
the catenary of a trolleybus system less reliable and more visually
intrusive than for a tram? Trams do have a bright, modern visual image
on the streets. Aside from cost, this is one reason why the old railway
tunnel north of the Victoria Centre was not pursued, with the Light
Rapid Transit feasibility study 13 years ago. A trolleybus remains
a bus, not attractive enough. I don鈥檛 doubt the virtue of clean-fuel
technology, especially for cars, but it is still too experimental,
futuristic and not commercially viable. Improving air quality in cities
is certainly important since most air pollution nowadays is caused
by vehicle exhaust emissions. I have already commented on bus lanes
and busways in the public transport chapter of speakout. Bus lanes
have limited scope in large urban areas, need junction priority at
traffic signals, are not difficult for motorists to trespass, and
psychologically often produce resentment amongst motorists because
of visible carriageway rationing. Road widening may be required, easier
said than done. Speed improvements essentially mean dedicated busways
are required as well. Busways are costly, and would take the same
controversial routes as off-street tramlines in Chilwell or Wilford
anyway, with more environmental impact on landtake, farmland, landscape,
open space, woodland, wildlife, noise, and proximity to housing. It
is essential for the buses to be much faster, punctual and reliable
than the present bus network, in order to encourage motorists to use
their cars less, especially through park-and-ride. Even with trolleybuses
on dedicated busways, the tram still scores better! in at least three
ways 鈥 city centre penetration/speed, cross-city linkage, and less
impact from brand new routes away from existing roads. Insider, your
calculations for the future on population and car ownership are simplistic
and misleading. It is true that two-thirds of all households own at
least one car. But this proportion has changed little in the last
thirty years. Are we to let public transport wither, increasing social
divisiveness? Insider, you appear to be undervaluing urban congestion
from private motoring. You do not take account of car USAGE as opposed
to pure ownership. I have already illustrated the point myself. In
the last 20 years the number of car journeys where a parent takes
their child to school has gone up NINEFOLD, adding to peak period
congestion. 70 per cent of ALL car journeys are less than 5 miles
and 45 per cent are less than two miles. We should try to use cars
less, and combine non-work journeys, or cycle or walk more often!
I am appalled at your remarks about 鈥渁 pathetic attempt to keep everything
centralised鈥. It is government planning policy to consolidate existing
settlements and not promote out-of-town or edge-of-town development
any more. Regional shopping centres like Meadowhall, Sheffield or
Bluewater, Kent, are no longer favoured. They stunt trade in nearby
existing town centres. Perhaps you do not appreciate what you are
saying about more road-building. Forty years ago Professor Sir Colin
Buchanan was commissioned by government to estimate future road traffic
growth and what its implications would be. The masterpiece produced
was TRAFFIC IN TOWNS, HMSO 1962 (otherwise called the Buchanan Report).
Buchanan was no car-worshipping chauvinist, but he remarked philosophically
that the car was an extension of the living room, and also said: 鈥渨e
are nourishing a monster of great potential destructiveness鈥 and yet
we love him dearly鈥. His predictions about the number of cars on the
roads of the UK by 2010 (30 million) were overestimate since he could
not have foreseen the 1973-5 world energy crisis. He made the point
emphatic that British towns and cities would have to be COMPLETELY
REBUILT to accommodate the car circulation and parking that would
be required. In other words, the built heritage of the urban environment
would be destroyed. Civic design would be degraded under tarmac and
multi-storey car parks. Hurrah. Tell it to people living in Oxford,
Cambridge, Stamford or Bath. Especially Bath, a World Heritage city
that once had trams and will have some new ones, because its traffic
problems are so acute, and more roads would be impossibly destructive.
Amongst large industrial cities, consider Leeds with its revolting
inner motorway box. Better than this, the city will have three new
tram routes within the next five years. How about Birmingham, where
until recently the ugly inner orbital forced pedestrians into the
rabbit warrens called subways. Brum will have three new tramlines
as well within six years, digging up the city centre yes, and out
to the airport. Leicester may one day have trams, but I hope she never
has a 鈥減roper鈥 ring road or butchering spaghetti junction with church-over-cutting
like Derby at its Nott! ingham Road end. Here in Nottingham Maid Marian
Way opened 40 years ago 鈥 Professor of Architecture at Nottingham
University David Ling once called it the ugliest street in Europe.
Hooray for slicing through the historic east-west axis of streets
between the Market Square and the Castle. Insider, your ideas for
roads in someone else's backyard would only allow cites to thrive
at the philistine expense of degrading civic design, and make them
not worth visiting. There is no charm about the appearance of a multi-storey
car park or an urban motorway. Do come back to Nottingham for future
shopping, after the tram and the new Broad Marsh Centre are built.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
9th
August 2002
Reply to Linda and PAS
The tram is not going to be a white elephant, Linda. The objectors
are a small minority with a loud voice and not enough rational thought.
The opening of Line One will democratise the trams for many continuing
sceptics and apathetics. Hope you enjoy using it. In answer to PAS,
the Beeston-Chilwell tram, via the NET preferred route, can cater
for park-and-ride on the A52 because the Chilwell extension is very
cheap to build at 拢12 million per mile and has a run of only 8 minutes.
The extension has good intermediate traffic potential from the north
Chilwell suburbs because the trams will be at least ten minutes faster
to the city centre off-peak than buses, and with much better timing
advantage in the peaks. It is no good local objectors saying trams
are unnecessary. The 3.5 mile double-track only Midland main line
from Beeston to Long Eaton would not have the capacity for track sharing
with a tram, and there is little opportunity for widening, unlike
the immediate approach to Midland station. Nor can the main line from
Beeston to Nottingham be widened for a tram, as the Beeston objectors
have already found out.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
8th
August 2002
Notingham is getting better!
Having lived here for 12 years, I think Nottingham is a pretty good
place to live and its getting better. The city and county councils
(and the districts in the county鈥檚 area) do very well compared to
others in the UK, and work very well with each other. For instance,
Greater Nottingham鈥檚 transport plan is highly regarded. You can learn
about it on www.thebigwheel.org.uk . Nottingham, Notts and Newark
& Sherwood (and Leicester) do very well on environmental matters and
are leaders in this country. It is no surprise then that we are getting
the tram, bringing us up to the level of civilised countries. As for
PAS, he misunderstands heavy and light rail duality. The Newcastle
to Sunderland line has very few heavy trains running on it per hour,
so the metro is able to use it. The line out through Beeston can鈥檛
even cope with the demands from heavy rail, that鈥檚 why the GNARDS
plan for services to Ilke! ston were abandoned. One of the very reasons
why a tram is needed is because that rail line is at capacity, according
to the E Midlands N-S M1 multi modal study. The lightly used line
out through Wollaton would be OK for light and heavy sharing though
(or even being completely taken over by light rail, assuming the hourly
Sheffield train can be squeezed through Beeston). That would give
a light rail (tram) service to Ilkeston. But the Chilwell line will
still be needed to serve Beeston and Chilwell, sorry PAS. Never mind
you could always sell up. It seems that houses near to the proposed
Chilwell tram route are selling quickly despite a few silly anti tram
posters around!
AW
Nottingham |
8th
August 2002
Heavy & light rail
PAS to answer your proposal to have an alternative to the Beeston
/ Chilwell line to go along the railway, there are problems: This
is a very busy section of track with 125m.p.h. inter city trains and
100m.p.h locals. It would be impossible to run another 6 trams an
hour with stops, running at a maximum of 50m.p.h. If another dedicated
track is laid alongside all we get is an inferior system which does
not serve the Q.M.C., University, Beeston centre, Chilwell Road, Broxtowe
College the old peoples complexes and the major residential areas.
Duallity may be useful on some of the less well used lines such as
the Trowell loop and the freight lines up the Erewash valley but not
the Trent valley line.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
8th
August 2002
Imagine A Better World...
In reply to Mr./Miss. Insider: You suggest make room for more cars.
Where shall we put the new roads? Perhaps we should knock down houses
along Derby road maybe to make a 3 laned motorway branch off the M1
into Nottingham? How much would that cost in comparison (bearing in
mind one has to buy all the property and pay off everyone else for
losses on their house prices, extra noise and pollution, etc)? This
ignores the social cost, who wants to live beside a motorway? As well
as the jams moving to where the motorway ends and the other roads
start. Having a look at into city motorway routes such as in cities
like Bristol and Birmingham might change your mind. Or maybe you think
that the roads can cope with double the amount of traffic as you seem
to suggest. Have you actually ever ventured out in a car during the
rush hour? Right now is not a good time to do that homework since
there are a lot of works going on, but as anyone who is in their car
at these times will tell you, the roads are full, and it takes ages
to go a few miles. A small incident can mean an 30 mins to an hour's
delay. There is a very good example in the UK of what happens when
you build new roads to take the extra traffic, the M25. That's 3-4
lanes of motorway, and was built around 20 years ago, and is full,
jammed and clogged during the rush hour, as are the roads it was meant
to divert traffic from. So what about the fuel cell idea. I welcome
any way of making cars greener. Using your _assumption_ of mass produced
cars in 2010. That's 2010, 8 years from now which we have to suffer,
which asthma suffers (a high percentage of attacks caused by pollution)
have to put up with, 8 years of increasing traffic and accidents that
go with it. And you still overlook, that it might be another 10 years
beyond that when enough people have switched their current cars to
the new ones. A tram might indeed move pollution production elsewhere,
but the point is it's out of the city away from the people who choke
on the fumes. And it's easier to make power generation greener (alternative
power, increasing efficiency, better control of byproducts, planting
trees to deal with the extra CO2) than dealing with millions cars.
The problem most motorists face is there simply isn't a good enough
transport system to make them want to switch. Few of us wants to sit
in jams. Nottingham's other major problem is the links to other cities
are poor (underfunded, slow, overcrowded and too expensive) by rail.
Maybe once a tram is there to take people out of the cities, high
speed transport links can be built (such as high speed hover trains
running alongside the M1 so it would be possible to do Nottingham
- London in an hour) to connect Nottingham with the south and north.
Your response seems to be of the sort that says 'I own a car; it's
my right to own a car; I will use a car if I want'. Maybe it's time
to consider others? Nottingham is going to have a tram whether you
like it or not, whinging about other solutions doesn't help. Energy
would be far better focused on making sure the tram is built, networked
and run efficiently.
David
Nottingham |
8th
August 2002
Worst City in the Country?
Lynda where do you get the impression that there are so many dissatisfied,
dispirited people in Nottingham? A minority like to moan about the
tram but as is reflected on this forum the majority want the tram.
PAS - I've drawn NET's attention to the debate here, I would like
them to comment but they say that they have a policy not to contribute
to community forums. You can of course contact them tram@nottinghamcity.gov.uk
Steve Barber
Beeston |
8th
August 2002
Response to Insider
In response to Insider鈥檚 completely uninformed and bigoted opinions.
Out of town shopping: very few people from Nottingham go to Meadowhall.
Those that do go there because they can use the shopping centre and
then go by tram to the city centre. Out of town shopping centres can
never be as good as city centre locations because they don鈥檛 have
the variety of shops and other services. More cars: We already have
too much traffic on the road. Doubling the number of cars is completely
impractical. Also, with more roads, people would use those cars more
so the result would be more than double the traffic. Demonising factors
of cars: There are others, not just pollution (multiple aspects 鈥
global warming, as well as local environmental and health impacts)
and congestion (and its consequential economic damage). For instance
there鈥檚 the traffic accidents which kill or injure people and speeding
traffic whi! ch splits communities and prevents children playing.
Braking: Trams can brake faster than other vehicles for reasons including
the fact that magnetism can be used, as well as the regenerating of
electricity back into the system. Trolley buses: A nice idea (I would
support them where there is no choice other than on road running)
but trams are faster, provide easier access and egress (no need to
line up with the kerb), and a more attractive to car drivers and the
middle classes. An ordinary bus is not going to attract people whether
it has a diesel engine or a fuel cell. A bus is still a bus. It still
gets stuck in traffic jams or you have to build separate roads or
guided busways for it, which involves more impact than tram tracks.
A bus鈥檚 best hope is as part of an integrated transport system feeding
into trams etc. Fuel cells: The technology is still extremely expensive
and limited. And it does pollute! How do you think the hydrogen produced
for use in the fuel cell? Using! electricity but less efficiently
than a tram would use it. Some fuel cells use hydrocarbons in which
case they are still contributing to global warming! Single deckers:
Such trams and bendy buses etc have a major advantage over double
decker vehicles in that the driver and everyone can see each other
and what鈥檚 going on, so people don鈥檛 cause trouble or smoke etc. on
the upper deck as they do now. Driving: Not everyone can drive, afford
or use a car e.g. children, elderly, the disabled, drug users (illegal
and prescription) and drinkers. Cities: Those that force the use of
the car prosper less well than those that offer public transport.
That鈥檚 why London does so much better than elsewhere in the UK and
why continental cities fare much better than anywhere in the UK. I
suppose America prospers but then I have found their public transport
to be often better than the UK鈥檚. Otherwise they are very much disliked
for their arrogance in polluting the world and wasting its resourc!
es. Its not a dirty thing to live in cities, quite the opposite in
fact. With western lifestyles, living in densely populated areas is
much more sustainable. Conclusion: Judging by the monumental numbers
of errors and misunderstandings in his submission, it is no surprise
that Insider listens to a 'certain radio station' 鈥 its just the sort
of uninformed nonsense I鈥檇 expect from the type of person who listens
to it, although I would have thought Insider might be more suited
to the even more downmarket 'national radio station'. Insider thinks
that learned people are liars. He might want to imagine what we think
about him.
AW
Nottm |
8th
August 2002
A better world
The road lobby are at it again! Insider starts off by accepting the
tram then goes on to the trolleybus - which is an expensive and less
useful alternative then comes on to his real agenda - PROMOTE THE
CAR. I'm sorry we can all see through you, the road lobby, garage
owners, multi-national oil companies all at work once again.
Jim
Beeston |
8th
August 2002
Imagine a better world
In reply to the insider. Has the insider spent too long inhaling fumes
from his chosen form of transport as he obviously does not populate
the same environment as me. Car growth has increased at a faster rate
than the population and even the Conservative government realised
that if you build a road it attracts more traffic such that due to
growth most motorway improvements are already beyond the expanded
capacity when they are opened. There are plans being investigated
to widen the M1 to five lanes each direction, and that will need a
new road to link to Nottingham. Where should that go, along a previously
identified transport corridor perhaps (a discarded tram route for
instance)? Tarmac over West Bridgford If out of town shopping is the
answer what effect will that have on the small shops (like the ones
that used to exist in Sheffield before Medowhall). And lets all move
out of towns and cities and live in the countryside, how dare they
have rebuilt the lace market in Nottingham to repopulate the city
centre. Lets build on the green belt. If the Car is the answer and
we should have our city designed around accommodating the car what
does the Insider think of Coventry city centre (Utopia? Particularly
the ring road). I expect he is disgusted at what they have done to
Birmingham in the last few years they have actually made the city
centre habitable. Stop focussing on the 30 ft of tarmac in front of
you and open you eyes and look about you and try breathing some fresh
air it may clear your mind.
AH
Nottingham |
8th
August 2002
Reply to insider
Insider you seem to a very confused person. You start off by accepting
the tram then propose an inferior system before suggesting that the
car is the answer to our problems. Your arguments in favour of the
trolleybus are flawed. You propose tarmaccing the green corridor through
Chilwell (鈥減urpose built roads鈥). I find that environmentally unacceptable
and expensive. It would be a haven for joy riders. The formation would
have to be considerably wider than the tramway and there would be
more noise. Let鈥檚 see you sell that to Clumber Ave! You must be in
love with your car, to drive all the way to Sheffield (I invariably
get held up somewhere en route) to do some shopping. I get the bus
or cycle into Beeston or Nottingham, zero stress and I must say now
that car lovers such as yourself find it more difficult to get there
it is a much more pleasant environment. 鈥 I鈥檝e not noticed any reduction
in shoppers though. Roll on the tram when getting there becomes even
easier. Trams are green. The pollution levels are considerably less
than either a bus or a car. Furthermore as you say the smaller amounts
of pollution are not concentrated where people breath, around schools
etc. All this new technology may be as wonderful as you claim but
I have my doubts. Anyhow it is nowhere near viable yet. Trams are.
Also as new technology and greener methods of electricity production
come into play trams can make use of this immediately. The whole concept
of doubling the number of cars on the road fills me with horror. Even
ignoring the pollution aspects we have noise, danger & stress. Already
10 people every day are killed on the roads; do you want to see 20?
I don鈥檛. You conclude by saying, 鈥淚magine a world where transport
is cheap and fast and flexible鈥 I have seen such a place 鈥 Switzerland
with it鈥檚 trams and proper integrated public transport system, I suggest
that you go there.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
8th
August 2002
The future's bright!
What a ridiculous rant from the 鈥榠nsider鈥. Of course, like most rants,
it is riddled with inaccuracy and GCSE misinformation. So lets put
him right: Trams will consistently outperform buses at stopping (and
will bring 拢5 million of accident savings); the trolley bus in Nancy,
France has been a total failure because the system has no history
in operation anywhere else (whereas Nottingham鈥檚 tram is running excellently
in Nantes); for a segregated trolley bus you need to build segregated
roads (which cost more than ballasted tram track); bendy buses are
about access for all! (disabled and elderly people can鈥檛 climb tight
stairs!); fuel cells could be used in Nottingham and probably will
be used on buses; trolley buses have a much smaller capacity to carry
people and cannot travel as fast; pollution at power stations is easier
to clean and is infinitesimal compared to the amount! already produced
(and in the future, power will increasingly come from renewable sources
[solar, wind etc.]); the growth in road traffic is not about the number
of people living in the UK, but about the numbers of journeys made
by people in their cars each year 鈥 that will rise by 50% in the next
25 years! That is unless we do something about it 鈥 like build a proven,
reliable, regenerating, accessible and punctual鈥︹︹︹..tram network
to build on Line One!
Andrew
Beeston |
8th
August 2002
tram
Some interesting, intelligent discussion in this forum in the last
few days. I hope for our benfit that both NET and the County council
have been presented with, and are assimilating, these ideas and arguments.
I was not aware of duality of light rail with heavy rail. Now surely
that makes for a really cheap alternative to the Beeston-Chilwell
extension, which can continue on to Long Eaton.... with the associated
increased cost benefit ratio.
pas
Chilwell |
8th
August 2002
Worst City in the Country?
I didn't realise there were so many dissatisfied, dispirited people
in Nottingham. It really is an appalling situation. Who, then, keeps
voting for this council? Why are they not voted out when it is obvious
they are not in the least interested in the feelings and opinions
of the people? They are too interested in trying to raise money to
pay for another white elephant, namely the tram system. What a truly
inadequate shower they are!
Lynda
Nottingham |
7th
August 2002
Ilkeston
This may be slightly off topic but there has been a proposal to open
up Long Eaton, Trowell, Ilkeston & Wollaton stations for heavy rail.
Has any progress been made on this? I heard of congestion problems
through Beeston - is this true? In Sunderland light & heavy rail are
mixed on the same track. This had originally been proposed for line
1 of NET but the technology was not available when the contracts were
let. It is now available so tram running along the Trowell loop becomes
a possibility. I wonder how the journey times would then compare.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
7th
August 2002
Imagine A Better World...
1) Okay, let's face it, we're getting a tram whether we like it or
not. But imagine a tram installation that didn't require months of
pipe-moving and track-laying, imagine a tram that that could effortlessly
drive around obstacles, that was lighter and stopped faster... in
short, imagine the trackless tram. I'm not old enough to remember
the trolleybus, but I don't have to be. There are manufacturers out
there who build viable trackless trams right now, and they're just
as 'sexy' as trams (Btw, who in their right mind thinks a tram is
sexy? seek psychological help at the next available opportunity!)
For that matter, has anyone seen those ridiculous bendybuses? All
the seating capacity of doubledecker, but it takes up twice the room
on the road! Brilliant! Just what Nottingham's congested roads need!
Anyway, the only arguments I've seen on here AGAINST a trackless tram
a! re! a) it's shorter length [probably not true of modern ones, and
even if it is you just put more on the road!] b) longer stopping distance
[are you sure about that? a GCSE-level knowledge of physics would
seem to contradict that - in your experience, what has greater friction,
metal-on-metal or rubber-on-tarmac? [clue: bicycle brake pads are
not made of metal...]] c) they would have to sit in traffic like everything
else [wrong! trams won't sit in traffic because they have purpose-built
lanes and roads, and have traffic signal priority - so would a trackless
tram, and it would be here by now because you wouldn't have to dig
up all the roads and cause utter misery for everyone.] 2) How many
times have you read a comment like this: "Go to Sheffield and see
the trams there and you will want a tram in Nottingham". Guess what?
I've been carried on every inch of track in Sheffield and I still
don't want trams [or if I must have them, I want TRACKLESS trams!]]
3) I'm so sick and tired of the chaos the tramworks are causing! (which
would be reduced greatly by trackless trams...) These days I approach
shopping in a totally different way. I hop on board a special bus
that picks me up from directly outside my house, which whisks me at
immense speed to Sheffield's Meadowhall, and it's waiting for me the
moment I'm finished. I call this special bus 'a car'. Anyone find
it a tad ironic that because of my home city installing a tram, I
(and no doubt other people too) use a car to go to the outskirts of
another city that already has a tram? 4) "Trams are green". Yes, they
are, though of course they merely reduce the pollution and move it
somewhere else. Imagine, if you will, another option, where electricity
is generated from stored hydrogen, and the only exhaust emmision is
water. We're talking about fuel cell technology of course. It's as
green as a tram (if not more so). This is not fantasy. The major car
developers (Toyota, Daimler-Crysler, Ford and Honda, to name a few,
are all planning to release fuel cell vehicles by 2004. They think
they will be mass-produced by 2010. Fuel cell buses are being used
RIGHT NOW in London, Reykjavik, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Luxembourg,
Hamburg, Stuttgart, Barcelona and Porto. These are all verifiable
facts (don't take my word for it, go to the DETR's website and see
for yourself). 5. Now here comes the final big leap of imagination.
Remember, fuel cells cars will be mass-produced by 2010 (okay, let's
be pessimistic, let's say 2020). Remember that fuel cell technology
is totally NON-POLLUTING. Where does this logically lead us... suddenly,
in the near future, we have removed the major demonising factor surrounding
car use - pollution. Which cities will thrive in those circumstances?
Will it be those that have short-sightedly tried to keep everything
centralised in a pathetic attempt to ape London (I don't care how
many times Trent FM tells me I live the 'world's best city', I'm not
buying their propaganda - it isn't even the best city in the UK!)
or will the thriving cities be those that have provided multi-lane
motorways leading to big car parks and nice indoor shopping centres?
Think about that. Of course pollution isn't the only demonising factor
surrounding cars - there is one other major problem, that being congestion.
Let's deal with that o! ne! : a) car ownership is currently 65% at
least. It can only grow as high as 100% - does it sound like an impossible
task to accommodate double the current number of cars? not to me it
doesn't, especially if money is properly invested in road systems
and not wasted on trendy short-term solutions. % car ownership is
not the full story of course. The population size does not stay static.
Once again, a mere GCSE-level knowledge (this time of demographics)
will enlighten you. Developed countries such as the UK all display
the same population trend - population size levels off, then starts
to fall. It's a fact. (e.g. No. births-deaths in 1950: 902,000-645,000
(growth=257,000; No births-deaths in 2000: 679,000-608,000 (growth=71,000).
(http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ukinfigs/default.asp) It's estimated
that our population will peak in 2030 (with an increase of around
15% compared to now), then start to fall back again. So you see, the
absolute maximum number of cars that could ! be! on the roads in 2030
is not much more than double the current level. Any claims you hear
that 'building roads is not an aswer, because the number of cars will
always increase is simply A LIE. A city, or even a country, that plans
for this instead of trying to force people out of cars will prosper
both financially and in terms of quality of life. Dare to imagine
a world where there is a sensible public transport system that runs
on time and a world where there are good roads that can carry pollution-free,
guilt-free motorists to modern shopping facilities (and *everyone*
can use their car if they want to). Imagine a world where transport
is cheap and fast and flexible, and people don't have to huddle in
stupidly dirty, overpriced and overpopulated areas like London and
Nottingham. I think that's a better world, don't you?
The Insider
Nottingham |
6th
August 2002
Hundreds of reasons for a tram
An article in tonights Evening Post, page 9 begins "Hundreds of 999
calls were made by asthmatics as pollution levels in the city reached
high levels." Without the tram it's only going to get worse. We owe
it to our children to do something and stop being selfish, insisting
on driving our cars wherever and whenever.
Jim
Beeston |
6th
August 2002
Ilkeston trams
In addition to the trams being quicker than buses in the peaks, they
should also be desirably faster off-peak as well. The present off-peak
bus timing from Ilkeston to Nottingham along the A609 with Rainbow
One is 35 minutes. A tram from Bardills to the Old Market Square via
the NET preferred route would take 33.5 minutes, so any extension
of this route to Ilkeston cannot surely work. AW, your remarks are
very interesting. The trams on routes up Woodside Road, Wollaton Vale
and then across farmland, or via Bilborough/Strelley to Ilkeston,
would have to be fast, so a 24 feet wide berth adjacent the carriageways
and street crossing priority are essential. A direct run to QMC is
enabled. A Kimberley extension of Line One is a winner. SB, I could
not agree more with Section 106 Agreements (developer contributions
to public works, such as tram building, or for off-site mitigation).
Build the tram, school, and a fresh M1 park-and-ride site at Kimberley
before the new housing and business park they would serve. Extending
the Kimberley tram route further however, to Ilkeston via Awsworth
and Cossall on-street, looks too expensive and slow. When Nottingham
Victoria station opened in 1900, the fastest steam trains on the Great
Northern Railway from Ilkeston via Kimberley did the run in 14 minutes.
By 1964, when the passenger service ended, the last diesel trains
took 25 minutes. Three years later the local stations on the Erewash
Valley line closed. Ilkeston has had no passenger trains since, and
following the opening of the Robin Hood Line in 1993-5, vies with
Coalville as the largest town in the UK with no direct rail passenger
service. As I have said, th! e ! present off-peak bus takes 35 minutes
to Nottingham, ending up exactly where the trains once did. A century
of progress? Could the tram be extended from Kimberley along the Great
Northern trackbed? Some new bridges are required e.g., over the A610
Kimberley-Eastwood by-pass. Most of the railway embankment in the
town has long been removed and replaced by a 50 feet wide strip of
public open space. The lattice Bennerley viaduct is a listed building,
but it would be appropriate to restore it to the use for which it
was built. The only serious impediment appears to be a small modern
housing estate at Bennerley on the trackbed, and at least a dozen
houses here would have to be demolished to make way for the tram.
This is no light matter! But at least a tram on the Trowell-Radford
rail loop would outpace the bus from Ilkeston. The tram route follows
the A609 corridor. It would revitalise an existing under-used railway
asset as done in Manchester, Newcastle and Croydon. With rail conversion,
costs are reduced and tram speeds kept up. At the Nottingham end a
Hartley Road/Bentinck Road connection to Line One at the Forest is
exactly what I have been thinking. The alternatives would be to take
the tram further down the Robin Hood Line, either all the way to the
rail platforms at Midland station (dead-end problem), or otherwise
link up with the Beeston tram at Kings Meadow (circuitous). But if
Line One has no more capacity either, fresh on-street entry to the
city centre might be the answer for the Ilkeston tram.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
5th
August 2002
Tram to Ilkeston
There is another option for taking the tram to Ilkeston and that鈥檚
via Wollaton Vale. This would link Ilkeston with the QMC and university.
The new line would branch off the Beeston line at the Beeston end
of the university and run up Woodside Road. It would cross the A52
at Priory Island and run up Wollaton Vale all the way to the Balloon
Woods 5 way junction. Then it could run via the M1 Trowell services
and a new Trowell / Ilkeston rail station (on the Erewash line) into
Ilkeston (via Furnace Road and Green Lane?). Nearly all of it would
be off road (both Woodside Road and Wollaton Vale feature acres of
unused space) but it would go through reasonable populated areas like
north east Beeston and parts of Wollaton. It could also take traffic
off the A609 Ilkeston Road. As regards the Stapleford route, the M1
MMS maps were a bit vague and I think they really meant extending
the pr! op! osed Chilwell line from Toton Island (Stapleford south)
to Bessell Lane (Stapleford west) and then up the Erewash rail line,
which is too far around. Certainly taking it to Bessell Lane would
be great for Stapleford, it would put Stapleford鈥檚 shopping area on
the tram network. I would support Ilkeston via Kimberley, then with
the Wollaton Vale s line there could be an Ilkeston loop! By the way
full marks to those who have spotted yet another Ilkeston route as
follows: off line 1 at Bentick Road near the Forest park and ride.
Along Hartley Road, and New Road. Across the Radford rail junction
and for a short way parallel to the rail line. At the ring road /
Beechdale Baths flip over to the Beechdale Road. Then Wigman Road
to Bilborough and Strelley (lots of nice but under-used dual carriageways).
Then across country and via the M1 Trowell services and as above.
Along with the Wollaton rail and Stapleford street routes, I make
that about six tram options to Ilkeston. What鈥檚 the! big problem?
Just as with a route to Long Eaton, its in Derbyshire, and that鈥檚
a different place!
AW
Nottingham |
|
3rd
August 2002
Phoenix Park to Kimberley
This extension to line 1 should be built straight away. There exists
(I believe) a bridge under the M1 which can be used. There is to
be a lot of housing and business land development in the area. the
tram should be up & running before a brick is laid on these developments.
The finance can largely be got from the developers (at present they
must contribute to the road infrastructure). If the trams is in
place first then people use them to get to & from work before they
buy a second car. The same should apply before any further development
on the Army site at Chilwell.
S.B.
Beeston
in reply
3rd August
2002
Phoenix
Park to Kimberley
S.B.
(Steve?) suggests that people don't buy a second car but use the
tram. You'll have all the wrath of Mr Willoughby and his BCBRA,
with the Tories too and anyone else he can con brought down on you.
You're threatening his huge profits! He'll get a multi-national
oil company to nail you. You can't go around making rash (even though
they make sense) statements like that.
Jim
Beeston
|
3rd
August 2002
Cross-city Gedling to Ilkeston
Since it takes many years to plan tram routes, further possibilities
in Nottingham may as well be investigated now in outline, with cheap
feasibility studies. After the first three tram routes are running
by 2007, an extension of Line One from Phoenix Park to Kimberley looks
the next prospect. The route is almost entirely off-street for fast
running, and the only major engineering a bridge under the M1. The
trams would avoid the M1/A610 bottleneck, and enable extra park-and-ride
for both roads. The land for the route, and accompanying expansion
of Kimberley town itself towards the M1, are already safeguarded by
Broxtowe Borough Council. In other British cities with trams, there
are various examples of them integrated with or replacing railways,
or routed on abandoned rail trackbeds. Trams can penetrate city centres
more effectively than rail or bus. Gedling Borough Council are interested
in the restoration of train services on the old colliery railway to
Gedling village, or a having a tram there instead (Gedling鈥檚 tram
plea, Evening Post, July 23). I suggest a tram would be better value
for money. It can have far more and cheaper stops, a much higher frequency
of service, and can be extended on-street at either end. Thus Sneinton
could be served, assisting urban regeneration. A tram to Ilkeston
is another long-term possibility. If the Liverpool to East Anglia
trains were diverted via Trent junction, the Trowell to Radford rail
link could be given over entirely to the tram. At the city end, a
link on-street through Radford would, as in Sneinton, revitalise the
area. There are two further ways of getting trams to Ilkeston. The
M1 multi-modal study suggested extending the Chilwell NET preferred
route on-street through Stapleford, with a branch to the M1 service
area at Trowell. The other tram route to Ilkeston could be from the
Kimberley route I have mentioned above, via Awsworth on-street and
entry to the town from the northern or Cotmanhay end. I have a feeling
these two Ilkeston routes would not be viable however, with tram speeds
uncompetitive compared to buses to the city centre. However, the M1
Trowell service area could otherwise be served by a branch off the
converted railway line from Radford I have suggested above.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
2nd
August 2002
Rain rain & more rain
Enjoying the wet summer? At least we in Beeston & Chilwell will soon
feel better as we make our contribution to stop global warming.
Jim
Beeston |
2nd
August 2002
Follow-up to Realist of Chilwell
Following on from Realist of Chilwell鈥檚 contribution, in the last
year or so I have seen, amongst other gems, the tram described as
鈥榓 creeping cancer鈥 (Post letters, 10 September 2001) and NET compared
to Stalin (BCBRA website). I simply don鈥檛 see this emotive and bellicose
approach being reciprocated by those in favour of the tram.
David
Wilford |
2nd
August 2002
Who will use the tram?
Reply to Sue: Studies from other tram systems show that some car drivers
*will* use the tram. For example, in the first year of Croydon Tramlink
19% of all trips were made by people who previously made the same
trip by car - saving up to 4m car journeys per year. As a result of
this, Croydon was the only London Borough to report zero traffic growth
last year. A survey in Sheffield in 1999 showed that 22% of trips
would have previously been made by car. Towns and cities in Britain
and abroad show the benefit of a tram system - why should Nottingham
be any different?
Mark Ramsey
Chilwell |
2nd
August 2002
Tram advantages
Sue obviously has not heard that a big reason for having the tram
is that it is attractive to car users and the middle classes, unlike
buses. While we鈥檙e at it, here are some more reasons why trams are
good (particularly compared to buses, whether they be diesel, LPG,
trolley (electric) or futuristic fuel cell): Trams can carry more
people; Cause less pollution (less asthma, less ill-health, thus huge
hidden financial benefits); Cause lower greenhouse gas emissions (more
hidden benefits); Emit less noise; Last longer; Have a sense of permanence;
Are more reliable; Can run on or off road; Where running off road
the track bed is cheaper than building a road; Can accelerate faster;
Can travel faster; Can stop more quickly; Give a much more comfortable
ride; Have low floors for easy access; Have more doors for easier
access; Can operate better in wintry conditions; Are more accessible
! for the elderly, infirm, wheelchairs, buggies, electric carts and
bicycles; Are safer than road vehicles (for passengers and pedestrians
- the huge hidden financial benefits); Are cheaper to build than underground
or metro systems; Bring about regeneration and gentrification of run
down areas; Can give a city centre an advantage over others re inward
investment; Have easy to understand routes and timetables. And there
are more reasons, that I haven鈥檛 got time to address.
AW
Nottingham |
2nd
August 2002
Reply to Sue of Nottingham
See Mark Ramsey's posting of 18 July 2002.
David
Wilford
1st August 2002
Who Will Use The Tram?
I think those who currently use the bus will use the tram and those
who use their car will carry on using their car! Sue, Nottingham.
Sue
Nottingham |
1st
August 2002
TRAMS TO CHILWELL
DAMNED IF THEY DO, DAMNED IF THEY DON鈥橳 ! One of the amazing things
about those opposed to the tram coming to Beeston and Chilwell, is
the way in which they will manipulate any issue to try and show how
harmful or useless the tram will be. We鈥檝e already been told that
it will be so noisy that it will keep us awake all night (despite
there being no proposed service during the night), yet at the same
time be so quiet that it will creep up on us, unawares, and kill us
all! But the most amazing turnaround is now to be found on the website
of BCBRA (the group opposed to the tram). Back in April, their newsletter
stated: 鈥淭he tram will terminate at Midland Station. Is this where
you want to go? How long will it take you walk to your final destination?
Is 20 minutes from Beeston Square to Midland Station plus time on
foot to complete your journey enough of an improvement to justify
the disruption?鈥 Despite the fact that everybody (except, it seems,
BCBRA) already knew that the tram will not terminate at the Midland
Station but will continue into the City Centre and along Line One,
what is now clear is that whoever writes their Newsletter doesn鈥檛
talk to their webmaster. For their website now offers the following
new reason for opposing the tram: Beeston & Chilwell will lose out
to Broadmarsh The Chilwell Extension to Nottingham Express Transit鈥檚
Beeston line will just be a conduit for sucking punters into the massive,
forthcoming 鈥淢eadow Hall鈥 sized Broadmarsh redevelopment. The Park
and Ride at Bardill鈥檚 Island may as well be renamed 鈥淏roadmarsh Car
Park.鈥 The Broadmarsh shopping centre in Nottingham will be undergoing
an immense rebuilding programme that will result in a huge increase
in its footprint, both physically and commercially. Add to this the
fact that the Chilwell tram will be running directly to a station
at the heart of the complex and it鈥檚 not hard to see that a commercial
imbalance between Broadmarsh and outlying shopping areas will be created.
The tram may indeed be a good thing for The City of Nottingham but
Beeston and Chilwell are bound to loose(sic) out commercially in the
final analysis. When the commercial aspect of a community is affected
adversely, other aspects of that community are usually affected adversely
as well. So there we have it. Back in April the tram was a bad thing
because it wouldn鈥檛 take us to the shops in Nottingham. Now it鈥檚 a
bad thing because it will. There鈥檚 just no pleasing some folk! Add
to that the fact that at certain times over the past 12 months, we鈥檝e
been told by the antis that the Chilwell trams will be no good because:
a) Nobody will use them so it will be a waste of money. b) They will
so full from Bardill鈥檚 Island that it will be impossible to get on
in Chilwell. c) There won鈥檛 be any stops in Chilwell. d) There will
be too many stops in Chilwell. The good thing about all this is that
it certainly provides us all with lots of entertainment. Keep it up
you antis. I can鈥檛 wait for the public enquiry!
REALIST
CHILWELL |
|
31st
July 2002
Political parties & policy
I see Steve Barber wants to get New Labour & the Greens on board.
Well Steve you and your Gold Credit card carrying, Chardonnet swilling
champagne socialist buddies at BACIT should have NEW labour in your
pockets - I'm not so sure about OLD Labour though. The Greens though;-
First send the tram as far away from Lower Road as possible, across
fields - convenient for sheep and cows but of no other use and you'll
convince them.
Jim
Beeston
and in reply
31st
July 2002
Political Parties and policy
Jim - you seem to consider yourself to have a remarkable knowledge
of the political affiliation, credit ratings & drinking habits of
BACIT. Do you work for MI5? Assuming it is you who recently wrote
to the Nottingham Evening Post We don't have a member called Jim
on Middle St so you must have worked hard to get this (largely incorrect)information.
For your information (to pass on to your bosses) there are supporters
of all 3 main political parties in BACIT. We have amongst our membership
many councillors and the local M.P.. However, most are just ordinary
people who are concerned about the environment and public transport
to the West of Nottingham. I don't know their credit rating as the
only condition of joining is that you support the tram coming to
Beeston & Chilwell, membership is free but we accept donations.
Again I can't give you the definative answer on our dri! nking habits
but I personally go for the beer in the Victoria now that Shippos
is no more!- see you there? I would like to enrol Green party support,
I used to support them and have voted Green. Unfortunately the local
Greens for some reason do not appear to want the tram, as you know
this is contrary to their national policy. Jim do I know you? Is
Jim your real name? If you, or anyone else, wants to know more or
join us see http://www.bacit.org or email me if you fancy a pint!
info@bacit.org
Steve Barber
Beeston
and in reply
31st
July 2002
Not in my back greenhouse
The Broxtowe Greens are opposed to the Beeston tram because one
of their committee members lives on Lower Road, and is on the anti-tram
pressure group committee there as well. I have known the chap for
several years, and we are still good friends!
G. Bennett
Wilford
|
31st
July 2002
Time Wasters
Talk of Turkeys voting for Christmas. The worst possible outcome is
for a project to be put on hold. It means uncertainty for businesses
(do I take the risk and expand now in the hope that the tram will
come and improve my trade) and means that the 3 houses seriously affected
in Gwenbrook Ave will be difficult to sell. So why do the Tories and
some of the anti tram brigade want this? Shelving the line to West
Bridgeford will cost the residents and traders there dearly.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
29th
July 2002
Timewasters
NC, which local council do you mean? Rushcliffe Borough Council supports
a tram in principle for a route to West Bridgford town centre. The
Council also raises no objection in principle to the Clifton-Wilford
route, provided that there are environmental safeguards and that the
impact on the Wilford embankment dwellers is minimised. The County
Council have of course said similar. The latter are, as transport
authority, joint promoters of the trams with the City Council, whilst
the Borough Council is a consultee. At least one county councillor
in the Bridgford area is anti-tram. The idea of putting proposed Lines
2 and 3 on hold, whilst Line 1 is monitored for traffic performance
for a few years, is the latest excuse from various tram opponents.
It would only make sense if Nottingham were the first city in the
world proposing trams. Why hang fire? It takes years to plan tram
rou! tes, and Line One isn鈥檛 open yet to monitor. There is no good
reason right now for aborting preparatory work on the two proposed
routes 鈥 let NET continue with the detailed schemes, Environmental
Statement, Statement of Case for a Public Inquiry and submission to
Secretary of State. By the time SOS deliberates, Line One will be
in operation. If it is a flop, the other two routes could be quietly
shelved and never implemented. We all know the opposite will happen,
that Line One is going to be a great commercial success, and the same
will apply to the other two lines four years later. We all know Lne
One in operation is going to democratise the trams, strengthen lukewarm
supporters of today and convert many lingering sceptics or even some
present objectors. The tram opponents cannot tell the truth, convince
NET or (most of) the politicians, or dump the tram on to inferior
alternative routes, modes or technologies. They are reluctant to fight
a Public Inquiry because the! y know their evidence is not adequate.
The objectors are stalling for time and it is slowly running out.
NC, you really should consider that the trams do benefit people who
don鈥檛 want to use them. This is what cost-benefit analysis is all
about, covering third party costs/benefits or externalities. Thus,
as well as CW trams providing faster trips in the peaks than buses
to and from town for the customers, motorists will have quicker journeys
over Trent Bridge 鈥 and not just Clifton/Wilford people either. It
is easy for a mob of opponents at anti-tram meetings to sneer at this.
Roll on the Inquiry.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
29th
July 2002
Trams
cost
I suppose to take the Tories argument on overrun to it's logical conclusion,
one must look at the cost peojections by the original company for
Beeston & Chilwell. 1900 prices! I see that the Broxtowe Liberal Democrats
have now seen sense see http://www.broxtoweliberaldemocrats.info/,
click Enter, then Policies, then Trams. New Labour next? Then who
knows even the Greens?
Steve Barber
Beeston |
27th
July 2002
The 60 million was an estimate made back in the 1980s when the tram
was first proposed. Unsurprisingly this increased with inflation (remember
that from the Conservative administration?) whilst route modifications
etc lead to an estimate around 200 million prior to construction.
As far as I know there are no overuns on this, but you really shouldn't
be surprised the Tories are trying to rubbish the project with halftruths.
Future lines will be funded partially from local sources, but the
model will be similar to Line 1 with risks transferred to the private
sector.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
26th
July 2002
Trams
I have had several responses to my last e mail.My concerns are not
so much for Line 1 but the next two proposed routes where costs will
fall on local council tax payers if the line does not run at a profit.To
quote from Rushcliffe Conservative Association 'In Touch' literature
' You may know that costs for the first line rose from some 拢 60 million
to 拢 167 million'. This equates to an oversspend of 178 %. Rushcliffe
Conservative Association includes councellors voting on the next phase
of the line. Clearrly we have two vastly different views on how line
1 is progressing,one (NET) advising spend to budget,one ,the local
council advising a 178 % overspend. Two parties involved in the same
project giving totally different views. How are we the public to know
which is correct ? While there is this level of ambiguity over a line,
which is still under construction, I cannot see how the project can
proceed further until a complete post implementation review has been
undertaken on Line 1. The cost benefit cases for the next phases do
look suspect and local councellors must question these in detail,especially
those who will fund a project which will have no benefit to their
residents.
NC
West Bridgford |
24th
July 2002
Costs
NC wrote ".. the costs overrun as significantly as we are lead to
believe on Line 1..." So lets have the question about overun on cost
from the horses mouth; "Line One is on schedule to open in November
2003, on time. Budgetary implications are a risk for the private consortium
building Line One and not the councils. If the project were to overrun
on cost the consortium would be liable. We believe, however, that
the project is running to budget.鈥 Colin Lea NET. So where is this
malicious rumour coming from that line 1 is over budget? IT IS NOT.
How many times do we (BACIT) and NET have to shout that before it
sinks in? Please keep to facts everyone.
Steve Barber
Beeston Notts |
24th
July 2002
Reply to NC of West Bridgford
NC of West Bridgford asks about funding & alleged overspend on Line
One. To quote John Taylor, NET Chair, from earlier this month, "There
is no overspend on NET Line One construction and even if there were,
this would be a problem for Arrow Light Rail Limited and the banks
who back them - not the council tax payers of Nottingham, since the
Private Finance Initiative-funding arrangements for NET Line One pass
the risks relating to construction cost to the private sector."
Mark Ramsey
Chilwell |
24th
July 2002
Overun the rumour machine
NC of West Bridgeford is spreading mallicious lies. Will the editors
of this forum please not accept blatent rubbish such as this. John
Taylor made it quite clear that line 1 is not overun on time or money.
Please will the anti-tramers stop stooping to this level of total
misinformation. Accept that the tram is a success!
Jim
Beeston |
24th
July 2002
Tram funding
NO!!!! How many times?! Line 1 is being funded by private finance
and so if there are cost overuns they are paid for by the private
sector - not council tax payers!!! Groan! Public money will only be
spent on the operations if NET achieves certain targets. As far as
I know there aren't any cost/time overuns anyway!
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
23rd
July 2002
tram
For the information of correspondents. In the 20 years of my working
life have never commuted by car, I have always walked, cycled or used
public transport. I am a firm supporter of these means of transport
in no particular order. I have always made sure that I have lived
where I can travel by at least one of these modes of transport. So
I feel that I am trying to do every bit for the envirement that I
can, I recycle what I can etc.etc. I do not drive or possess a car.
I want a tram for Chilwell and I want people out of their cars and
onto it. I appreciate that for poor mobility/health reasons that one
day I to may need to possess a car, but this is not true for the majority
of commuters. I am sure many of car commuters could walk or cycle
if the benefits to their health, the enviroment and the same to of
those who live around them were high in their priorities. I live where
I live now because it meets many critera, one being the above, the
other because it is unusually quite, peaceful, green and relatively
traffic free. I would like to have lived in Attenborough, but I did
not want the noise of trains. To choose to live next to, or near to,
a train line is something you accept when you move there. It is a
differnt matter when a home is already built then planners decided
to adversly imapct its immediate neighboorhood, whithout careful consideration
to alternative routes which may actually improve the local environment.
It is for these reason why I do not want the tram on the greenway.
Yes to put the tram on a green way makes for a quick route for the
extension. But since this is to ultimately to serve the QMC and city,
not just Beeston, the saving in journey time becomes minimal. I still
say force the cars of the main roads and replace them with trams.
pas
Chilwell |
23rd
July 2002
Trams
One main concern with the tram is the funding aspects. If a proportion
of the costs is to be borne by the local County Council and if the
costs overrun as significantly as we are lead to believe on Line 1,the
cost will be borne by local Council Tax payers,the majority of which
will live nowhere near a tram stop. Local Council Tax payers need
to make their County Councellors aware their heads are on the block
on this project.Are they confident in the management of Line 1 to
date which has overrun on both costs and timescale ? They also need
to ask the question what use is the tram to me and why are you,my
local councellor ,giving a blank cheque to this project ?
NC
West Bridgford/Notts |
22nd
July 2002
Trams cake & eat it
Steve Barber made a good point that certain roads, particularly Foster
Ave are inundated with cars from Chilwell. I've every sympathy for
people in Chilwell who never go to Beeston, Nottingham, Q.M.C. the
University etc. They don't cause any pollution or inconvenience to
the rest of us. However, those who'll happily drive through other
peoples areas and then moan because someone has the cheek to want
to come through your area are just plain hypocritical nimbys. There
is no protest in Lenton, very little in Beeston (apart from a very
few un-green dead end nimbys) and the Chilwell protest is concentrated
around 2 or 3 roads. Let's get on and build the tram! We all want
it!
Jim
Beeston |
20th
July 2002
Amenity and other matters
A residential area away from through roads, rat running and buses,
would have a daytime noise level of about 50 decibels. According to
the Nottingham University researchers, whose recordings in Sheffield
remain disputed by NET, the post-tram noise in Lower Road/Fletcher
Road, Beeston would reach 64 dBA most of the day. Even if this were
right, this was the noise level in Noel Street, Hyson Green before
the recent tram works started, and being pre-tram, cannot be contested.
After the tram, it is forecast the noise here would rise by a negligible
1dBA, the tram noise itself balanced by noise loss with permanent
road traffic management. Again, 64dBA from existing road traffic has
been recorded by the NU researchers at the point where Wilford embankment
meets Wilford Lane. Very close by are the most expensive homes on
Compton Acres, though the tram will be closer still. ! W! hat is critical
is not the amenity people have to begin with, nor what they stand
to lose, but instead what they will end up with. The Wilford objectors
want more research into tram noise. I suggest readings be taken in
back gardens at Attenborough or Long Eaton next to the Midland main
line. There is no evidence of devaluation of hundreds of homes brought
about by tram noise in cities elsewhere, even with properties a few
yards from the track. PAS, without trams, we cannot avoid new all-purpose
roads to be built or the widening of existing ones. The trams cannot
be restricted purely to on-street running. They must have off-street
sections to provide the necessary speed to make them attractive enough
to more marginal car users, especially park-and-ride. The West Bridgford
routes flunked because they were not competitive enough with bus timings.
A little over one-third of the Gamston route is off-street and its
trams down to 10.6 mph. average speed. The Chilwell extension (Beeston-Bardills
only), two-thirds of which is off-street, will have trams over 40%
faster at averaged-out speed.. In Sheffield, the trams on the off-street
Meadowhall branch easily outpace the other two routes which have little
segregated running. Of course greenfield sites should not be given
over lightly to trams, but two-thirds of the width of the Chilwell
open space corridor will remain after the tram plus extra trees surrounding.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
20th
July 2002
Trams come & see
PAS or any other sceptic: We are organising a day trip to Croydon
on 14 September. We shall travel by rail d. Beeston 08:55 and the
cost is to be under 拢20 per head. An engineer is to show us around
the system and we shall meet the shopkeepers on Church St (similar
to Chilwell Road). We are particularly interested in the effects on
property, noise and vibration. I suggest that you join us. Contact
BACIT info@bacit.org.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
20th
July 2002
trams
The choice is simple: we either put up with increased road congestion
and pollution or we try a different approach that is tried and tested
across the world. The answer is that we invest in trams as one way
of reducing car traffic. No-one has yet found a way to curb car usage
and the increased congestion can not be ignored.
david gurney
beeston |
|
Last
reply... 20th July 2002
tram
Reply to Steve Barber You state that the tram is quiet. Yes this
may be so if you are deaf. I really cannot see how a 30 ton (unladen)
vehicle travelling with steel wheels on steel track at speeds in
excess of 30-50 Km/Hr (off road) will be quiet, especially when
it has to tackle sharp bends. Have you actually heard the noise
the manchester trams make. Noise is a form of pollution one that
the EU is developing guidlines and legislation on. According to
the independent noise report published on the WEB, which is professionaly
and scholary conducted and written, certain trams are noiser than
buses. But we must put this in context, a tram on Queens Road West
will make little increase on the very large noise background. In
fact due to the anticipated reduction in traffic it may actually
reduce it. Conversely put a tram along a very quiet route, in a
quiet residential area, then the impact will be very noticable,
even intolerable. This arguabley may affect in excess of 1000+ people
along the proposed ! Ch! ilwell-Beeston greenway, which when balanced
with the number who will use it on that section makes one doubt
the fairness or sense of that route at least. If trams are indeed
all round better than buses lets please not put them on green space,
but still keep them on the roads after all the roads were built
presumable because of where they served. Secondly, since my polltion
question has proven difficult ot answer, I pose another question.
Given the weight of the tram, what implications are there from the
ground vibration it must surely create, especially when it passes
os close to some residential homes, and if so how is this mitigated.
PAS
Chilwell
Trams a reply
to PAS
Reply to PAS: Yes I state that the tram is quiet. How many systems
have you examined? I have studied all the UK ones. The Manchester
tram was the first and is noisier than the modern ones. Since it opened
massive improvements have been made both to the trams and to the track.
Trams are modernising at a similar rate to computers! The big change
as far as noise and vibration is concerned is a system of pre-coated
rails manufactured by ALH rail coatings (01663 748045) A one metre
section of this was trialled in Sheffield and has now been developed
as part of an excellent noise attenuation system. These rails are
fixed to a massive concrete slab (as opposed to troughs in Sheffield)
which is itself allowed to move by up to 1mm thus absorbing significantly
more sound and vibration. When off the road the trams through Chilwell
will be subject to a 50Km/h speed restriction until beyon! d Inham
Road. I think that you will find that the EU guidelines will be very
welcome and will seriously affect other road users. Yes certain trams
may be noisier than buses but Nottingham鈥檚 are not amongst those.
We are getting the latest 鈥淩olls Royce鈥 trams not the 鈥淢oggy thou鈥
ones of yesteryear. Put a tram in a quiet residential road and the
effect will be noticeable but not as intolerable as all the thousands
of cars (many from Chilwell) who now use our once quiet cul de sac
(Foster Ave) for parking. It certainly will affect 1000+ people who
live on the route almost entirely to their benefit. In other locations
where there are trams houses have gone up in value above that for
the greater locality, so people want to have access to the trams.
As has been proved with the Ring Road which now needs essential maintenance
and the chaos that entails, the roads are not adequate and another
route into and around town is necessary. I am still working on your
original question but s! o far the figures weigh in heavily in favour
of a tram. I have answered your vibration question above.
Steve Barber
Beeston Notts
TRAMS
PAS of Chilwell complains that the trams will be noisy. I see that
other anti tram people complain that the trams will be too quiet and
therefore a danger to children and elderly people. Anyone who has
used the modern trams running now in many UK cities will know that
they are less noisy than ordinary traffic but not so quiet as to be
a danger to children or other road users. In fact all the evidence
points to trams as being much safer and quieter than equivalent car
usage. Now that the anti tram campaigners have started to contradict
their own fears we will hopefully see things start to move forward
on bringing the tram lines to Chilwell and Clifton.
B Henson
Clifton
Tram IS quiet
Why doesn鈥檛 PAS just admit to being one of those who live next to
the Chilwell tram route? Despite starting out pretending to be open
minded (that was easy to see through), he has been trying to twist
the debate recently towards some of the ridiculous anti tram arguments.
Ironically, the tram will not cause him any problems, least of all
noise, and will put up the value of his house. Why is he stressing
himself so much? The noise report PAS refers to on the web is irrelevant
to the Nottingham tram and has been discredited. And why defend a
green space that nobody uses when only a 7 m wide strip of it is required?
PAS鈥檚 comments about pollution have been perfectly well answered by
several people, and it is clear that trams cause less pollution than
just about any other form of transport. And as for vibration, PAS
is doing what鈥檚 typical on anti trammers 鈥 shouting nonsense before
chec! king the FACTS first. Look at the NET website and it covers
all about the improved vibration prevention techniques that the tram
will be using. No PAS, the tram won鈥檛 just affect a thousand or so
people 鈥 it will affect tens or hundreds of thousands, by making their
lives better and giving them something to have great pride in.
Drew
Nottingham |
Last
reply... 20th July 2002
Tram
The replies to this web site, the number of 鈥淵ES鈥 to the tram posters
on houses in Beeston and the conversations I have had with colleagues
lead me to believe that there is a lot of support for the tram in
Nottingham. Why then is the letters page of the Nottingham Evening
Post always full of anti-tram letters? (I have myself written to the
Post in support of the tram but not had my letter published.) Perhaps
pro-tram supporters reading this might care to write to this paper
and see if they have more luck than I have done.
J Tomlinson
Beeston
Reply to J.
Tomlinson, Beeston
Keep on trying, then. There are lots of letters sent to the local
newspaper which never get published. I guess that with rationed space,
the editorial policy is to favour original comments on a topic extensively
debated. It is fair enough to give as many people as possible a crack
of the whip.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
19th
July 2002
Trams v bus lanes
It is interesting to note a regular theme in this forum of introducing
more bus lanes instead of a tram system. Those as long in the tooth
as me will, I am sure, recall the last time a major scheme of bus
lanes was tried in Nottingham. As my memory serves me it was about
30 years ago, with a funny name (Zone and Collar) and a fleet of purple
buses called Lilac Leopards. What I do recall quite clearly is the
furore it caused, mainly because of the resultant traffic congestion,
and the scheme was fairly quickly abandoned. With the growth in car
use in the intervening years it is my opinion that to try to introduce
a similar scheme again would also be unsuccessful in addressing the
worsening traffic situation in Nottingham. The limited number of bus
lanes already in place have generated plenty of negative comment,
against which we have to set hard evidence from Manchester and C!
ro! ydon that trams do appear to change the habits of some people
who, in the absence of trams, would have used their cars.
David
Wilford |
19th
July 2002
Trams, money & the environment
I hear that BCBRA have declared themselves anti-tram not merely anti-route.
I also hear that they may get up to 拢250,000 from a multi-national
(oil company??) to finance legal proceedings to stop the tram. One
of the main players and the newly elected councillor both have large
interest in the motor industry. The tram is supposed to remove over
1m car journeys a year from the roads. Sorry but for me there are
just too many co-incidences and vested interests at stake and what's
more upsetting is that too many have been taken in.
Jim
Beeston |
18th
July 2002
Reply to Trams through Beeston
Anon writes "[the tram] offers nothing but noise to those like myself
who live in Beeston and work in Nottingham". Perhaps the tram doesnt
offer very much benefit to Anon who declares her/himself satisfied
with the bus service. But lots of people who live in Beeston use the
car to travel into Nottingham - for work, for shopping and for entertainment
- we can see that from all the car parks in the city centre. Evidence
from other cities with trams is that some people who *won't* use a
bus (and there are many people who simply won't countenance using
a bus) *will* use a tram. For example, Croydon Tramlink has lead to
a 19% modal shift from the private car in Croydon, and town parking
usage has fallen by 6%. The tram offers an alternative that some car
users will use. Also the the tram will bring a tremendous benefit
to elderly people with walking difficulties. Wheelcha! irs and, particularly,
the shopmobility-type electric scooters which are increasingly popular
these days, will be allowed on trams. The tram will be able to take
someone in an electric scooter from, say, Sandby Court in Chilwell,
to the centre of Beeston, QMC, Nottingham city centre, and beyond.
Such public transport is simply not available to wheelchair users
at the moment. The tram may not benefit you personally, Anon, but
it *will* benefit the environment as well as other people in our comunity.
Mark Ramsey
Chilwell |
17th
July 2002
the trams good or bad?
I am doing a piece of coursework on the tram system and how it has
affected nottingham. I think it will be good means of transport when
it is finished but at the moment it is getting in the way. People
are getting frustrated about all the roadworks and traffic jams. I
wonder if all this money and time is worth the effort?
Helen
Nottingham |
|
Last
reply... 18th July 2002
Tram through Beeston
I live on the proposed Tram route in a quiet Beeston crescent (for
the moment!) and don't want to appear to be a NIMBY. But I wanted
to make the point that the Chilwell/Beeston line is clearly designed
for those arriving from the motorway. It offers nothing but noise
to those like myself who live in Beeston and work in Nottingham.
I use the bus (both City and Bartons) and find them very convenient,
reasonably priced, comfortable and fast enough into Town. The Tram,
whilst passing along the back of the houses opposite my house, will
not be convenient as there will be no stop within easy walking distance,
is bound to be considerably more expensive and when taking into
account the walk to the Tram stop will not offer me a fast journey
into Town! Trams are fashionable at the moment and buses are not.
Anon
17th July 2002
Tram through Beeston
In reply to Anon, his / her comments are typical of anti tram people
鈥 just making anything up, and often then getting stressed about
it. Firstly, the Beeston and Chilwell route has not just been designed
for people arriving from the motorway 鈥 the park and ride is only
one advantage of it, most advantages will be conferred upon the
areas that the tram runs through. Secondly it has been stated many
times that tram fares will not be higher than the bus fares. Third,
if there is a row of houses between Anon鈥檚 home and the tram line,
he or she will hear nothing, especially as those who are immediately
next to the tram will also be barely able to hear it. Fourthly,
it is impossible to live that close to the route without there also
being a stop within walking distance. Fifth, buses are not convenient
鈥 you get thrown around inside especially when getting up to get
off 鈥 not helpfu! l if you are elderly or not nimble on your feet.
They get slowed in traffic. They are unreliable. The seats are too
small. They don鈥檛 attract car drivers off the road. They cause pollution
and noise. You can鈥檛 always be sure where they are going to go.
Although claiming not to be, Anon is very much a NIMBY and there
is no logic for it 鈥 what problem will the tram cause? 鈥 None! Just
think of all the other good things we could do in the world if we
did not have to spend time countering the anti trammers unsubstantiated
opinions and errors with the tram FACTS.
Drew
Nottingham
Trams reply
to Anon
The way you describe your location it sounds to me as though you live
on Clumber Drive or Brookland Drive. There is no proposed tram stop
very convenient for you and we have asked NET if they will provide
one outside Greenwood Court. The answer is that they will consider
it if enough residents ask for it. So instead of moaning why not write
to Pat Armstrong at NET or collect signatures from your neighbourhood
asking for a tram stop? If you don't live on Clumber Drive or Brookland
Drive I fail to see where else is inconvenient for a stop.
S.B.
Beeston Notts
|
16th
July 2002
Trams & the elderly
It is now generally accepted in medical circles that an active mind
& body is beneficial to the elderly. The worst thing to do is to sit
and stare and a blank wall. Unfortunately too many elderly people
do not get out often enough, usually because they have difficulty
with mobility and cannot drive. If and when the tram comes to Chilwell
it will be a godsend for many people in the residential homes nearby.
I understand that electric scooters are to be allowed on board and
I see a mushrooming market for these, once people realise the opportunities
open to them. As the tram will certainly improve the general health
of these elderly people, I find it distressing that so many younger
people are manipulating this vulnerable section of our community and
using them for their own ends - ultimately I see the road lobby behind
this opposition. Seeing so many people upset by what I can on! ly!
describe as malicious rumours, often without a shred of truth I find
very worrying. I am young at the moment but when I grow old I hope
for a better deal.
Jim
Beeston Notts |
|
13th
July 2002
PAS returns with more comments about the people who've
commented on him
pollution
I would like to thank those who replied to my questions,and I aggree
with almost all the points presented. Unfortunately, no one actually
answered the essence of the question which is pollution per passanger
mile. Of course trams are better than cars, it is the bus vs. tram
figure pollution per passanger mile I am after, including maintainance
and construction. Secondly, waste incinerators are great producers
of dioxins and heavy metal contamination of the atmosphere. Recall
the recent problems with dioxins in Denmark. A bus can also run
on alternatives too be it ethanol or fuel cells for example. Thirdly
the green way may at present be a lawn but it does protect all those
gardens which harbour wildlife from unneccessary noise and distrubance.
It could with political will be so easilly turned over to allotments
or/and planted up as a wildlife reserve with running tracks fitness
courses etc or alternaivley we could be encouraged to bike or cycle
to work, do you not find the increase in obeseity and lack of fitness
of our population alarming! Fourthly, the question of gridlock.
If people insist on travelling everywhere in cars then they should
put up with the consequences of congestion and pollution, they cannot
have their cake and eat it! Commuting by car is the conmbination
of many factors, those who do not wish to use public transport,
those who cannot use public transport, those who would like to but
because of the absence /infrequency/inflexibility of available public
transport, cannot. Place a few free bendy buses on bus lanes along
these congested routes funded by a parking levy tax, then we may
see congestion and pollution reduced tomorrow not in the five year
time frame the tram is offering, unless a major oil crisis arises
. Why is the building of more roads or off-road tram/busways the
eagerly offered solutionto traffic problems, 10% of the counrty
is already covered by brick or concrete lets not add more!
PAS
Chilwell
and receives
a reply
15th July
2002
Trams a reply
to PAS
PAS
- I am working on definate answers to your comments regarding pollution
per passenger mile. To answer the points including
maintenance
etc and to classify the pollutants would probably make up a PhD
does anyone know if anyone's done this? However the tram would certainly
come out better if maintenance is taken into account. The Barton
Rainbow 5 fleet is S reg - 5 years old? It is now starting to get
unreliable and feels a bit rough. Another 2 years and the fleet
will have to be replaced. The Manchester Trams are 10 years old
and not showing any mechanical wear, they'll probably see another
20 years. The technology for alternative fuels for buses is still
in it's infancy and is unproved. We need solutions quicker than
this can deliver. Turning the green way over to allotments is hardly
going to promote wildlife. Do gardeners not use insecticides etc?
Pedals and the council have been encouraging people to cycle to
work for 20 years. Unfortunately it has not had the impact on car
journeys which a tram undoubtably will. People will not leave their
cars in droves to go on bendy buses. They will if we provide comfortable
state of the art trams with predictable journey times. This has
been shown to be true in Manchester, Sheffield & Croydon (especially).
It will be even more the case in Nottingham because our proposed
tramways not only have masses of park and rides but link where people
live to where they work, shop, study are born and ultimately die.
Why do you think that the tramway along the green corridor will
be so offensive? It will not be brick or concrete and will in fact
create areas which will be a haven for wildlife. People who live
there use cars and drive through other residential areas so don't
you think it a bit selfish for them to prevent others travelling
through their area especially in a quiet non locally polluting environmentally
friendly vehicle?
Steve Barber
Beeston Notts
|
|
Last
response 11th July 2002
9th July 2002
tram-environment
I am neither for or against the tram but I am a key advocate for
the flexibility that an extensive network of modern buses running
on dedicated bus lanes would offer. I would change my mind if someone
could offer an informed, intelligent, referenced reply to a series
of question I aasked some months ago relating to the tram vs bus
debate. Remember the Rio Summit on the environment "think globally
act locally". My orignal question/s were: Do trams actually generate
less overall global pollution than low emission buses?
Please could someone elucidate the following:
1) Do trams per passenger mile use less energy than buses?
2) Is the generation of electricity from fossil fuels and the subsequent
transmission of power by overhead lines, with its associated power
loss by cable-heating, more efficient than modern bus engines?
3) What is the overall saving per passenger mile in greenhouse gas
emissions made by tram compared to bus travel?
4) Given roads already exist what is the energy cost and greenhouse
gas component to the environment of tram line construction and maintenance:
extraction of raw materials, their transport and use. Fuel used
in construction etc?
Finally, if trams are to contribute to the environment of Nottingham,
surely we should not be sacrifing trees, green fields and wildlife,
when the best corridors for public transport with the least environmental
impact are already present i.e the main roads of the city. To reduce
commuter car traffic and its associated pollution and congestion,
the tram (or/and bus) must successfully compete with the car for
the one key resource: space on the road! A situation that could
be favoured by traffic restrictions, lights and dedicated bus/tram
routes.
PAS
Chilwell
in reply
9th July 2002
In response to PAS, I am a student of energy and associated matters,
and in a nutshell, generating power at a power station and transmitting
it over power lines to an electric motor is more efficient than
using internal combustion engines, therefore CO2 emissions are lower.
It is also easier to prevent pollution (Nox, SO2, particulates etc.)
from one single power station versus a number of internal combustion
engines (which rarely operate at their optimum speed and revs anyway).
Trams also feedback energy from braking into the power network,
whereas that鈥檚 just lost as heat for road vehicles. In any case,
moving (and braking) on rails is easier than moving on a road. Furthermore,
it is possible to drive trams on electricity from green sources,
such as wind, hydro (e.g. Beeston Weir hydro system), waste incineration
(e.g. the Sneinton combined heat and power system which also heats
many buildings ! in the city centre), landfill gas, etc. These have
lower or zero net greenhouse gas emissions implications. As for
reserving road space, trams travelling extensively on roads would
be pointless. The point is that the number of cars and the level
of travelling are increasing, so some new infrastructure has to
be put in place, as we are near gridlocked. There is not a 鈥榙o nothing鈥
option. Building a tram track-bed has a much lower ecological footprint
than building new roads. As for sacrificing green areas, the corridor
in Chilwell and out to Bardills is hardly a great nature reserve.
There is more wildlife in local back gardens than on that regularly
mown dog toilet! There is more to the environment than a strip of
lawn 鈥 e.g. the air. It would take me too long to quantify and reference
all this stuff but one can use a search engine like Google to find
lots of information. Finally, don鈥檛 forget that sustainable development
has social and economic aspects as well as environmen! tal. Therefore
we should also be thinking about benefits like having accessible
public transport outside old people homes, and regenerating run
down areas, as well as about global warming.
AW
Nottm
another reply...
10th
July 2002
AW
Here here!
The tram will improve:
- energy efficiency
- accessibility
- transport equality
- the environment
- the local economy
I'm sure someone answered PAS's query before though!
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham
and another reply...
10th
July 2002
Tram - environment
In response to PAS, I am a student of energy and associated matters
and in a nutshell, generating power at a power station and transmitting
it over power lines to an electric motor is much more efficient than
using internal combustion engines, therefore CO2 emissions are much
lower. It is also easier to prevent pollution (Nox, SO2, particulates
etc.) from one single power station versus a number of internal combustion
engines (which rarely operate at their optimum speed and revs anyway).
Trams also feedback energy from braking into the power network, whereas
that鈥檚 just lost as heat for road vehicles. In any case, moving (and
braking) on rails is easier than moving on a road. Furthermore, it
is possible to drive trams on electricity from green sources, such
as wind, hydro (e.g. Beeston Weir hydro system), waste incineration
(e.g. the Sneinton combined heat and power system which! a! lso heats
many buildings in the city centre), landfill gas, etc. These have
lower or zero net greenhouse gas emissions implications. As for reserving
road space, trams travelling extensively on roads would be pointless.
The point is that the number of cars and the level of travelling are
increasing, so some new infrastructure has to be put in place, as
we are near gridlocked. There is not a Do Nothing option. Building
a tram track-bed has a much lower ecological footprint than building
new roads. As for sacrificing green areas, the corridor in Chilwell
and out to Bardills is hardly a great nature reserve. There is more
wildlife in people鈥檚 back gardens than on that regularly mown dog
toilet! And more to the environment than a strip of lawn 鈥 e.g. the
air. It would take me too long to quantify and reference all this
stuff but one can use a search engine like Google to find lots of
information. Finally, don鈥檛 forget that sustainable development has
social and economic aspects ! as! well as environmental. Therefore
we should also be thinking about benefits like having accessible public
transport outside old people homes, and regenerating run down areas,
as well as about global warming.
AW
Nottm
and another reply...
11th
July 2002
I cannot fully answer your points, PAS of Chilwell, since I am not
a physical scientist. I agree with AW re: point (2) from you, namely,
we must reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and patronise more renewable
energy, trams or no trams, and I suppose collosal windfarms in the
North Sea are the futuristic answer. Regarding point (4) and your
general support of bus lanes on existing roads, I have already offered
鈥済eographical-type鈥 comments on bus lanes and busways on 06 July,
but Mr. Editor put my contribution onto the Public Transport section
of Speakout. I assert bus lanes alone are insufficient, and would
have to be supplemented by new bus-only roads. These dedicated busways,
presumably routed the same as off-street tramlines, would have more
impact on open space, woodland, wildlife, noise and proximity to housing.
The new network might as well have clean fuel! motive power/electric/trolley
buses if the technology is available, economic and feasible. If the
buses could be much faster, punctual and reliable than the present
system, so reducing car journeys, then boosting vehicle capacity is
essential, so bring on the bendy-buses. In other words, the new bus
system on limited radials becomes akin to the tram. But in summary
(well, geographically, then, without debating energy consumption comparisons)
I think the tram still scores better in at least three ways 鈥 city
centre penetration/speed, cross-city linkage and less impact from
brand new routes away from existing roads.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
5th
July 2002
tram system
I live in portsmouth & they are planning a tram system as well.As
the area has only 3 main routes on & off what the area called portsea
island the traffic is constantly at a standstill & at the moment one
of the routes has been undergoing a total resurfacing for last 3 yrs
which only adds to the problems. so a tram network would be a great
idea or so you would think.Unfortunatly some people here have the
same "not in my back yard attitude" as nottingham has.This has caused
loads of friction,re-routing & even part of it being shelved. I frequently
visit nottingham & have seen the tram take shape & look foreward to
trying it when it is complete.
Alan C.
Portsmouth |
5th
July 2002
Trams - WHY NOT BUSES?
The amount that has been WASTED on trams is phenomenal! The profit
made by the companies laying track etc must be enormous! Not only
that, but if the same money was spent on improving the bus network
(ie putting the bus lane in somewhere esle than mansfield road) it
would have been much better. The bus services could have been the
best in the world, but we used it on a useless system. What next,
a Nottingham Underground through the Caves Of Nottingham?
Matthew Walster
Papplewick, Nottingham |
|
3rd
July 2002
Trams
Why are the people of Chilwell being so selfish? They perceive extra
noise and hassle because of the trams (I disagree) but are willing
to drive their cars into Beeston and clog up Beeston's streets &
car parks much to the annoyance of the residents. The tram will
bring huge benefits to thousands but a minority of dead end people
in dead end roads seem determined to stop it because of their selfishness.
Jim
Beeston Notts
in reply
9th July 2002
Trams
& pollution
I note Jim's point about the traffic congestion in Beeston. Half
the children in one of the classes at Roundhill School were at one
time suffering from a breathing complaint. A lot of this is caused
by commuters (inc. commuters from Chilwell) driving through the
area. This has to be addressed and an electric tramway seems sensible
to me. It's only right that at least 75% of the cost should come
from central government and should be charged as an extra tax on
fuel. The benefits to both users of the tramway and non-users will
soon outweigh any inconveniences.
Steve Barber
Beeston Notts
|
1st
July 2002
Trams 鈥 out of touch antis?
George Starr has fallen into the trap of accusing me of being chauvinistic
鈥 when I wasn鈥檛! I was not specific about male or female parents.
In fact George I am not single and my lovely lady agrees with my view
of working parents being disruptive and selfish in the workplace as
well as in their transport habits. As for throwback to the thirties,
perhaps you mean my age? George, you are the one who is out of touch
in your little shop 鈥 you are cut off from the realities of Britain,
which very much needs trams. There is NO injustice caused by the tram
鈥 it is a largely self inflicted problem caused by people not informing
themselves fully, further exacerbated by people spreading lies about
it.
Drew
Notts |
27th
June 2002
Trams, road traffic and kids.
Drew of Chilwell on 6th June certainly hit the nail right on the head
about the Wilford tram dispute. His contributions are intelligent
and witty. As regards the more recent debate in this column, what
is especially critical about transport is that in the last 20 years
the number of children going to school by car lift from either parent
has increased ninefold. Parents argue that existing road traffic is
dangerous for infants and juniors on their own, crossing roads or
using bikes. The same parents then increase car traffic themselves,
so the argument becomes circular. Small wonder that peak traffic diminishes
when the school holidays start. NET must indeed reassure parents of
young children about safety in proximity to the tramlines. The problem
with primary schools otherwise is that usually the children are too
young and live too close to the school to become! t! ram passengers.
Or maybe the tram stop is too far from the school, as with Wilford
Endowed C of E Primary on Main Road. Disgruntled of Nottingham should
bear in mind the tram works will be largely complete in a few weeks
time. I hope s/he will make use of the tram in future, at least for
shopping trips to town. If s/he is a young mum, it will be convenient
enough for carrying buggies.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
27th
June 2002
Drew - trams me me me.
I was appalled to see Drew (Trams 鈥 me me me attitude) berating Disgruntled
鈥 Nottingham for being a working mother. The chauvinistic faction
of the pro-tram lobby make great sport of belittling and berating
other inhabitants of this city just because they stand up and protest
about the injustice and suffering caused by NET. Drew鈥檚 irritation
with childcare issues indicates that he is the one with the 鈥榤e, me,
me attitude鈥. I assume that he is either single, a throw-back from
the thirties or (most likely) both of these things
G.B.Starr
Nottiingham |
|
26th
June 2002
Tram
I am afraid that I am of the conclusion that this is a hugely disruptive
waste of money. I have a very young child and transporting her to
Nursery, going to work and the same on the way home again would
turn a half hour into at least a 2 hour journey. So far the tram
works have just increased the amount of traffic on smaller roads,
made travelling by public transport harder, and generally annoyed
85% of the people that I have spoken to. I do not live far from
where the tramworks are taking place, but there was no consultation
about this 'great' idea that I am aware of. Please stop messing
about with the roads and leave things alone!!!
Disgruntled
Nottingham
in reply
26th
June 2002
Trams 鈥 Me me me attitude
Here we go again, with Disgruntled complaining that the roads should
not be messed about for tram building. Well, if that is the case,
Disgruntled, you are messing about with the roads by driving on
them! If there is to be no tram, then there should be no extra cars
on the road 鈥 why not go and scrap yours now? As a working parent
you are part of the modern trend of more vehicles appearing on the
roads, with not only your trips to work but your trips to childcare
adding to overall vehicle mileage. No-one is forcing you to use
the tram so why claim that your journey will take two hours rather
than a half hour? There are plenty of commuters who will get to
work on the tram more quickly and comfortably than by car, and that
will mean that their cars will not be there holding yours up. What
really annoys me is that I have spent the last few years being one
of that majority o! f people who are irritated by the fellow workers
that have to be worked around because they are always rearranging
meetings etc because of childcare issues. Not only do you cause
irritation in the workplace, your constant driving around causes
more pollution 鈥 please don鈥檛 complain if your child gets asthma
from pollution 鈥 vehicles being the primary cause.
Drew
Notts
|
19th
June 2002
Trams and house prices (again)
I hope Russ Clarke鈥檚 contribution (18 June) will finally put to rest
this plank of anti-tram arguments, the supposed negative effect on
property values. In recent months there have been a series of quotes
as to the positive effects of trams on house prices from the Bradford
and Bingley and Haart estate agents in Nottingham, Vital Space in
Manchester and Lewis Wadsworth in Sheffield (Nottingham Evening Post),
along with items on television鈥檚 East Midlands Today and Location
Location Location (Channel 4). Yet the ENT website STILL claims that
the tram will, and I quote, 鈥樷..significantly reduce the value of
many properties along its route.鈥 This from a group which regularly
accuses NET of misinformation. Surely a case of pots and black kettles?
David
Wilford |
18th
June 2002
NET Line One
Interesting to see views from those with adjacent properties to proposed
NET routes. I (now) live in Hucknall - 5 mins walk from NET line one,
and work in the city. I normally drive to work, alone, in my ka (note
spelling). I am, essentially, the evil which the government seeks
to stamp out. However - I also looked at a Hucknall property directly
adjacent to NET line one, and was priced out by 5 other offers! Those
in objection, have any of you enjoyed the drive into the City Centre
from Hucknall lately. Granted, it seems mighty convienient that the
entirety of Hucknall Road is being dug up during the tram works (and
most of the Ring Road it seems too). It also seems convienent how
several extra speed cameras have popped up - anyone still wondering
how the NET gets paid for, oh, I forgot, those cameras only lose money...
hee hee I digress. My point is I tried to buy a couple of houses next
to the tram route and got blown away by better offers. So now I live
5 mins away from the station and look forward to leaving my little
ka at home... So there.
Russ Clarke
Hucknall |
17th
June 2002
CW and strategic issues
Unable to get the tram dumped on Queens Drive, the CW objectors have
the reserve argument that trams in general are unnecessary, because
alternative transport modes are superior or can be made so. Thus the
Wilford objection could move towards the sort of issues the Chilwell
opponents have raised. Greg Lock takes up the cue (see the Public
Transport Speakout). The Clifton East by-pass route does indeed affect
wildlife along Fairham Brook and at Wilwell, but whether single or
dual carriageway, it would have much worse impact than a tramline,
and passes through countryside. Dualling the existing A453 at Clifton
avoids this conflict, but like the CW tram it is cheaper than its
respective rival in the same transport mode. The primary purpose of
the East Midlands Parkway rail station at Radcliffe-on-Soar is to
cater for inter-city traffic to London, the catchment being the rural
Trent and Soar valleys and the lower reaches of the Erewash. Thus
in future the mainline stations in Nottingham and Derby do not have
to pull in cars from this area, travelling possibly in the wrong direction,
and most certainly contributing to urban congestion and parking problems.
The relocation of the rail/airport interchange from Loughborough,
and park-and-ride to Nottingham/Derby, are lesser functions of EM
Parkway. The associated out-of-town retail development to enhance
the viability of the scheme will suck in more cars on to the A453,
people who will not be travelling by train anywhere. The tram p&r
at Barton Green is not rendered worthless. It still serves the south
Rushcliffe villages, and the tram frequency will be double that of
the trains from EMP. Only 15 % of CW passengers will come from p&r,
and the lion鈥檚 share of tram traffic will come from the other 6 stops
on Clifton Estate. Up to now the anti-CW pressure group have asserted
one benefit of CQD is serving two p&r sites, including Queens Drive,
rather than one only with CW. Perhaps now the suggestion is that no
p&r should be served by a tram. The M1 and A453 multi-modal studies,
as their name implies, are pick-and-mix packages. All the options
assume that Nottingham would have the backup of several tram routes,
especially CW to relieve the two Trent crossings. Road improvements
alone cannot magic away the trams. A bus-based p&r at Barton Green
would not attract as much traffic as the tram. The tram network extensions
have already been deferred once. The tram objectors want to procrastinate
to try to avoid the Public Inquiry they know they cannot win. Line
One will be popular with bouyant traffic after it opens, just as the
experience of other British cities with trams has shown. Contemporaneous
to this would be the Secretary of State鈥檚 authorisation of the two
planned routes. In the unlikely event of Line One being a flop, what鈥檚
the problem in planning the other two routes now? The real awkwardess
is that the trinity will not open all at once, and we have to whistle
for the extensions. Every plan from Regional Planning Guidance to
the Local Transport Plan endorses the trams. It is now time to start
examining the feasibility of more routes 鈥 to Colwick/Gedling, Ruddington
and Kimberley for 2010. Finally, Greg鈥檚 remark about a one-in-three
chance of sitting down in a CW tramcar implies they will be full to
capacity. Its good, but not that good.....
G. Bennett
Wilford |
10th
June 2002
NET Tram System
I'm orginally from Coventry, a city with a population in excess of
Nottingham's by some 30,000 people. I congratulate Nottingham City
Council for having the foresight to construct the NET system, in line
with other forward-looking UK and European cities. With a council
like Coventry's, our city is highly unlikely to ever incorporate such
a major scheme, prefering to waste endless monies on pointless traffic
schemes and building huge, cutting dual-carriageways through the centre
of the city (see the Coventry north-south trunk road for an example
of perhaps the ugliest road scheme north of the Newbury bypass). There
will inevitably, of course, be a couple of years of traffic congestion
caused by the significant engineering and landscaping work required
across such a wide area. However, this is a relatively small price
to pay as the return on investment should be well worth the time and
money expended. If properly thought-out and efficiently project-managed
and marketed, such transit systems can become cost-effective in a
very short period of time (see the example of Lyon in France, which
introduced its tram transit system late last year - and it already
has a modern underground system !.)
Chris Hyams
Hawley, Hampshire |
8th
June 2002
wilford tram
Sitting here in my new house in Edinburgh, I have had time to reflect
on comments made about my recent email, particularly from Greg Locke.
To say that I have made a getaway (to Edinburgh) and other negative
comments after that is a narrow minded attitude. I am not saying,
nor have said, that people shouldn't voice their opinions about the
tram. But you have to think of how you would feel (Greg) if you wanted
to 'make a getaway' from your current property on the doorstep of
the proposed tram. I never kept any secret of the fact to prospective
purchasers that the tram was proposed to come through or near Wilford
Village. Most people who did come and view our property were interested
but not concerned. Maybe because I didn't live on the doorstep of
the proposed routes made a difference. All I can say is if you are
unhappy with the proposals and think they may go through, then it
! is! time to pack up and move elsewhere. No matter how much you lieek
a place, and I lived in the village for 12 years, there comes a time
when it really isn't right and you have to go. For me, it was a job
relocation. As for increase in house prices, I feel that prices in
Wilford Village will never reach the dizzy heights of nearby West
Bridgford (can't see why). Certainly STOP THE TRAM signs don't help.
Most locals know about the proposals, but outsiders don't, although
once they go through legal procedures to purchse a property (searches
etc) they will soon find out. Many people even welcome the tram as
an alternative to the local buses (which are not particularly good,
even though Wilford Village is so close to the City). As we live in
a democratic society, how would locals feel if I had put up a sign
saying 'GO FOR THE TRAM' - would I have been accused of selfishness
then? Whatever happened to free speech Greg? ps - tram in Edinburgh
would be a great idea...can't wait!!
vicky
edinburgh |
8th
June 2002
The Wilford tram and property values
There are not many anti-tram signs left in Wilford/Compton Acres in
people鈥檚 front gardens. Only six remain which are not next to the
embankment. Most from the recent past have been blown down by the
wind or vandalised, and not replaced. I have noticed a few houses
along the embankment sold recently, where the vendor removed the anti-tram
placard before the agent put up his board. The remaining objectors
look unlikely to recruit the newcomers. I do not live next to the
embankment. My next-door neighbour has retired. He has no venom against
the tram. He has just sold his house after 5 weeks for 拢10K more than
the asking price the agent suggested. Three of the viewers he had
live in London, well accustomed to rapid transit and uninhibited by
a few anti-tram placards nearby. I speculate that house values along
the embankment will rise after the tram is a! ut! horised, two years
hence. Why not? The presence of the operating railway did not stop
the housing estate of St. Austell Drive being built on the Wilford
side of the embankment in 1956. The past generation there fully understood
the embankment was not their private property.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
7th
June 2002
The Wilford railway embankment
With regard to the proposed CW route, it is my understanding that
the old railway embankment has remained in situ since 1968 precisely
because it might be needed as a transport corridor. Otherwise, in
the 1980s building frenzy during which Compton Acres was built (incidentally,
on a wonderful area of open land where I used to play as a child 鈥
鈥楾hey paved paradise and put up a Barratt estate鈥 (sorry Joni)), the
embankment would have been flattened to cram even more houses in.
This is emphasised by the fact that when the old Wilford Toll Bridge
was taken down it was replaced not by a footbridge but by a bridge
that with some adaptation could in the future accommodate vehicular
traffic of some kind, as is being proposed now. Still, if the CW route
is thrown out, they could always revert to the plan which I recall
being put forward some years ago 鈥 to turn the embank! ment into a
road for buses to run to and from the city. Or perhaps open up the
Toll Bridge and Queens Walk to traffic (with some widening of Main
Road) to give a further crossing over the Trent, which will be much
needed if the tram does not go ahead.
David
Wilford |
6th
June 2002
Tram 鈥 selfish antis
It always amazes me how people, e.g. the anti tram lot, who are obviously
guilty of something, will accuse others of it. Vicky is not being
selfish 鈥 she is justifiably concerned that a vocal minority is dragging
down the area. Vicky, my sympathies are with you, and I hope that
you will benefit from the tram being developed for Edinburgh. We are
all weary of Greg Lock鈥檚 tirades against the tram. For everybody鈥檚
information, the reason why he makes such a big noise about it is
because his house will back onto it. If you take people like Greg
out of the equation, there would be very much less protest against
the tram. The ironic thing is that he has got nothing to worry about.
His house value will be higher than it would have been if the dog
dirt embankment behind his house was left as it is. Greg, instead
of spending time and effort backing a selfish and uninformed campaign,
wh! y ! not do some voluntary work or some other worthy activity?
Drew
Chilwell |
31st
May 2002
Tram and other transport issues
The tram system is a very explosive point. I think long term though
it will bring great benefit to business and property (people want
to live places where there is good transport), free advertising for
business (ie. you see it as you go past) and easy access to those
that are en-route, which may give competitive advantages. In the short
term though it's a nightmare, but what's the alternative, more road
transport or bury head in sand and wish it would go away / was someone
elses problem? That's not to say I don't or can't sympathise with
those whose lives are blighted by the development, but is there a
serious alternative? Another problem that seriously needs to be looked
at is inter-city transport. Right now the only real option for many
is to use the car. Public transport is too expensive (trains), takes
too long (2-3 hrs to London, 1 hr to Birmingham), too crowded, late,
and you are stuck if you have anything more than a bag to take with
you. If this problem was sorted out maybe the car wouldn't figure
so high in our society, but right now it's a necessary 'evil'.
David
Nottingham |
29th
May 2002
Tram - Wilford
I am relocating with my job to Edinburgh and have been struggling
with the impact of the STOP THE TRAM notices everywhere whilst attempting
to sell my house. If people really stopped to think about it, perhaps
they would voice their opinions in a different way. Our house is now
sold, but there has been so much negative interest in the tram, which
incidentally, doesn't pass by my doorway, that I am certain it has
affected the timescale in which our house was sold (took 9 weeks -
in this buoyant market)! For every person who drove down the road
to view our house, at least 50% must have seen the negative trams
signs and thought better of buying! For anyone who decides to sell
their property for whatever reason, who lives near or on a tram route,
I guarantee you will get fed up of passing those tram signs on a day
to day basis and will want to rip them down. It's alright moaning
abou! t ! having it on your doorstep or nearby, but if you want to
move out of the area, the signs will only hinder your progress. So
think again.
vicky
edinburgh |
29th
May 2002
The tram and property values
Regular readers of this page may recall my previous contribution (10
May) relating to my experiences of living close to a major development
(David Lloyd Tennis Centre). There are some other aspects of that
experience which may inform the tram discussion, particularly with
regard to the likely effect on the value of properties adjoining the
old railway line. I and my neighbours loved our field. However it
was interesting to note that whenever a house on the street was put
up for sale, we always found a significant number of potential buyers
(half in some cases) not pursuing their interest, giving as the reason
the field at the front. This shows that whilst some of us may like
a bit of nature next to our houses, not everyone does. I moved about
six months after the field was developed and sold my house, literally,
in three days. Gallingly, two and a half years later, I have discovered
that despite what we had feared would be a development that would
significantly reduce the value of our properties, the (smaller) house
next to my old one has just been sold for a price 58% greater than
I sold mine for. Even in the current buoyant housing market that is
a remarkable return. It was also interesting to note that once the
development got the go-ahead, the company went out of their way to
listen to our concerns about noise, fumes and visual impact. In fact,
in addition to their obligations under the planning permission, in
consultation with us they took extra measures at their expense to
mitigate the effects of the development. Embarrassingly for me as
one of the leading lights of the campaign to stop it, the final result
was that from the front of my house you could not tell there was a
330 space car park so close by. I appreciate that having a tram run
along the old railway line will have an effect on neighbouring properties,
but having seen the effects of earth bundings and appropriate planting
at first hand, I do not think that the effects will be as profound
as some contributions to this debate would have us believe.
David
Wilford |
28th
May 2002
Tram and metro
D Bleasby represents that group of people that never wants to see
public money spent on anything!! Note that despite what the roads
lobby says, the road and private transportation system runs at a real
鈥榣oss鈥 to society, when taking into account the costs to health, of
accidents, the effect of delays to industry and commerce, etc. Nexus鈥檚
Tyne and Wear Metro is well used and a source of great pride locally.
No problem spending 拢50m a year subsidising it, that鈥檚 what civilised
countries do in order to ensure decent transportation. By the way,
the metro is not a tram, it is a combination of underground system
and electrified former rail line. If you go to www.nexus.org.uk you
can read about how the system was recently extended to Sunderland,
sharing tracks in part with conventional rail in a new innovative
way. You can also read about how they want to additionally introduce
trams in ! th! e Newcastle area which will link into the metro system.
Trams differ in that they run partly in streets and they have very
low floors allowing boarding from kerb rather than platform height.
If Geordies ran Nottingham鈥檚 transport, we would be 20 years further
forward now.
AW
Nottingham, UK |
27th
May 2002
Trams - return
on investment ?
If it were your money would you want to see a cost / benefit ratio
of 1 for hundreds of millions of pounds investment, or do you think
you may want to see something more like 1.5 as a minimum? The thing
is, it may well be your money, as finding for the tram is partly dependent
on things like to Work Place Parking levy, and Town centre tolls (in
fact can you believe they have used advance payments from the still
questionnable work place parking levy to fund the tram so far, yet
this money may never materialise). The government appears to be moving
away from tolls, so we will all have to pay from our council tax bills,
and I am certain it will be a substantial hike in tax. So鈥. It probably
is our money, and I for one would like to see it spent where there
return in value for the public actually outweighs the costs substantially.
1.14 for Beeston is not impressive, 0.35 for West Bridgford is an
embarressment for the councils who spent money evaluating it, and
1.43 for Wilford requires, as they all do, a 10% annual hike in tram
fares even to get to 1.43. Surely this is not the best way of spending
money.
Frog
Nottingham |
27th
May 2002
Tram
I refer to the comments from D Hunter about the Newcastle Metro. I
live in Newcastle and everyone I speak with agrees that the Newcastle
Metro has been a great success. I do not recognise the figures that
D Hunter quotes and should be grateful if s/he could supply a reference
for the information put forward. The people of Nottingham will I think
be well pleased when their city has a modern tram system of the standard
now found in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Croydon and Newcastle.
Nottingham should not remain in the dark ages over its transport and
I am very surprised that some people are making such negative comments.
Anwen Ratheram
Newcastle |
25th
May 2002
The tram
What an arrogant and insensitive waste of public money. No thought
to compensate the businesses affected by the construction works and
i will be interested to see the reaction to the ratepayers when they
have to pay up in their rates to subsidise the operation of this white
elephant. As an example i quote to you my experience in Newcastle
where the rate fund was subsidising the Metro tram system to the tune
of 拢1,000,000 per week because at the fares level required to pay
back the capital and fund running costs no one would use it. Dropping
the fares to a level which made it attractive to passengers ment that
the whole scheme ran at a loss. Don't say that you havn't been warned
and I hope someone will hold these lunatics in City Hall to account
for it when it all goes horribly wrong.
D. Hunter
Bleasby, Notts |
24th
May 2002
Tram meeting
People on both sides of the argument will be glad to know that there
is a meeting in Beeston town centre next week, at the Church Hall,
Church Street on Wednesday 29th May 2002 at 7.30 pm.
AW
Nottingham, GB |
24th
May 2002
Tram - roadworks
Has it not occurred to Nicola that tourists may consider Nottingham
hardly worth visiting currently precisely because it doesn鈥檛 have
a decent modern transportation system? I didn鈥檛 visit Sheffield until
they built the tram system 鈥 now that they have the tram, I go often!
When I was in Vienna, while they were building their metro in the
mid 1980s, there was very great disruption, because that was built
on a cut and cover principle, much more disruptive than the building
of a tram. However, I only had the greatest of admiration for them
having the vision to improve their transportation system (and by the
way, they also have a huge tram system). I can tell you that people
have expressed very great admiration for what Nottingham is doing,
building the tram represents taking a great pride in Nottingham. I
certainly don鈥檛 have any admiration for some people鈥檚 short-sighted
me me me at! ti! tude, though.
Drew
Chilwell, Notts |
23rd
May 2002
Chilwell High Road
Mr. Starr and Mr. Ramsey appear to be discussing issues relevant to
the detailed scheme for the Besston-Chilwell route. Spasmodic on-street
parking of delivery and customer vehicles causes traffic hold-ups
in Chilwell High Road, and long-term traffic management would be required
even if the tramway never got built. The ideal would be parking/servicing
at the rear of the shops, or some other sort of off-street provision.
O.K, what is needed is a tram stop close to the High Road shops and/or
Broxtowe College, and a compensatory package for trade loss whilst
the tramline is being built. And put the tram right in Beeston Square.
People will be glad of it in years to come.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
23rd
May 2002
The Tram
Anyone walking around Beeston and Chilwell cannot help but notice
the number of windows displaying the message 鈥淪ay Yes to the Tram鈥.
It is clear that the anti-tram lobby have lost the argument with local
residents. Most people, even those of us who use our cars on a regular
basis, know that we need easily accessible, clean and quick public
transport. Many other cities in the UK now have modern tram systems
and businesses along tram routes are thriving. I can assure those
businesses on Chilwell High Road that I for one am far more likely
to use your shops if I can get to them by tram. At the moment the
traffic makes it impossible to get to you.
Martin Ward
Beeston |
23rd
May 2002
Tram Works
The tram is an excellent idea, but about 30 years too late. Why on
earth the City Council is spending 拢200 million on something so out
of date is beyond me. They should be widening the roads and making
it easier for motorists to come in and out of the city instead of
making it more difficult.
James Winsoar
Nottingham, England
and in reply...
25th
May 2002
Widening roads
I'm not sure whether James is being ironic or not - widening roads
was exactly what we did do 30 years ago, with lovely streets like
Maid Marian Way and Colin Street and all those attractive multi-story
carparks replacing those nasty old buildings. Cities are for people
not cars.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
22nd
May 2002
tram
The non-chain individuality of many of the shops along the Chilwell
High road as well as those in and around Beeston centre is a rare
sight and a breath of fresh air in these days of monopolisation and
globalization. They provide choice, add character and interest to
what otherwise could become just another high street in just another
town with just the same high street brands if there are any shops
left at all after the planners have had their way.
PAS
Chilwell |
22nd
May 2002
Trams
I am completely fed up with the roadworks and road closures due to
the tramworks. I am not going to have any benefit of the trams whatsoever,
but seem to have my bus service, times, delays and lots of inconvience.
The mess also upsets me, the city that I was proud to live and work
in now looks like its been bombed in several different places. I can't
see its all that good for tourism at the moment!!!
Nicola
Nottingham |
Last
reply... 22nd May 2002
The Tram on Chilwell High Road
I have a shop on Chilwell High Road. It is NOT tatty, dilapidated
or run down but it does rely on customers having full vehicular access
to the front of the premises. Even before the building of the Chilwell
tram route commences, the road outside my shop will be removed for
a considerable period (much longer than the two or three months that
NET say they require for track laying - this will come latter ) and
the scene will be somewhat like the one depicted on the No-Tram web
site (www.notram.net) under the heading 'HOW CAN ANY BUSINESS SURVIVE
WITH A WASTELAND OUTSIDE THE FRONT DOOR?' - all sand and six foot
fences. A great deal of my business comes from repairs. When people
bring in their faulty items, such as wide screen televisions (very
heavy), they require direct access to the front of the shop. Likewise
for delivery vehicles loading and unloading the TVs and ! ot! her
large items that we sell. I must make the obvious point here, that
no sane person will using the tram to transport these things. The
same applies to sales, much of my business is now done on the internet,
people come from as far a field as London and Glasgow to collect equipment,
others have equipment sent to them by carrier. All of these actions
need direct access to the front of the shop. There is, apparently
a system for compensation for loss of business (if you can prove it)
but this doesn't take into account the degradation of the customer
base and good will, that has been built up over many, many years.
I don't want compensation - I want to retain my customers. Some light-weight
commentator recommended Boycotting the shops on Chilwell High Road,
because we are against the Chilwell extension. What he and people
like him must realise is that a great deal of what comes from NET's
publicity machine is spin and propaganda. He, like many local councillors
and others, in being taken in by this misinformation, has become an
unwitting mouthpiece for their cause. The High Street Traders are
fighting for their livelihoods. They know their business better that
NET and it's cronies and have every right to protest. The possibility
that the Beeston/Chilwell route may be postponed until after line
one is up and running is certainly welcome news. It would give everyone
a breathing space and allow a few of the recently aired arguments
to be examined on a practical level.
George Starr
Mapperley, Nottingham.
and in reply..
I assume you are talking about the shop on Chilwell High Road as there
is no other shop there which repairs tvs. You mention wide screen
tvs which are, indeed, very heavy, but how much of your business is
for wide screen tvs? You also sell or repair videos, dvds, hifi, cdr
discs, connectors etc 鈥 all of which can easily be carried across/along
the road from a parking area 鈥 indeed many of these could be carried
on the tram. What currently happens when someone brings a tv for repair
but the parking space outside the shop is taken? Do they go away again,
or do they park further along the road and bring the tv in despite
the lack of direct access to the front of the shop? The tv\video\hifi
shop on Chilwell Road seems to survive despite the lack of parking
directly in front of the shop. I seem to remember that businesses
and shops on Beeston High Road were against pedestrianisation of the
High Road. Like you, I bet they felt they were fighting for their
livelihoods, and knew their business better than the council. But
how many businesses and local people would want to go back to an unpedestrianised
High Road now? It has had a major positive impact on the centre of
Beeston and improved Beeston as a shopping area. I believe that the
tram, and the changes it will bring for Chilwell Road/High Road, will
make it much more pleasant as a pedestrian and a shopping area. Perhaps
you should be directing your energies into influencing where the proposed
new parking and loading areas on Chilwell Road/High Road might be
(as NET are planning to increase the number of parking spaces, there
will be greater likelihood of customers being able to park near your
shop). If you really feel that your business cannot survive without
parking directly in front of the shop, perhaps t! here are other local
premises which can have such parking 鈥 if you can present a persuasive
case to NET/council then you will probably receive your relocation
expenses.
Mark Ramsey
Chilwell |
20th
May 2002
Nottingham Trams.
Are they a waste of money?
Dear 91热爆. The trams will be money well spent, but only when the full
network is built. I've just moved from Nottingham to Manchester and
I can say that here, the trams are tremendous and a subject of real
civic pride. So much that some 拢400m is been spent to expand the system.
There is real excitement about this. Have faith Nottingham. Once its
all built, it will be someelse to be proud of.
Jo Caffrey
Manchester |
17th
May 2002
Reaping the benefits
PAS of Chilwell is wrong, because the Councils could not have used
the money they spent on NET consultation to build Park and Ride sites
because those projects would also have needed consultation and guess
what - a public inquiry - because there will always be someone who
doesn't want it in their backyard! There are, fortunately, a majority
of us, though, who realise the benefits and welcome the chance to
comment on the plans! Lets make sure NET get it right, and what they
promise in mitigation and construction management is carried out to
their word!
Andrew
Beeston |
|
16th May 2002
the
good and bad points
I think trams are good because they can help us get around quick
and i am just hoping that they are a bit faster than buses. I think
that it will stop teenagers etc stop joyriding. Write know they
are building the tracks now and when wre in the car we have to go
the long way round and it is waseting our petrol. The bad points
i think are it will make noise and it does'nt go slow. I think they
are puting an aroundas amount of effort in it and all i have to
say know is i hope it all goes well for you.
Avinash Rana (aged 11)
Nottingham
|
Last
reply.. 17th May 2002
tram
Imagine that for the amount of money (and time) already spent on consultation
for future tram routes plus the cost of the ensuing public enquires,
we could have invested in a few more park and rides, bus-lanes and
bus prioity traffic schemes and everyone would already be reaping
the benefit?
PAS
Chiwell
and in reply...
In answer to PAS of Chilwell, of course the planning and preparation
of tramlines is time-consuming, and hence adds to public cost. But
it is quite thorough, with more public participation on the detailed
schemes coming up, and Environmental Impact Assessment under EU Directives.
Neither of the two tram consultation exercises we have just had were
legally required. Public Inquiries are almost unavoidable for major
new roads, experimental bus lanes, and park-and-ride sites using buses.
The Secretary of State鈥檚 decision on the A52 Bramcote bus lane is
awaited, following an Inquiry. It is inescapable that a bus- or rail-
p&r site for Stapleford would be located on Green Belt land, as much
as the Bardill鈥檚 tram solution. There was a relaxation in government
policy last year towards p&r sites in GBs, but only if unintrusive
or able to be made so by screening,! e! tc. This looks difficult for
the large one the tram will have. In other words, the p&r issues for
the A52 are complex and not an exclusive indictment of the tram. Reducing
Green Belts in local authority planning policy is very controversial.
LA Local Plans take longer than tramlines to prepare, with at least
2 rounds of consultations, and a Public Inquiry. A government Green
Paper hopes to speed things up. There will only be a few tramlines
for the eventual full system in Nottingham, on the most overloaded
existing traffic corridors. Trams are of course only one component
in overall transport strategy. Regards.
G. Bennett
Wilford |
|
16th May 2002
tram-environment
Do trams actually generate less overall global pollution than low
emission buses? Please could someone elucidate the facts? 1) Do
they use, overall, less energy than the internal combustion energy;
Is the generation of electricity from fossil fuels and the subsequent
transmission of power by overhead lines, with its associated power
loss by cable-heating, more efficient than modern bus engines. Is
an overall saving per passenger mile in greenhouse gas emissions
made. 2) Given roads already exist what is the energy cost and greenhouse
gas component to the environment of tram line construction: extraction
of raw materials, their transport and use. Fuel used in construction
etc. 3)Is the ultimate bottom line of money spent: energy burnt
and pollution created?
PAS
Chilwell
|
15th
May 2002
The proof of the pudding
Well said, Tim from Croydon. I am a great supporter of the trams.
A transport expert from London, Professor David Begg, was interviewed
by the local newspaper a few days ago. He applauded overall transport
here and advised people to stop moaning since he reckons most other
cities in the UK have it worse. He also praised the trams we will
soon have, and the network extensions now planned, where the local
controversies are currently raging. He asserted that once the trams
are up and running, hostility will die down, and the objectors of
today could become the supporters of tomorrow. Other Europeans never
gave up their trams, love them, and could not live without them. Since
all people are selfish - tram supporters, opponents and apathetics
鈥 a sharp burst of house price inflation is the right medicine, especially
for people living IMMEDIATELY adjacent the proposed routes!
G. Bennett
Wilford |
13th
May 2002
Trams... Before and After
I find this page very interesting, as the arguments are almost identical
to those we used to hear in Croydon a few years back before the trams
were built. The pro-tram lobby will be encouraged to learn that opinions
tended to change somewhat after the system was opened... Prior to
launch, and while the system was being built, an extremely vocal minority
were adamant that noone in Croydon wanted trams. They were a "silent
killer" that would run people over in droves because noone could hear
them. Equally, noone living on the streets which the tram ran down
would be able to sleep at night because of the terrible noise. Cyclists
would be felled in their thousands as they somersaulted over unseen
tracks, and electrocutions from the overhead lines would be commonplace.
(Where the legions of absent minded fishermen were expected to come
from to fulfill that last prediction was never made clear.) I live
on one of the busiest streets down which the tram runs. For nearly
two years the disruption was terrible while underground services were
moved and then track laid - we had no buses down our road, half the
front garden had to be dug up to re-route the sewer, and so on...
It wasn't pretty, and I wouldn't pretend it was. But it definitely
_was_ worth it! The trams are clean, quiet, fast, regular, and in
every respect better than the bus services. (Note that the bus services
largely still run (with changes, of course,) - another complaint at
the time was that you would never see a bus again, thanks to the evil
trams.) Now the trams are here, people have of course noticed the
advantages... The town centre is cleaner, less clogged with traffic
and considerably more vibrant. The shops along the route are benefitting
massively. Parking in the town-centre car parks is down, but patronage
in the shops is up... Elderly and disabled people now have vastly
more travel opporunities thanks to the level-access, and it's easier
for parents with buggies as well. In every respect, the trams have
been a great success. Funnily enough, the vast majority of the opponents
have fallen silent. The local papers are suddenly pro-tram. Everyone
you meet praises them, and suddenly everyone has their own pet idea
for an extension to the system (that would just happen to go down
their road...) Hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course... But Nottingham
isn't breaking any new ground, or taking any great leap into the unknown.
Tram systems operate successfully all over the world, and you don't
need to go far to see the evidence.
Tim
Croydon, UK |
13th
May 2002
Chilwell High Road
I welcome the tram along Chilwell High Road. I hope it will put some
of the tatty cheap shops out of business and some better shops will
open and improve the local character of the area. It's a bit hypocritical
of the Chilwell High Road traders to be opposing the tram when 9 months
ago they were campaigning against plans by NCT to withdraw the 13
bus terminus on Imperial Road. With a tram stop near Imperial Road,
and much improved off-street parking the shops will benefit dramatically.
EJ
Beeston |
This
debate page has now moved please click on the following link which will
take you through to the newHave Your Say index:
Shout Archive Pages:
[9]
[8]
[7]
[6]
[5]
[4]
[3] [2]
[1]
|
