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 成人快手 Nottingham website, please visit our
new .
Beeston/Chilwell
NET extension
There has been an awful lot of nonsense talked about the negatives
of the proposed NET extension to Beeston and Chilwell. In particular,
the resident's No Tram campaign is using scaremongering and lies to
confuse the debate, and hide the real issues. There are problems,
and real issues that need to be resolved with the existing plans -
the Chilwell Road parkign debate for one. But to conclude that all
of the shops will shut as a result of the tram is utter rubbish. If
proper provision is made for alternative parking arrangements, there
is no reason why this couldn't become a more successful shopping area.
Let's face it, parking there is already dreadful and squeezing between
a bus and parked cars can be a nightmare. What is needed from the
Beeston residents is a sensible debate on the real problems with the
scheme, rather than an outright dismissal. There are real benefits
for the whole community from this proposal, but it is our job to make
sure that NET get it right. The negative approach is much more likely
to end up with a scheme, with flaws, being landed on us.
Phil
Chilwell |
Trams
It's interesting that all comments from cities with tramways are positive.
All UK tramway systems have plans for expansion. Try surfing for houses
in Croydon, Manchester or Sheffield and estate agents will always
quote the nearness of the tramway as a selling point. PLease lets
have the Beeston line ASAP and improve our prosperity and standard
of living.
Steve Barber
Beeston |
Tram
Will people put the tram into perspective: Would they prefer a 3 lane
motorway going past their home instead of a tram, so the car alternative
can be catered for? People probably don't care, as long as it isin
their back yard... And the debate of "Beeston & Attenborough have
railway stations" is as stupid as the "Line 1 follows the RHL" arguement.
Trains are infrequent, and will never compete with trams in terms
of frequency and penetration, and they deposit passengers a long walk
from the city centre.
GOAT WHO
Gedling |
TRAM
- Beeston and Chilwell
Hotchpotch scheme - The proposed scheme put together by NET falls
well short of its gallant objectives. Yes, it鈥檚 a good idea to have
a park and ride at Bardills for weekday commuters and weekend shoppers
to get quickly into Nottingham. Yes, the horrendous amount of rush
hour car traffic on the A52 needs reducing, especially between Priory
roundabout and QMC. Yes, it鈥檚 a good idea to replace buses with cleaner
and quieter alternatives. On the other hand it鈥檚 not a good idea to
run a tram through a green belt area. It鈥檚 not a good idea to run
a tram of 30 meters in length through small streets in residential
areas. Trams are not cleaner alternatives. The pollution is generated
elsewhere. Neither are they quieter alternatives! Beeston/Chilwell
already has ample bus services to Nottingham. The buses from Long
Eaton to Nottingham also come through Beeston/Chilwell. There is!
a! lso a train link from Attenborough/Beeston to Nottingham. There
are good cycle ways from Beeston/Chilwell to Nottingham. You can even
use your car! Is another option really necessary? I think a tram link
from Bardills to Nottingham along the A52 is a good idea and possibly
one from Long Eaton to Nottingham along the A6005, calling in at Beeston
town center would also be of benefit. Alternatives using Stapleford
Lane (B6003) and/or Wollaton Road (B6006) to cross link the two routes
should also be considered. They would provide a much better solution
to the problems! The size of those roads could accommodate trams (just).
However, the currently proposed scheme that runs through a residential
part of Chilwell is ridiculous and badly thought out. The people in
charge of the planners of this scheme should question the planners
competence. Residential areas are where people deserve peace and quiet!
Angry Chilwell Resident
Chilwell, Nottingham, England |
|
TRAMS NET
I oppose the Clifton via Wilford route because it will devastate
the wildlife corridor on sites of the important nature reserve,
which is absolutely unacceptable. The Clifton via Queens Drive would
be better and would serve the industrial sites and trading estates
in that area. The Wilford Main Road route is unthinkable. The road
is not wide enough for a two-way tram. Also to include parking of
drop-off cars for new Village school which is veing built right
now. There will be 300 pupils attending next September,2002, and
this means approx 200 cars carrying children to and from school
during 8.30 am 3.30 pm mon.to fri. Plus pupils who arrive by buses.
Weekend activities with buses and cars. There is only one road into
Wilford Village for all vehicular traffic, which means a buildup
of traffic trying to get in and out of Wilford Lane/Main Road/Ruddington
Lane xroads. during these times. All these problems would be averted
with the Queens Road route being used. In addition to the Village
School opening next September, there is also the new CofE school
in Wilford Meadows which will open also next September, with an
estimated 600 to 900 pupils attending. What with the people, Trams
,buses,cars,pub delivery lorries,Bowls club members and the odd
mail vans, IT WILL BE LIKE THE NOTTINGHAM GOOSE FAIR--EVERYDAY !!
John Brewer
WIlford Village.Nottm
Trams
The people of Wilford are amazing. They moan about reductions in
their bus service as a result of the service changes, and yet, when
a tram is proposed, via the disused Great Central Railway corridor,
they scream blue murder. I think I might just spot a contradiction
somewhere....
GOATWHO
Gedling
Trams
No doubt the people living near the proposed tram route through
wilford etc are big fans of Dr Beechings railway cuts. Otherwise,
instead of quiet trams, you could have had 186 mph high speed trains
whizzing by, on the line that was built originally with the intention
of connecting to the channel tunnel... Without the transport corridor
being there, and it is a transport corridor, there'd just be more
houses...
GOATWHO
Gedling
|
I live in Croydon, so I cannot comment on problems specific to nottingham.
But we just had a new tram system installed, and, despite the chaos
of the building work, The tram system has been a great success. What
nottingham must get right however is the problem of antisocial misuse
of the system, both in terms of vandalism, fare evading etc. I imagine
many passengers who were tempted out of their cars when the system
opened will begin to return to them if the trams get as dirty and
misused as ours!
|
Trams
in urban areas
Trams were chosen because of their ability to interact with pedestrians
in an urban environment as well as travel at high speed when on a
segregated alignment. If anyone wants to see this working they should
go to Manchester, Sheffield or better still, Croydon. If you try out
the Croydon Tramlink you do become excited about having something
like that in Nottingham. Trams are not Intercity 125 HSTs with claxons.
A tram alignment mainly on roads would also suffer in traffic congestion,
leading to poor journey times and unreliability (so would not provide
a worthwhile improvement on buses). The existing traffic will also
suffer from excessive disruption. The A52 in Bramcote/Beeston is probably
wide enough for one lane to be given over to the tram as part of a
bus/tram lane - I thought that would make a good route too. Unfortunately,
it would probably cost a lot more due to the engineering required
at the roundabouts, and cause massive disruption during construction.
The main drawback, however, of not serving Beeston town centre is
the Nottingham - Sandiace corridor alone just does not produce enough
demand, particularly compared to the Nottingham - Chilwell corridor.
You can see this reflected in the current bus service frequencies.
It is unrealistic to expect feeder buses from Beeston to Derby Road
providing a competitive Beeston to Nottingham route choice as passengers
hate interchange and waiting twice. Following the existing Midland
Mainline too much would also suffer from lack of demand - it is far
from trip origins (houses) or destinations (shops and offices). It's
unfortunate that public transport schemes need t! o ! be near people
to be effective, and yet no-one seems to want them near them.
Stanley
Basford, Nottingham |
the
tram
As an advocate of better public transport, I whole heartedly welcome
any improvement in the service but feel that I can't condone NET's
hotchpotch plans for the Beeston and Chilwell area. Knocking down
old folks homes and dividing housing estates with a railway track
(putting residents - especially children - at great risk,) is not
the way forward. Convoluted routes down narrow streets that were not
built for 100 foot (33mtrs) long articulated trams is civic madness!!!
A more sensible alternative would be to use Derby Road (A52), with
feeder buses to Beeston and Chilwell. This way the tram could serve
the Queens Medical Centre and the University AND still reach it's
'holy grail' of Bardill's island. This route would have the advantage
of offering a much faster service than any of NET's proposed routes,
it would be cheaper to build, the destruction of private property
would be minimal, not nearly so many lives would permanently disrupted
and it would offer a far more flexible service.
A.Nimby
Attenborough |
I wrote to
NET on the 31st of December and stated that I did not want a corporate
fob off, but rather answers to my questions. Unfortunately, a fob
off was all I received. I then phoned them and was told I would have
a written reply within 5 working days. That was 10 working days ago.
I find the arrogance disturbing as there is no sense of the 'consultation'
we were told to expect. We make our criticisms and they refuse to
respond to them. The questions they failed to reply to are 1.Alternative
routes which go along existing thoroughfares rather than through green
belt and the playing fields of the local Primary School. 2. How are
they going to guarantee the safety of our children during and after
construction. 3.How will electro-magnetic radiation effect children
and pregnant women and where will the 'feeder' stations be sited.
4. Will these trams be using klaxons, and if not, why not, and if
they are why have we not been told. 5. Are the verbal comments made
at consultation evenings going to be forwarded to the 'independent'
body making the final decisions, and if these comments are not going
to be forwarded why was this practice described by NET as 'better'
than writing? I could go on with a much larger list of comments that
have been ignored. Has anyone else had the same treatment, and if
so, what have they done about it?
Colin
Chilwell |
Trams
Trams work really well in Sheffield, Manchester and many European
cities, and they save the environment, not pollute it. Come on Nottingham,
look beyond your own back garden, and save our city from misery and
more deaths on our terrible, over-used road system.
Richard Day
Nottingham |
|
Trams
The motives of the NET seem confused. On the one hand they are claiming
that the intention is to provide rapid transit from the outskirts
of the city to the centre, thus persuading the commuters to leave
their cars at periferal carparks and skim effortlessly into the
centre. On the other hand they seem to be trying to persuade the
suburbs, whose streets may well be made dangerous for pedestrians,
and unusabe for valid local transport, to view these rapidly flying
trams as a huge local amenity. The first objective requires rapidly
moving trams with very few stops. The second objective, under the
guise of which the system seems to be being sold, requires a plethora
of local stops, allowing people to hop on and off every 250 metres
or so. You cannot have one system which provides both services.
The most local tram line to me, is the one planned through Beeston.
The Beeston roads are simply not wide enough to cater for the tram.
They are flanked by many small shops and are used heavily by pedestians.
The 'normal' speed of trafic through the Beeston/Chilwell high road
is about 15 to 20 mph. The trams are supposed to be racing through
at 50mph. The potential for fatal accidents with pedestrians is
huge. There is simply not space to separate the trams from the people.
Beston will no longer be a safe and convenient local centre, and
the shops are bound to decline. However, by re-routing the planned
tram it could be very good. Instead of ploughing through the local
centre, it could plough up the A52, which already has a bus lane
and has ample space on the section from Bardills to the Bramcote
Leisure centre, to build a tram line at its edge. This routing would
provide the rapid transit desired to the city centre. The *local*
service for Beeston could be provided by shuttle buses, or even
trolley-buses from Beeston to the A52. The construction costs would
be much lower, and the unique and friendly character of Beeston
would be retained. Another possible route would be from Bardils,
down the edge of the Chetwynd barracks, past the Twiney-Way co-op
and the Chilwell Retail Park,(which already has a huge car-park)
and then following the side of the Midland Rail track, past Boots,
and up to the University. Either route could still serve the University
and QMC, although the way the current plans serve these two instiutions
is inadequate. The plans just don't seem to have been properly thought
through, and the 'consultation' phase seems to be more of a presentation
of a 'fait accomplis', which is just plain irritating. It is interesting
to note that one huge green space in Beeston, that the tram has
not been planned to pass through is Beeston Fields Golf course!
:-) The only objection I have heard to the suggestion that the trams
should go down the A52 instead of through Beeston, was that "it
is not reasonable for the people of Beeston or Chilwell to walk
to the A52 to catch a tram", to which the obvious repost is "it
is not reasonable for the people of Bramcote, Bramcote Hills and
Wollaton to walk to Beeston to use the tram either!". To fulfill
the NET objective of having a rapid transit system, and providing
adequate local service, they have surely got to keep the trams on
wide roads, where people are not going to be endangered by their
proposed speed, but provide lots of local shuttle/distribution services
to the centres of population who would benefit from the service,
but to whom the proximity of speeding trams would be a nightmare.
If the plans so far produced were a homework project given to me
to mark, I would tell them to go away and try again!
Joy
Bramcote Hills
Joy of Bramcote
Hills
Although the tram will be able to travel at a speed of up to 50mph,
like any other vehicle on the road, trams are required to follow
the speed limit. It is only in non-residential areas and places
where people will not be at contact with the tram will such speeds
possibly be used. I am aware that this includes sections of Line
One between Moor Bridge and Hucknall, where the tram operates away
from main roads. It is worth remembering that cars and lorries can
travel at 50mph, yet I would perceive that very few do so through
Beeston Town Centre during the day.
Anthony
Nottingham
|
TRAMS
Reliable, fast, convenient, smooth even sexy! Trams will be a superb
addition to Nottingham and will start to transform our public transport
to cope with the congestion and pollution we have already! The question
is not whether trams are relevant now, its what would happen if we
didn't have trams! The future would be somewhat bleak.
Andrew Collins
St Anns |
Trams
Question - when does a muddy track mainly used as a doggies toilet
become a nature trail? Answer - when its at the rear of your house
and the proposed second route of the tram system. Please - lets have
the next route to Clifton with a Ruddington spur.
Malcolm
Ruddington |
trams
Hi, i like trams, trams are fun
billy
chester |
trams
while i understand the concerns of the nottingham people over the
tram sytem for nottingham, spare a thought to the residents of other
parts of the county, the majority of which will never use the tram
system in nottingham but will be paying increased council taxes to
finanance it,(i have heard that this wil be on average 拢30 per annum
extra) i know the planners and the council will say "its there if
you want to use it" but thats hardly the point is it? having said
all that i think it will be a good thing once it is all completed(for
the people of nottingham at least)
bs
worksop
In reply to
BS of Worksop
Nottingham's tram is not costing local taxpayers extra to build or
operate. It is partly financed through a government grant for schemes
like this and if Nottingham would not have had it, someone else would
have. The Arrow consortium is contributing to the scheme too. Including
Adtranz, Nottingham City Transport and Carillion, the consortium have
found the money to pay for the scheme, which starts running in November
next year. As a resident of Worksop, I would find it extremely unlikely
that you would have to foot any bills or see an increase in taxes.
The only financial costs to the people of Nottinghamshire are to actually
catch the tram, which will be in line with equivalent bus fares. The
feasibility of a tram to Worksop is very unlikely, which is why the
Robin Hood Line was opened. A tram would take a very long time to
complete the route and would certainly not bene! fi! t the people
in Worksop. Moreover, I would agree with local planners and the council
that once the tram is in place, people will start to use it. At present,
the roads are congested and drivers want real alternatives before
they will leave their car at home. The tram is just one possibility,
but is a real choice for people. Once the first line is built and
in operation, further extensions can be made to the network and attract
more people onto public transport.
Anthony
Nottingham |
Give
it a chance
We are a country of moaners, why not try and be positive for a change,
go on, give it a try. Having lived in Sheffield and Birmingham I have
first hand experience of tram systems, they do work. Despite being
dogged with problems Birminghams trams move lots of people quickly
and eficiently, try doing that on the congested roads around here.
Speak to people of Sheffield who live near the system who were opposed
to it and see how their views have changed
R Ashton
Birmingham |
history
of trams in nottingham
on the junction of st anns well road and bath street is an old tram
depot. we are trying to buy this. we wish to return it to it's origanal
condition and also us it for a young person alternative arts project.
This project is called Creatve Room. If anyone knows the history of
this building could they let me know.
peter
nottingham |
Nottingham
trams
Congratulation to Nottingham for investing in an environmentally friendly
project. It is an expensive but very necessary first step in planning
to get cars of the road and provide alternative mass transport systems
for city people. Yes it is expensive and I am sure that many other
cities will benefit from the experience of Nottingham.
J T (Tim) Rollinson
Putney, London |
Trams
We have the biggest tram network in the world outside Europe. The
Melbourne system faced closure in the 1960's. Since then it has expanded
and runs across the whole of metro area and into the countryside.
They can't extend the system quick enough. We have just had new French
built trams on some of the lines. They have become very important
part of the transport system. We also have trams that are restuarant
cars, and are very popular with tourist coming to this great city.
Most of the lines run in their own resevations in the middle of a
divided road, so that they are part of the total transport system.I
would sya to the people of Nottingham, just bear with it as it will
be for the best in the long run.
Malcolm Freeman
Patterson Lakes Victoria Australia |
|
The trams
beggars and rubbish on Nottingham streets
In response to the many anti trams postings to this debate area.
Having just
return from holiday in Switzerland I am amazed at differences between
the two countries.
If we look at
travel, tickets are available which take from any airport to your
destination and this ticket covers you for travel on any means of
transport, bus's, train, boats and cable cars. Also for the rest
of your holiday the ticket will get you half price travel on any
form of transport (except aircraft) anywhere in Switzerland. All
the transport is very clean and on time. Most transport is electrically
driven and quiet, which also means no exhaust gases, and smell or
noise.
The cites towns
and villages are not covered in litter, and they do seem to make
a concerted effort to recycle as much of their rubbish as possible.
There are many
litterbins all are emptied regularly.
There are no
beggars demanding money.
Just why is
it that the majority of the public in England and Nottingham in
particular, like the rubbish in our streets, the noise and polluted
air of our city and local towns and the aggressive beggars.
Don't say you
do not enjoy it. Other wise you would not scatter your unwanted
rubbish in the streets, you would not drive you car into the city
and you would complain about the beggars.
For my part
I look forward to the electric trams in our streets which means
a quieter and less polluted air, I hope one day that heavy instant
fines will be imposed on any one who drops litter/rubbish and also
that the beggars will be removed from our streets.
It would be
a little like Switzerland then, albeit a lot flatter.
John Foster
Arnold Nottingham |
Trams
Trams are wonderful, not only do they help us protect our environment
they are a trendy and retro way to travel. LEts face it Nottingham
is a great city, infact it is probably my favortie in all of Europe,
I can't wait to return and ride the Tram, the busses made me motion
sick.
Kevin Moran
Cornell University/ United States |
Fair
enough! Tram are suppose to be more effective as to clean up the pollution.
But Alas the add the pollution of electric overhead cabling hence
spoiling the sight of our city.... As of the Nottingham City Transport
running the Tram, I am sure they will have same problem as the bus
service. I don't see the point of having tram in Nottingham.
Marcus Collins
Nottingham |
TRAMS
I HOPE THE TRAMS RUN ON TIME NOT LIKE THE NCT HIT AND MISS DUE TO
THE BUS NOT COMMING OR RUNNING LATE DUE TO ROAD WOKS I AM DISABLED
AND HAVE TO CACH A BUS BUT I HAVE BEEN TOLD THE TRAMS WILL RUN ON
TIME AND THE BUS WHEN ALL THE WORK HAS BEEN DONE LETS SEE WHAT IS
IT IN 2003? GOOD LUCK TO THE TRAMS IF THEY RUN ON TIME?
p.marlow
heathfield basford nottingham |
The City councils running of transport the city is lunacy. As taxpayers
we have spent millions of hard earnt cash on research what do we get
bedlam on the streets! HOW THE HELL ARE WE TO GET HOME!!!! I have
waited yet again nearly and hour and a half for a bus just to take
me to Bingham!! The goverment policy makers need to take a much closer
lokk in to why people like driving cars. Whilst we have completly
inept people running the council we have no option but to head to
the polluting cars. Can we take them to the European Court for human
rights abuse? And why are we paying the local goverment to do a job
which they clearly have no idea about! My idea would be to go on strike
until this disgrace is sorted out, but then again i have my council
tax bill soon!
martin
Bingham |
Nottingham
Tram
My point of view on the trams is that i saw the tram developments
in Market square and disscoverd the route is more than the same as
the Robin hood train line.
Matthew Hnat
West Bridgford Nottinghamshire |
ENT
Oppersition to (Cw Route) NET
wrote on 14 August, to express opposition to the NET proposal for
a tram route (CW) that would run from the City Centre to Clifton via
Wilford following the line of the old Great Central Railway embankment.
Since then my letter has prompted a number of responses - both for
and against - and I have watched the subsequent correspondence in
the letters page with interest. I have to say, my view remains unchanged,
but in no small part this is because I have noticed that a number
of the writers are not altogether clear about all the facts. In fairness
I have to acknowledge - on some points neither am I, and that is because
NET have provided so little genuinely useful factual information.
However, I and my Action Group colleagues have been able to establish
some information and none of it demonstrates a convincing case in
favour of route CW. So I think the time is ripe !
fo!
r me to respond on a few of the points that have been made. Local
residents in Wilford & Compton Acres have created a strong and
active Committee, which meets regularly. We recognise route CW is
still at the stage of a proposal, and have written to NET and to others
to obtain additional information. But my concerns remain strong -
and are increasing. This is because the responses that local residents
are receiving from NET simply try to defend and justify their proposals
and offer reassurances that if tram route CW goes ahead, it will have
only minor impact upon the local environment and those neighbourhoods
through which it passes. Not only are they unconvincing, the comments
of NET appear inconsistent, unreliable and bound up in "spin"
- they don't provide solid information or positive answers to the
very serious concerns of local residents. Many people feel they are
not receiving answers that would give them confidence their views
are being given fair consideration. Inste!
ad!
they feel that NET are simply trying to `fob them off' and keep them
quiet, until irreversible decisions have been taken by the relevant
Councils. On 11 September a very well attended Public Meeting was
held at the Becket School. This was intended as a key opportunity
to hear both sides of the issue and to address concerns directly to
those who are responsible for tramline planning and construction in
Nottingham. In addition to those in the hall, where it was "standing
room only," people also listened from the adjoining corridors.
NET staff were on hand to field questions and answers. However, after
over 1½ hours of discussion the local residents (an estimated
total of around 450) felt that they had still not heard a convincing
argument to justify consideration of route CW in preference to other
options, and they voted to register their continued fierce opposition
to the NET proposals. Some people have said that we are using the
Environment issues as an excuse to persuade N!
ot!
tingham Express Transit to move the route somewhere else. Yes, we
would like the NET to choose a different route than the CW route.
We have a number of reasons for holding this view and the Environment
is just one of them. It is however, the most important reason. The
fact of the matter is that if NET selects the CW tram route, the potential
impact upon the local environment could be devastating. Over the thirty-five
years since the Great Central Railway line was closed this area has
flourished as a haven for a wide variety of birds and insects, foxes,
hedgehogs, rare plants and other threatened wildlife; leading to it's
official designation as a "Site of Importance for Nature Conservation"
(SINC). This means that the species of flora and fauna found there
are significantly rare, and are of County Importance to Nottinghamshire.
It is an established nature trail much used by locals for recreation,
and has become an important amenity to the area. To the north, where
it meets t!
he!
Trent there is Ironmonger Pond which is surrounded by woodland and
heathland, home to an even wider range of wildlife (also carrying
SINC status), and the southern end leads to Wilwell Cutting Nature
Reserve, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and
of National conservation importance. The nature reserve is currently
managed by Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust. An even more important
aspect of the old railway line is its importance as a safe route for
wildlife that connects natural habitats and helps prevent them becoming
isolated islands and going into decline. We have asked NET about the
environmental implications of the CW route proposal and I can only
say their response amounts to, "don't worry", it will all
be all right in the end". Frankly, this is simply not good enough.
If they haven't thought things through properly by now then it would
be dangerous to accept such wishy-washy reassurances. And if they
have thought things through by now and they are n!
ot!
telling us everything, then that is even more of a concern. It comes
down to this; the Officials at NET HQ need to provide straight answers
on the environmental issues, and will have to get things right. That
doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. Some correspondents have
expressed the view that the Environment can be protected, or it will
recover following tram route works. That is the sort of short-sighted
view that has already done so much damage to all aspects of the local
and the global environment. We have to start caring somewhere. It
seems to be a wicked irony that the same people who say, "don't
worry, the environment will recover" are often also the ones
who say that we need a tram system because it would be more environmentally
friendly. I must say, in the absence of some realistic evidence on
that point, I have my doubts. And years of bitter experience should,
by now, have taught us that the environment cannot always be relied
upon to simply recover. It just!
d!
oesn't. Here is a quick summary of the key reasons why we do not want
the CW Clifton via Wilford route to go ahead It doesn't make good
Environmental sense 1. Removal and destruction of the nature trail
on the old railway embankment with its mature trees, shrubs and wildlife.
2. The route of the old railway from the Trent through to Wilwell
Nature Reserve is a Site Important for Nature Conservation (SINC).
3. Wilwell Nature Reserve is a SSSI. After crossing the ring road,
the proposed route would turn sharp right, directly behind Silverdale
to go to Clifton. This would take it right past the Nature Reserve
with all the disturbance and upset to wildlife that construction,
and then trams passing by up to 10 times an hour in each direction,
would create. 4. Land allocated to both SINCs and SSSIs in Rushcliffe
is only just over half the national average ( 7%) for SSSIs alone
! This will be further reduced if the NET plan goes ahead. 5. Permanent
loss of footpaths and play areas.!
6!
. Loss of local walks. 7. Installation of electrical sub-stations
along the route. 8. Installation of tubular masts to accommodate 750
volt over-head power cables 19 feet above the ground. 9. The visual
eyesore that can be the only result. It doesn't make good Economic
sense 10. NET can provide no clear business justification to support
"hoped for" passenger volumes. 11. NET's Network Extensions
Study report indicates that both the CW and the CQD routes should
perform similarly in terms of attracting customers so there is no
particular benefit from choosing the CW route. It doesn't make good
sense for Effectiveness and suitability 12. The CW route is less valid
in serving public transport benefits because there are fewer planned
stopping points available along the route. 13. There are few significant
workplaces along the CW route. This contrasts with numerous existing
and proposed commercial developments along the alternative proposed
route to Clifton via Queens Drive (Route!
!
CQD). 14. Other route CQD options do more to serve transport to work
and shopping needs. 15. Perhaps most importantly, the CW route is
less effective than the CQD route in meeting the key criteria set
out in the NET Transit Extension Study Final Report (dated January
2001), against which a proposed NET network extension must be tested.
Some people who are concerned about the environment ask why there
are so many car users. In short, I don't know. I haven't asked everyone
and so I can't speak for everyone. However, one answer would be that
people have transport needs and the present public transport systems
simply do not meet those needs. It seems Bus routes are constantly
being changed and withdrawn, and it is becoming increasingly difficult
to use public transport to get across the city centre. (Actually that
is apparently part of a little publicised idea by NET and the Council
to have the city centre become a "no-go-zone" for all vehicles
other than trams). I can't help bu!
t !
think that the desecration of Bus Routes and Timetables is just part
of the ploy to get us to accept the Tram. Indeed, what NET describes
as an integrated bus and tram system, the NET Full Business Case document
describes as, "The integration of bus services will produce a
significant reduction in the number of buses running on parallel radial
routes." I wonder how many tram enthusiasts realise they are
also promoting a policy of "significant reduction in the number
of buses"? I would like to say that I personally do not totally
oppose the tram. Also, the objections to route CW are not about opposing
the idea of trams, nor are they about opposing a tram route to Clifton.
There is an alternative route to serve Clifton other than route CW.
We just believe any tram route should be placed in an area where it
can best serve all the needs of community transport without unnecessarily
damaging the environment. I want a tram to get me from home to work
and not just down the road to m!
y !
neighbours. It seems difficult to understand why anyone would not
think that the CQD route would be a better and all round more useful
and effective choice than using the Toll Bridge, and destroying a
Thriving Nature Conservation Area for no useful purpose. I am not
seeking to "impede the planners". I am seeking to ensure
sensible and effective decisions are taken. Based on all sorts of
past experience, we cannot assume that the planners have "got
it right". Nor can we assume they are not capable of making a
mistake if we do not tell them. Bear in mind Tram systems are inflexible
-- rails cannot be moved easily if they are not done right first time.
And we only need to look at how often bus routes have been deleted
or changed in the last few years to realise how little the public
transport planners can really know about where people want to travel.
The claim made by some writers that "the thing has to go somewhere"
is fundamentally incorrect. There are other alternatives and!
t!
herefore reasons to think that a tram might not be the only answer.
However, all we are actually asking is that the NET and the City council
listen to our views and do not simply ignore the points we are making.
I trust no one thinks that is an unreasonable request. And I also
trust no one thinks it is unreasonable for us to want NET to get it
right and Get It Right First Time. Our Web site is www.communities.msn.co.uk/StoptheTram
(Worth a Visit) Regards John B Fisher
John B Fisher
Wilford Nottingham
NET tram route-CW
Yes ! John B. Fisher. I am in full agreement with your views and you
are to be congratulated in your efforts to make the city fathers see
some sense regarding this very delicate issue as to which is the most
suitable route from the City to Clifton. I put all my weight of persuation
to NET to route the tram(taking into account there is no way we can
pidgeon-hole the scheme altogether) to take the option using the Electric
Avenue route, which will give the City Centre population access to
the very good shopping and car parking facilities within that trading
estate, whilst also opening a route for the Clifton population to
use the facilities of this estate. I am aware that the trading estate
does not, nor requires , food stores, you only have to try and get
in with your personal transport to realise how convenient a tram system
via this route would be. Mainly,of course, a quick! a! nd easy route
between the City and Clifton. I live on the Main Road in Wilford Village.
Now I do not want anyone to say I have the attitude of N.I.M.B.Y.....Far
from it, but honestly, can anyone imagine what a cruel blow this would
be to such a narrow and twisting road through our village ? Right
now we have the problem of a new Village School now being completed,
which will provisionally hold 300 pupils, with a recent variation
application to increase the number to 400 pupils ! Its plain to see,even
to the 'short sighted' that in every week there would be a minimum
of 100 cars delivering offspring to the Village School from 8.15am
- 9.15am. tied in with school buses, Pub delivery lorries,Mail vans,
and in addition a dual NET-Tram-way system. This would be repeated
again between 3.15pm and 3.45pm each school-day ! And ! I haven't
finished yet. The Village School has extra curriculum activities on-going
at night,which attracts quite a lot of parents and off-spring. This
is a very active school, and seeing the attendance, I admit a very
lively community. I haven't finished yet ! There is also another school
being opened in September.. Wilford Meadows..This is the new Church
of England School being completed around the corner to accomodate
some overflowing schools around the Diocese of Southwell. I learn
from literature received from them that initially it will accomodate
approx. 600 pupils and will increase over a set period to 900 pupils.
All due to,I gather, too many vacant seats in several schools, that
a decision to build up a fully occupied school within our diocese.
This does make sense,but any lack of planning for suitable access
to both schools will produce meyhem in this area. Please note that
as at present, there is only ONE road into the Village !! and the
SAME road out. The " a'penny " bridge (old toll) was rebuilt of recent
years to pedestrian standards. It would stand the necessity of a fire,or
emergency vehicle with care, but not to accomodate a Tram every 10minute
of the day, should this be envisaged Also, if a tram-way was erected
over this bridge, I suspect it would be abused by every vehicle who
thought they would " take a chance" and shoot over it. The other alternative
of Wilford to Clifton via the old Railway route is ridiculous, and
where are your travellers to use this route ? Dont try and convince
me that Wilford Village and Crompton Acres residents are going to
queue-up for a tram along THIS route ! And a crossing over Wilford
Lane ? How will this be controlled, because the speed of vehicles
is in excess of 30 mpg already. Will crossing gates be erected with
flashing red lights both ways.? Oh. dear, my mind boggles over this
whole issue. (I think I need and aspirin !!) So, John B. Fisher..strength
to your elbow my friend. Old age and back pains prevents me from taking
stronger action manually, but you know the old saying about the 'PEN'
John, with which I can scribe many a letter of approval, and rejection.
Cheers for now. John B.
John Brewer
Wilford Vill.Nottm |
This page exists as
an archive. If you would like to discuss this or other local topics or issues
with other visitors to 成人快手 Nottingham website, please visit our new .
Shout Archive Pages:
[9] [8]
[7]
[6]
[5] [4]
[3] [2]
[1]
|
