The tram debate - have your say

For better or for worse the tram is causing much debate amoungst the people of Nottingham. Will it stop people from using their cars? Or will it just congest the roads even more? What do you think?

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

See also: Look inside the Nottingham tram with our 360 image >>

	10-March-2003 bogush the trams are here whether you like them or not, nothing you can say will stop their progress. would it not be fair of you to allow people the right to travel, at least where they can use the tram, when they choose to or have no other choice but the tram. it is now viable to run trams. buses get stuck in traffic that is caused by to many one person vehicles. of course, those who wish to use their own form of transport should be allowed to, that is if they wish to sit behind all the other one person vehicles all trying to move at the same time. i have noticed an increase in the amount of one person vehicles where i live. robert, nottingham

	08-March-2003 JC Your arguments against PFI are impeccable and I probably agree I don’t like PFI but if that’s is what it takes to improve our infrastructure then we should do it. However back to a point I asked ages ago and has never been answered. We are nearing grid lock what is the cost of doing nothing. doug, cartlton

	08-March-2003 People's opinions Shoppie claims that the "consensus is the tram is not required" ------ Then please explain why the professionally conducted opinion poll in the summer showed 2:1 in favour to Chilwell and 3:1 to Clifton. George, Clifton

	08-March-2003 Shoppies concerns Shoppie...."I and many of the people I have discussed this with are concerned justifiably about finance safety and environmental concerns",... and this is precisely the reason why BACIT was set up. A lot of these concerns are understandable and can easily be allayed with facts and figures. It is a worry when something relatively new is introduced to an area and I'm afraid that a lot of peoples genuine concerns have been exploited by less scrupulous people than yourself. For instance at a BCBRA meeting 10 deaths on the Manchester Metrolink were claimed. This is wrong and we have corrected this mis-information. Regarding standing for the election - we are a pressure group enjoying cross party support. We are more effective as such and will continue the role of providing information. We do not have a policy on local council tax level, waste collection or certain environmental concerns which are for the councillors to decide. The May elections in Broxtowe do not elect councillor! s ! with a direct say in the tram. We understand that ENT and CWYes will not field candidates....Will BCBRA or BCT? Steve, Beeston

	08-March-2003 The Tram Shoppie Elections........ Shoppie the next elections are the local elections. No wiiner in any of these elections will stop the tram. The tram will grind to a halt if the FINANCIAL case is not proven or an INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR at a PUBLIC INQUIRY finds against it. Then the secretary of State has to give their approval. Don't be fooled by the Tories, the only way they will stop a tram is if they put their arms out when they want to catch one. I notice the Tories are against the expansion of East Midlands Airport, I suppose they want everyone to travel everywhere by car. I maybe wrong but I am led to believe that the CHAIR of the ANTI-TRAM group is a car sales person. Do they see a reduction in sales should the TRAM route be successful. Again I maybe wrong again but people tell me the Chilwell County Councillor Richard Jackson is employed by people who sell motor cars on the Chilwell High Road. I am sure he is totally unbiased in his view on the Tram and does not have any financial incentive to gain f! rom the tram route failing. He does have to represent the views of all the residents of Chilwell pro-tram and anti. OR does he? Johnny Seagull, O Hillendale

	08-March-2003 Truth & spin These people who advise shoppie---would they be the same people who tell us that the Methodist Church is to be demolished to make way for the 90 foot high pylons to power the high speed (125m.ph.) trains through Beeston Square whose lines are either frozen and useless before they burst into flames. The trains cost £2 per mileper passenger kill 10 people (Mancheter evidence) and will terminate at Midland Station. Everyone please make your minds up who to believe...and vote accordingly. The voter, Beeston

	07-March-2003 Jeez, etc #15 OK, you've talked me into a short and snappy pro-tram type post:... ...Bounty Bars are best - the makers of Bounty Bars say so - buy one!... ...Trams provide freedom and mobility for the old and disabled because they have far more stops per mile than buses!... ...Am I getting the hang of this? http://www.blickpunktstrab.net/english.html bogush, nottingham

	08-March-2003 Shoppie's plural identity Shoppie maintains "We don't want them in West Notts. She means "I don't want them". Will she please desist from presuming to speak on behalf of myself who does want a tram network, or is she really a multiple personality ? Dave Bigfatdave, Beeston

	08-March-2003 Stand or die Thank you Mr barber and your bacit chums I don’t need your advice or your help in making my mind up about your railway. I get my help from people who really care about our area and care about truth not spin. You may think you may know what’s best you may claim you have fact but public pressure and perception is what counts I and many of the people I have discussed this with are concerned justifiably about finance safety and environmental concerns. We have elections coming up and anyone who stands will not be turkeys voting for Christmas. The consensus is the tram is not required and the ballot box will prove that and then defeat it. Given the government is running out of money the transport funding will be cut and better to have no tram that a bankrupt half built one like Croydon and Birmingham and Manchester which you go on about. If bacit have shuch faith put up a pro tram candidate as all the parties in our area are running away from it. shoppie, beeston

	07-March-2003 Buses and trams The 191 City buses have only 4 services daily Mon-Fri serving Silverdale and Wilford village. The 10am shoppers bus (a midibus) is often full before leaving Wilford. It takes 22 minutes from Wilford village to the Victoria centre whilst a tram could do it in 10 to Thatre Royal, and go right through the city centre instead of around it. ENT suggest upgrading Wilford Bridge for a bus from the village direct to town avoiding Trent Bridge. If this is better than a tram, how about converting the whole embankment to a bus-only road (or even all purpose traffic?) If Wilford Bridge is good enough for buses, why not cars and lorries as well? RA Catchpole, Wilford

	07-March-2003 Trams Paul,it really depends what you want to believe if the trams are financially justified. The highly theoretical cost benefit model used to justify the project shows a case for building the tram. However this is riddled with over optimistic assumptions . The model also does not take account of the reality of existing tram systems which have been put in place and have failed financially, Sheffield ,Croydon and Birmingham to name just 3. The problem is the model , we are assured by NET , is compiled according to government criteria ,BUT these criteria do not appear to include learning lessons from the past.( This is possibly no surprise given the outdated MFR model used for Pension Funds ). Assertions will be made that this risk passes to the private sector with PFI ,BUT the City Council is one of the PFI backers so the costs will stay with Nottingham for any miscalculations. Reality needs to be considered NOT theory !!! JC, West Bridgford

	07-March-2003 TRAMS AND TRAINS TO HUCKNALL V. I don't quite understand your comment that the tram will be "difficult to use for most residents of Hucknall" What do you mean? I think you may have probably mis-understood the situation about the tram sharing the Robin Hood Line to Hucknall. The trams and trains will not actually use the same set of tracks. New tram tracks have been laid at the side of the heavy rail lines. You were therefore being a bit unfare in saying that the tram service "may in fact worsen the already poor train service provided due to track congestion" Since they will operate independently, neither will affect the other. The weekday service on the Robin Hood Line has recently been increased to a 30 minute frequency. Hucknall now has a better train service than it had prior to the closure in 1964 / 65. Most of the time it works very well, which is why over 3,000 preople use it daily. Credit where it's due, please. The tram service will enhance the train service by providing more journey opportunites where the services connect. ROBIN HOOD, HUCKNALL

	06-March-2003 Shoppie - what is the source of your information? Here is some of mine:- ....Sheffield; "A study by the City Council has shown that the incidents on roads with tram tracks are no higher than those roads without.(Sheffield City Council) "....Manchester; "....there have been six Metrolink related fatalities over its life. All have been suicides. (Serco) "....Croydon "11% fewer people were hurt on Croydon’s roads once the trams started. Croydon is now the safest London Borough for cyclists." (Impact study) Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	06-March-2003 "Truth" - or maybe not . . . '"Out side the city they speed along like a train". That is why we dont want them in west notts as they will be unsegregated and dangerous.' (shoppie, Beeston) Welcome to the Board, Shoppie. Unfortunately, whoever told you this was giving you the exact opposite of 'Truth'. The only place where Trams will be allowed to "speed along like a train" is where they ARE operating on segregated tracks (e'g like the bits north and west of Basford on Line One). Anywhere they will run on-street, they will be subject to the same road speed limits as any other road vehicles. And whilst obviously they won't be able to manoeuvre away from their own tracks, the trams and their route path will be so blindingly obvious to other road users that only the criminally negligent could fail to spot them in good time. Also, even on the 'segregated' stretches, I've noticed that discreet wire fencing has now been put up between the Robin Hood Line and the Tram tracks, so that if anyone somehow manages to alight where they shouldn't, they will not wander onto the Heavy Rail line by mistake. Finaly, if Trams really were 'dangerous' do you think that those ! ultimate safety-conscious people the Swiss would allow such extensive networks in their cities? Come on, mate, the very fact that it ISN'T "Rocket Science" is one of the things that makes it all safe! Willie Whizz, Nottingham

	06-March-2003 Acurate Information The Arboretum (Waverley St) has never had a tram track or speed cameras. It is a beautiful conservation area. In my opinion the Street scape in this area IS worsened by the over head cables and poles. I am not against the tram, i actually cant wait till its operational, it will be very convenient for me. What i disagree with is the biased view that the tram company project. As i live in a 'Tram Track' area i have received most of the literature that the NET have. It was not an accurate portrayal of the street scape. My one real issue with the tram is that is runs down the existing Robin Hood Line, this means that it is difficult to use for most of the residents of Hucknall ( Im thinking of my Grandma here!). And may in fact worsen the already poor train service provided, due to track congestion. I also think that a lot of the roadwork’s in Nottingham are nothing to do with the tram , people just assume that they are. V, Nottingham

	06-March-2003 bogush j mann{who)plus other things Bogush j mann,what do you ramble on about,keep your coments short and give us all a chance! Why do people stand in the way of progress,something has to be done about the congestion in & around nottingham.With more and more people driving, something has to be done before it gets out of hand,have you been to london lately,nightmare! The tram might just be the answer,but the public must give it time,we expect miracles!I admit the tram cables look abit of an eyesore but how many have you seen in nottingham, the majority are hidden within the railway track lines.What are somepeople worried about the speed of them for there not going to be bombing around the streets like a dodgem car at the goosefare!I bet most of the anti-tram people have cars,how many train/tram accidents do you here of compared to cars,i rest my case! So stop it it you whingers,and give it a CHANCE! Kenty,hucknall, nottingham kenty, hucknall,nottingham

	06-March-2003 Cost benefit (again) Paul Yes. The government have to be convinced that it will save them money in the long term. That is why these extensive researches have to be done before the application for funding is submitted. The experts have shown that for every four pounds spent on construction we get five pounds back. The governemnt grant will make up three of these pounds. This was discussed in some detail just before Chrismas. Steve, Beeston

	06-March-2003 Plans Shoppie - where will the trams be unsegregated and dangerous? Evidence please. George, Clifton

	06-March-2003 Tram – economic justification Economic justification: trams are nowadays built under PFI so any risks are carried by the private sector, and that public sector only makes fixed payments to the private consortium over a 30 year period, so no big up front costs. However as to the service they bring to society, they provide a huge economic justification. They remove the need for huge amounts of road capacity (and car parking) to be built. They reduce road fatalities and accidents, thus reducing health and welfare costs, and keeping tax revenue up (an injured person probably can’t make such a good living nor pay so much tax). They reduce pollution, also reducing health costs. They increase property values (typically nearby property values will increase by at least the cost of building a line). They bring inward investment and jobs. They provide mobility to the elderly and disabled. They give people civic pride. They reduce congestion and therefore save time and money for people and businesses. They cr! ea! te jobs in their construction and operation. They are not designed to make money in themselves but they do bring a huge benefit to society. AW, Nottm

	05-March-2003 The way it looks Andrew of Hannover, many of us in Nottingham can't wait for the trams. The aggro comes from people living a few yards from the track, anxious about noise and the value of their homes... evidence??? V - the townscape is not worsened. The tram catenary at Basford is similar to street lamps or what existed with the trolleybuses Nottingham had until 1966, and less apparent than CCTV or speed cameras. How could the area look worse anyway? RA Catchpole, Wilford

	05-March-2003 truth "Out side the city they speed along like a train". That is why we dont want them in west notts as they will be unsegregated and dangerous. shoppie, Beeston

	05-March-2003 The NET (in which we're all caught up) Can anyone provide an economic justification for the tram? Paul Richman, Nottingham

	05-March-2003 NET famous worldwide see http://www.blickpunktstrab.net/bs_current00_d.html The anorak, Beeston

	05-March-2003 Deception I love the picture of the streetscape on the NET web site. Itsnt it strange how the pictures dont show the overhead lines and span wires. Thats because they look very ugly. Also the link on the web site to the Key Dates goes to the wrong page. That is because they have missed those key dates. V, Nottingham

	05-March-2003 my laziness why can't the tram go up Mansfield Road then I could hop on it to the station ! david, nottingham

	05-March-2003 The trials So the trams have started trial running from the depot as far as Highbury Vale. Soon they will be on test alongside Cinderhill housing, where a furious campaign against the tram was being conducted 10 years ago. Even after the Act of Parliament was passed for the tram, more housing was built next to the Cinderhill tram stop - and next the noisy Cinderhill to Bulwell Road also. We shall soon see what the residents make of tram "noise". Pete de Silvera, Nottingham

	05-March-2003 hoooooooooooorrrrraaaaaaaaayyyyy the trams are here and coming your way soon. what a marvellous sight. robert, nottingham

	05-March-2003 Nottinghams Tram System I live and work in Croydon and can tell you that you are verylucky indeed to be getting a modern tram system. The trams in Croydon have absolutely transformed local travel,especially on the wimbledon line. The trams are clean, quite, efficient and fast. You get the benefits of a railway and a bus combined. In the centre the trams penetrate right into the main shopping areas, once out of the centre they speed along more like a train. Take my word for it, once the system is up and running you will find vey few people who are not completely won over to tram travel. Nottingham , you lucky people! Ashley Adams, Croydon, Surrey

	04-March-2003 Reply to Mr Mann Bogush Mann’s 28 February posting included “…..Britain, which used to have the best, and continually improving, road safety figures in the world…..” – source please. “…..has seen that trend flatten out, and even reverse…..” – source please. “…..our safety statistics are getting worse…..” – source please. “…..as a result of ‘safety’ cameras more people are dying on our roads…..” – source please. David, Wilford

	04-March-2003 Trams in Nottingham I am astonished at the misinformation being peddled here. Unlike in Britain, German cities never scrapped their tram networks which have been continually modernised and updated. My local city, Hannover (pop 514,000), is a typical example. Currently the city transit authority (USTRA) have a network of over 100 kms and a fleet of over 300 articulated trams. In the city centre the trams are underground, further out they share the road-space with other vehicles. In the suburbs tracks are mostly segregated from the traffic allowing higher speeds. The system is highly efficient, non-polluting and a source of local pride. The dire effects on traffic predicted by some contributors to this site simply don't exist. Across the continent trams continue to prove that they are the most effective way of transporting people around medium-sized cities. From comments posted here you might think trams were an untried and untested technology which had consistently brought death and economic des! truction to cities that have had the courage to invest in them. Nottingham should be proud that it is taking this step into the future of urban transportation. Andrew Laird, Hannover

	03-March-2003 Another success Yesterday the first tram ran up to Highbury Vale under it's own power. A SUCCESS. The Evening Post wrote an excellent article and what an impressive sight! Any noise experts would have needed very sensitive equipment to pick up the noise. Go down there and listen for yourself now. Nottingham trams are quiet! Steve, Beeston

	03-March-2003 Con men Thanks for the tip off about this anti tram survey J. What strikes me as amazing is how gullible and stupid some people have been. The Tories are getting all their leg-work and dirty work done by the Green Party, a few members of the Labour Party and some shopkeepers who I don't believe support the Tories at all. Can't these people see that they've been conned? Open your eyes! Jim, Beeston

	03-March-2003 Cryptic Question "Hucknal ?????? Robin Hood Line and Night Buses, Need I say more. (A Casali, Nottingham)" Well, compared to the length of Bogush J Mann's typical posts, this goes from one extreme to the other! So, Sir/Madam, with all due respect, if you want any sensible response then saying just a LITTLE more might help us all understand what the chuff you're actually on about here! Wilie Whizz, Nottingham

	03-March-2003 Long Postings Do you really think anyone is ctually reading your reams, Bogush? Please do as requested - keep them short. George, Clifton

	03-March-2003 Surveys So the Beeston and Chilwell anti-trammers may send out a questionnaire about the tram. But to a representative sample of local residents? Some time ago some of them said the NOP survey was unfair, and should have been restricted to people directly affected by the route. As we all know, public highways and public open space are the private property of folk who just happen to live and work alongside. Apparently NET paid NOP £20,000 for a proper survey. That public money is peanuts out of the total tram budget. It is also a piffling sum for many anti-trammers, loaded with money. Pete de Silvera, Arnold

	03-February-2003 A little birdy tells me that the Anti-tram (route) brigade are going around Beeston & Chilwell with their own questionaire. I am sure that the findings will show that people are against the Tram. However as it is being done by people with an interest in seeing the tram stopped in its tracks; the questionaire, survey, whatever you want to call it is not worth a hillof beans. Now if the Chilwell & Beeston anti-tram brigade wanted to have a water tight survey done they should have paid a reputable company to undertake the survey for them. I am sure all the retailers in Chilwell and Beeston opposed to the route would have chipped in a few coppers. (The NET paid National Opinion Poll to do theirs, NOP would not jepodise the reputation by publishing an biased report on what is really a local issue.)What you will see is the local Tories using the results of this survey as a main plank in their election leaflets. The Tories are going to hijack this survey and use it to further their! o! wn cause. All you Anti-trammers who are not politically affiliated be wary of "GREEKS BEARING GIFTS". If elected in Chilwell or Beeston the Tories will be like the Liberals and do an amazing U-TURN over this issue and claim that they have no power to stop the Line 3 if it gets the financial backing. Which is true for all of Beeston & Chilwell's elected representatives. J,

	28-February-2003 Trams Hucknal ?????? Robin Hood Line and Night Buses, Need I say more. A Casali, Nottingham

	28-February-2003 A quote from Streatham Streatham town centre manager Leah Levane said: "I can say we are totally behind a tram link for Streatham. This petition is being sent to all businesses and community organisations in the area and also to about 550 residents on the town centre forum mailing list. "The desire for a tram in Streatham has been on the local agenda for decades."......see http://www.streathamguardian.co.uk/news Steve, Beeston

	28-February-2003 Jeeeeezzzzzz - I Keep Promising Myself I Won't Be Drawn Back! #7 of 10 Stanley, I couldn't leave without another attempt at posting the reply for you from the several not published of the 24th:... ...Stanley says:... ..."Bogush, I'm glad that you understand the basic physics of momentum -i.e. heavy things (e.g. cars) travelling at high speed cause more damage than those travelling at lower speed. Now remind me again, why is it good for cars to travel at unrestricted speed near pedestrians? And why isn't a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the Ring Road good news?"... ...Stanley, remind me again where I have said that?... ...Just because you care to accuse me of something doesn't make it true. In fact if you care to read my posts on other boards (often in response to yours) you will be reminded that I call for lower speed limits in truly pedestrian areas policed by (in these areas and true accident black spots only) sensibly located speed cameras; better training, stricter tests and more restricted licenses for drivers; more traffic police, and more stringent enforcement of real careless and dangerous driving (as opposed to the "crime" of exceeding the number painted on a sign, despite it having been much higher, and still quite safe, the day before)... ...However, I'm sure that the supporters of the much, much heavier trams are more than happy for the much, much heavier trams to travel at comparable speeds to the relatively featherweight cars, despite the fact that the cars can steer round things they can't stop in time for, unlike the trams and trains. What are your comments on that?... ...And as I'm sure you are aware: the same kind of people who support that also support the increasing of the speed of the even heavier trains (past level crossings, flimsy fences, derailed trains, stations, trespassing kids) at speeds double, and even treble the speeds cars are only legally allowed to achieve on motorways. And what are your comments on that?... ...I'm sad that you, and they, DON'T understand the basic physics of momentum -i.e. heavier things (e.g. trams and trains) travelling at the same, never mind higher speed cause more damage than those lighter cars, even if the cars are travelling at higher speed... ...And I'm even sadder that they also support the encouragement of light children to play in the vicinity of cars, even going so far as telling them to step out in front of cars (contrary to the pedestrian section of the Highway Code) because the cars WILL stop for them, honest, go on son, you'll be OK, in fact, why not go and play with the cars on the ring road. And they claim it's older children that encourage younger ones, or their impressionable peers, to play chicken: it's really their parents, teachers, carers, caring politicians and officials, and the "safety" brigade... ...However, I think you’ll find that momentum doesn’t really enter the equation, but that the rigidity and pedestrian UN-friendly profile of trains and trams are the killer variable here... ...As for your final comment: I take it you have the separately listed killed, and seriously injured, figures for the ring road itself, and for the surrounding areas, for the ten individual complete years leading up to the introduction of SPECS, and for each individual complete year since... ...Isn't it strange that Britain, which used to have the best, and continually improving, road safety figures in the world until the introduction of "safety" cameras, has seen that trend flatten out, and even reverse. Isn't it strange that, despite having now probably more than three quarters of the speed cameras in the entire world, our safety statistics are getting worse. Isn't it strange that, despite the trumpeted reductions in the numbers "killed and seriously injured" on our roads as a result of "safety" cameras more people are dying on our roads?... ...And why do YOU think that THAT is a GOOD thing?!... ...And as the safety mafia claim that the cameras reduce speeds, and as the government tell us that each mph reduction in traffic speeds costs the nation £Billions: how many people die because of that cost to the NHS?... ...And why do YOU think that THAT is a GOOD thing?!... And as even the government don't dare claim that more than a third (once you add in things like misjudging the safe and legal "speed" of approaching traffic when pulling out from a junction, or "speeding" away from traffic lights before they turn green) of accidents are "speed related": they clearly don't intend doing anything about the other two thirds of accidents... ...And why do YOU think that THAT is a GOOD thing?!... ...PS I've also tried another defence to Freda's "horrid" attacks on the Shout board and a tram related post on the Public Transport forum, if you're interested. bogush j mann, nottingham

	27-February-2003 Quality of life Jason has "the misfortune to live in the middle of the tram works." If he is a home-owner he must have seen the value of his property almost double so far! And that's before it's opened and with all the inconvenience. Just think what what it'll be worth once the tram is a success. If he's not a homeowner then he's going to be well placed for travel and should live in a much reduced pollution area from next year onwards. If he's got mobility problems or doesn't drive or has young children or may come into one of these categories the quality of his life will improve dramatically. ....If only they'd get on and build a line through Toton to Long Eaton.... AM, Toton

	27-February-2003 Trams I live in Manchester and when they were proposed everyone was aginst them. now i challenge you to find someone who has not had a sneaky little ride on them .they do get used. Mark, Manchester

	26-February-2003 Bogush - support us Absolutely Mr Busman. Bogush is a man who doesn't mince his words and pander up to these weak pro-trammers - Unlike some leaders of anti-tram groups I could mention! We need more of your sort to get to the bottom of all this nonsense. Compton Man, Compton Acres

	26-February-2003 According to plan The first tram ran through to Highbury Vale today, at walking pace and propelled by a road-railer. The aim - to test clearances and see everything works OK. The verdict a success! Full speed running under their own power very soon. Steve, Beeston

	26-February-2003 tram works I have the misfortune to live in the middle of the tram works. Yesterday for about the 100 time running they announced tht they are closing my road down, to do some work they have only just reopend it. jason, hyson green nottingham

	26-February-2003 Trams What debate. I thought debates were about talking through ideas before they affect change. As far as I can see the tram lines are going ahead regardless of any debates going on. So if we all decide that the tram system is not what people want, will those views change anything? NO. So what is the point of this forum. Clive, Nottingham

	25-February-2003 The future Having just returned from Cologne huge differences in our city and the German counterpart become striking. Dirt, noise and air pollution are virtually absent there. Why? - Because ever since the war they have adopted the tram as a main form of transport. Everyone in our party commented how much easier and more pleasant it was to get around. Out of devilment I caught an early morning tram out of the city and came back in the rush hour. The journey was smooth, quick and stress-free. I estimated that the equivalent of 15 jammed lanes of traffic inbound were using the trams creating no local pollution. One criticism is that the trams go underground in the city which is not convenient and is useless for the disabled. Three routes are like ours, on the surface and these are well used with substantial commercial activity around them. In the suburbs the trams went very close to prosperous looking houses and past bustling shopping areas with no ill-effects. I look forward to seeing a! n ! even better network in Nottingham. Steve, Beeston

	25-February-2003 21st Century cities Dave, SJP, Robert and all the others from other cities. Please keep contributing to this debate as you have experiences of modern trams. Your opinions are valued and seem to be based in fact. If only people in Nottingham were allowed to debate then we would soon become a very narrow minded closed and introverted dead-end town. We want to be forward thinking and join the first division of European cities. Cities like Cologne, Manchester, Amsterdam, London, Dublin, Edinburgh etc - all with trams or systems planned. Steve Barber, Beeston

	25-February-2003 bogush you seem to think we have been brain washed in thinking that we need the trams. well heres the news, we do need the trams. i have studied all the reports even those from other cities. i am sure that in time you will also be in favour of them when you see how marvellous they are at moving people about, unlike the wasteful one driver one car multitude clogging the roads. i would like you to let us know how and where you think they could build more roads to accomadate the increase in one car one driver vehicles. ...........see you on the tram then. robert, nottingham

	25-February-2003 bogush if you would like to take a trip in to the City, market street, hyson green, radford road, you will see long stretches of tram lines. yes, the trams are coming. you are to late to object to them. can you explain what you hope to gain by raising questions that have already been answered? also, what point are you raising in your last posting? robert, nottingham

	25-February-2003 BOGUSH J MANN - WE NEED YOU! I would like to urge Bogush J Mann to represent all we anti-tram people at the public enquiry. He has sublime eloquence and a quite uncanny ability to get directly to the heart of any issue clearly and succinctly, without any repetition, deviation or hesitation. So, on behalf not only of myself, but also J.C. Dave the Driver, The Insider, The Outsider, Gerald Smythe Wilberforce and the rest of us, I say: BOGUSH - YOUR COUNTY NEEDS YOU. OFFER YOUR SERVICES NOW! Please say you'll do it. I might even start a BJM fan club! JOHN G. BUSMAN, NOTTINGHAM

	24-February-2003 Debete on Trams The trams can be seen as a symbol of prosperity for Nottingham and jou chould be proud of them.We in Holland love aur trams and they will give jour city a new lease of live end a first class transport systhem for the future. Robert Römer, Wilhelminadorp Holland

	24-February-2003 Forward thinkers An interesting announcement from the Government today regarding electrical energy production and carbon dioxide reduction. The only route I can see to achieving these targets is to maximise the use of electric propulsion. Fuel cell technology is as yet in it's infancy and as proved earlier is a very wasteful means of powering vehicles. That leaves electric trains, trams and trolleybuses as the way forward coupled with a program of generating more electricity from renewable resources. Hopefully this and successive governments will have the courage to carry on this program and not penny-pinch so leaving generations to come a decent legacy. Exciting and challenging times ahead! Steve Barber, Beeston

	24-February-2003 Jeeeeezzzzzz - I Keep Promising Myself I Won't Be Drawn Back! #8 SJP of West Wickham, Kent and Dave, Manchester:... ...Neither of you are from Nottingham, neither of you seem to want to read the content of the debate (that you don't agree with) but, instead of simply refraining from reading it: you want it censored, the opposition driven (railroaded?) out, or the forum closed down... ...I wonder what, exactly, your agenda is, and why, exactly, the only way you (and most of the other tram supporters) feel it can be furthered is by censoring those you disagree with or disapprove of?... ...The fact that you seem to have silenced most of the people who have previously dared to challenge you neither makes you right, nor gives you the right to silence further opposition... ...And what difference does the fact that my points have been "answered" make? They have not been effectively rebutted, and the only answers I see (several today) are all identikit clone soundbites and spin that appear to come from a marketing brochure... ...That doesn't mean I have to "buy" it: in fact, it would seem an excellent reason NOT to (why don't the tram supporters buy cars so they can have a choice of driving round the centre going "parp, parp" instead of "toot, toot"?)... ...Now, would somebody like to count up how many of the pro tram arguments on this page descend into personal attacks on myself?... ...And then check out where in the rankings of failed debating ploys the ad hominem attack falls?... ...As for TRAMS = GOOD: we seem to have ranged from 1984 to animal farm in one post... ...Thank you for demonstrating where, exactly, you, and your ilk, are coming from!... ...And why, regardless of whether the tram is coming, or not, this is still an area for debate! bogush j mann, nottingham

	24-February-2003 THE GREAT TRAM DEBATE I just would like to say how I cannot wait until the trams satr running I have been on the ones in Manchester,Sheffield and Croydon I really like them as they are quite and take a lot of traffic of the very busy streets Mark Mugaseth, Nottingham

	23-February-2003 TRAMS = GOOD What is there to debate? It’s not like you're deciding whether or not to go ahead and build the network, it’s actually happening. Instead of people criticising the trams you should get behind your city and use them when the net goes live and make sure they're a success and money well spent. The tram can be seen as a symbol of prosperity for your city and you should be proud of them. We in Manchester love our trams, they're so successful there's a large expansion plan being put into action. People want more trams! Trams are quiet, clean, look much better than buses or cars, and there’s nothing like the toot toot of a tram as it drives around the city centre. If you want to drive your car sod off out of the city centre. Times are changing and integrated public transport is the way forward. Support your trams and they will give your city a new lease of life. Dave, Manchester

	24-February-2003 trams We must assume that the financial stories from Croydon became NET's and the public's knowledge after NET had printed the leaflet - it takes a lot longer to print a leaflet such as the network update, than it does photocopy a word processed sheet! Hence this is why ENT were able to communicate their misinformation and scaremongering whilst NET were distributing a leaflet that made no mention of the problems in Croydon. And no ENT, Croydon will NOT go broke as you proclaim and, as usual, your scare stories will come down around you when Croydon is refinanced and continues to carry many millions of happy passengers. Why do you make these pronouncements when you must know that they will not come true and it is you (ENT) who lose credibility! Derek, Nottingham

	22-February-2003 Time to Call Time on This Debate? This board was full of nonsence when I first joined - Some reasonable discussion followed and most sensible points were answered. Now the board is full of the unintelligable ramblings of one poster. They don't make sense, they are long winded, they are mostly nonsence and it is now clear no one on the group has any interest in bothering to reply to them....................................................................................The solution - Bogush should leave or be banned by the editor and set up his own rant website if he wishes *** OR *** this whole board should be dispanded. .......................................................................The arguments have all been answered, the trams are being built, the public enquiry will address any remaining issues on phase 2 and Nottingham will have a first class transport system for the future. SJP, West Wickham, Kent, UK

	22-February-2003 Speed on urban roads Bogush, I'm glad that you understand the basic physics of momentum -i.e. heavy things (e.g. cars) travelling at high speed cause more damage than those travelling at lower speed. Now remind me again, why is it good for cars to travel at unrestricted speed near pedestrians? And why isn't a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on the Ring Road good news? Stanley, Basford, Nottingham

	22-February-2003 Question for Mr Mann (and indirectly for the Forum Editor) Could you clarify what your postings of 21 February have to do with trams. Also, did you know your M and R keys appear to be sticking. David, Wilford

	22-February-2003 Nottingham - Intergrated transport I feel the success of the Nottingham Expres transit system (Tram) may well lie, not in the chosen routes, number of stops or aditional facilities afforded, but in changing peoples attitudes to travel. Car usage must be tempered with responsibility. We are rapidly approaching a time where travelling to the City centre at certain (peak) times is untenable. This situation will only worsen unless alternative (intergrated) forms of transport are provided. The Tram is one such alternative. Relaible bus and rail services are others. People will always supply endles excuses as to why they cannot do without their car, but the one-person-one-car travelling to work, school .. etc has a finite (and ultimately short) lifespan. I would endorse the comments made by Stanley, Basford on 17th February. Unless a shift is made away from our reliance on the car our fate is sealed. Martin Beasley, Notingham

	22-February-2003 forum editor Mr bogush j mann is still not taking any notice. short and to the point. robert, nottingham

	22-February-2003 Black is white Bogush - The propoganda machine is now working overtime trying to prove black is white? Who said that? Freda Woodyard, The Meadows

	22-February-2003 A suggestion Mr Editor....This debate seems to be degenerating into an after hours slanging match. I've seen virtually no new material recently. Could we please have a bit more structure? Perhaps you could invite a pro-tram and an anti-tram poster (you decide who) to submit their summaries and beliefs? May I suggest that you stipulate no more than 100 words and that you sit on the responses until both are submitted before posting complete and unedited. The rest of us could then constructively debate the points raised. George, Clifton

	23-February-2003 I am finding Mr Mann's remarks deeply offensive. Please BBC either censor his postings or close this site down. A.M., Toton

	23-February-2003 Bogush you paint a picture of a driver who disregards the speed limits unless he thinks he'll be caught, drives when in no fit state.... are you describing yourself? If so then please give your license up..... you are a menace to society! Freda Woodyard, The Meadows

	21-February-2003 Trams David Green , I totally agree with you. The glossy NET publication made no mention of the flawed financial models which have been applied to other Tramways as detailed in the ENT publication. As NET are using our public funds on these glossies shouldn’t we get all the information and not have to rely on an organistaion which gets by on donations to get all the facts? JC, West Bridgford

	21-February-2003 trams Dear Mr Bogush, If that is the best you can come up with then your misinformed and socially selfish opinions will win you no friends at the public inquiry - NET must be laughing at the opposition if this is the best they can come up with! By the way, your comments about speed and tram safety sound very similar to the rubbish spouted by ENT in Compton Acres - you are not our good friend Mr Wheeler are you? Andrew, Beeston

	21-February-2003 still rambling bogush. forgive me for saying, but you are still rambling. you already know the answers to most of your own questions. why do you insist on repeating other peoples postings. we get the point of what other people post, but, for the life of me i can not understand yours. robert, nottingham

	21-February-2003 Freda's Fatal Faux-Pas: Freda Posted:... ..."Fatal errors"... ..."Bogush admitted".... I've made a mistake!...." If you were a pedestrian and did the same you could well end up dead!"... ...Well spotted, Freda Woodyard, The Meadows. At last, you're learning. Now, just to dispel any lingering doubts that I might have that you are at last on my wavelength, could you confirm that you understand this simple principle: cars are big, and heavy, and powerful, and can't stop on a sixpence (unlike a person), especially if the driver is distracted looking out for hidden speed limits, and /or speed tax toll cameras, and /or his speedo, and /or traffic "calming" and other congestion engineering and/or is falling asleep because his journey has taken far longer than it should have done due to arbitrarily lowered artificially and inappropriately low speed limits policed by stealth tax scameras and the congestion engineering... ...Therefore, just like if you stand under a falling heavy weight, or jump off a cliff, or put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger, or stick a knife through your heart, or lay down on the (train, or tram) rails: if you step out in front of a car (or unfenced off tram) yes, you will die. It is an immutable law of nature. It makes no difference what laws man makes. And it makes no difference that you have only read, or heard of, the drivers' section of the Highway Code which advises drivers to stop if a pedestrian steps out in front of them. If they cannot: they cannot. Which is why the pedestrians' section goes to great lengths and great pains to point out that pedestrians should NOT step out in front of cars, but wait untill they have passed and cross BEHIND them! But of course, you can't blame kids if they kill themselves throwing themselves in front of cars: it's the fault of the anti-car politicians, and officials, and teachers, and parents who teach them! that the car-riageways are social space to be "reclaimed" by them for play grounds, and that cars MUST stop for them... ...So, you're right, Freda: it's not the suicidal children's fault. It's not even the homicidal speedophile motorists fault. It's the fault of the people who do everything in their power to make drivers and children more dangerous... ...The question is, Freda, are you now in the camp of the horrid men like me who want to rid the world of child killers, who not only try to make motorists more dangerous, but who, by trying to strangle the arteries of the nation, through which the life blood of the economy is trying to flow, are depriving the NHS of £Millions of revenue, and so costing tens of thousands more lives, even if they stopped EVERY SINGLE accident on the road!?... ...Or are you with those child killers? bogush j mann, nottingham

	21-February-2003 Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmm Robert: You say:... ..."the comments you complain about are in direct responce to your own comments"... ..."if you are unhappy with anything you see posted on this forum then you should moderate your own comments firstly"... ...Firstly, where have I corrupted people's names into the equivalent of "Bogbrush", which not only insults my name, and myself, but also my religion and my God?!... ...Secondly where have I posted the equivalent of "according to Bogush, if a pedestrian or a cyclist or a child makes a mistake then it's OK if cars instantly kill them ... what a horrid man" or "people like him ... killing ... innocent pedestrians and road users"... ...Thirdly where have I posted the equivalent of: "you are still rambling" ... "it seems that once one anti trammer has been shown to talk rubbish, we get another one. bogush j mann is the classic example" ... "i can see bogush j mann saying that everything is the wrong colour next!!!"... ...Recognise those posts, Robert? From this page alone!... ..."hope i haven't offended you!!!"... ...But if this is the most that the Pro-trammers can bring to the debate!?!?... ... By the way, whilst I may not have called the anti-car brigade child killers (except in my response to the posts above which called me a child killer, but which never got published, despite the original accusations still being up) if you can handle more than a soundbite I can give you tons of info on why motorists AREN'T killers, but why the anti-car brigade are responsible for most of road deaths, and probably all of child road deaths... ...That's if I can be bothered wasting my time coming back again. bogush j mann, nottingham

	21-February-2003 Dear Have Your Say Editor: Was my cutting edge inventions parody so devastating that you feared that it would have finally brought the debate to a close? Or so subtle that you failed to realise that it was totally on topic and posted it to another board? bogush j mann, nottingham

	21-February-2003 CONGESTION AND CARS So, Bogush Man, congestion is a problem but has nothing to do with cars. Really? I could have sworn there was the mother of all traffic jams last week involving thousands of cars. Silly me, I must have been dreaming. Perhaps it was all the fault of the Nottingham trams (all 13 of them) on a secret test run, over roads with no tramlines! Keep up the good work Bogush. See you at the public enquiry. BERT, BEESTON

	21-February-2003 Comparative Costs "However, how about telling me what the cost of a tram route built from scratch would be, rather than on roads provided by (highway robbery) motorists" says our exciteable friend Bogush . . . Well, "How long is a piece of String" in one sense, of course, but if it would help to give a sense of proportion to these things then I might mention some figures I saw several years ago from a German source. (I don't have them to hand any more, so please don't ask for verification, but I do remember the numbers quite well). Basically, for every £1 you spend putting a metre of tram track across a nice flat green-field or brown-field site, you will spend about £3-4 putting the same length onto an existing road system. You will also spend about £7-10 putting it up on viaducts or major earthworks, and about £20 putting it into an underground tunnel. The latter figure explains why one of the very early proposals for Line One had to be given-up; originally it had been hoped to run alongside Gregory Boulevard and then descend through a cutting under the bowling green, curve to the right and break-in to the old Great Central railway tunnel, entering the 'Big Hole' at the Victo! ri! a Centre North, and passing around the edge of its Car Park, finally returning to Weekday Cross Tunnel and coming out where we do today. It turned out on closer examination that the Support Pillars in the car park were too close together, so the alternative would have been major demolition or to cut a new tunnel round the perimeter of the Vic Centre. When they heard the cost, though, it added about a third to the total cost of the whole Project just for that short stretch, which knocked it on the head in very short order. The on-street option was chosen instead, and found to have greater virtues than had originally been supposed! As regards Bogush's "Congestion Engineering" claim, I grant he has a point - up to a point. But if you eliminated all the designed-in features of which he complains, the best that could happen is that traffic would simply reach the traffic jams in the City Centre a little quicker. You still have to put the traffic somewhere when it gets to the central core, and if the answer is to build more car parks, flyovers and roundabouts to enable it to move around better, then what is the point - you'll destroy and demolish the very attractions of the place you want to reach by car in the first place! I think this is what many of us mean referring to 'roadbuilding programmes'. Now if we want to talk about a new road that really WOULD be useful, how about an "Eastern Loop Road" to mirror the one on the West of the City. Half of the traffic that uses Huntington Street doesn't want to be there, but has no alternative that doesn't involve either narrow suburban streets or country lanes! Willie Whizz, Nottingham

	21-February-2003 And I Promised Myself!:-( Debate on Trams...or Whatever from TVR I thought that was a a car?___ ___"Can I just support what the editor says Keep your comments shot(?) and to the point please"... ...So waddayawant? "Debate on Trams"?..."or Whatever"? I don't do sound-bites and spin. Sorry!... ..."When your faced with comments as long as Bogush J Mann`s , they are not easy reading ."... ...Ahhhh, so that's why the pro-tram supporters prefer the pro-tram spin. For a moment there I'd thought that they were actually used to spending their evenings and weekends poring over volumes and volumes of reams and reams of accounts and business plans and technical reports and in depth analyses. Sorry, my mishtake.___ ___"Also his points skip from one to another in one sentence."... ...Do they?___ ___"Far better to make one or two good points and leave it at that.Readers will then be able comment more easily and freely."... ...Wot? Something like: "trams are rubbish, fit only for the scrappy"?... ..."Whatever" bogush j mann, nottingham

	20-February-2003 bogush j mann the comments you complain about are in direct responce to your own comments..........................................if you are unhappy with anything you see posted on this forum then you should moderate your own comments firstly.......................................hope i haven't offended you!!! robert, nottingham

	20-February-2003 Debate on Trams...or Whatever Can I just support what the editor says Keep your comments shot and to the point please . When your faced with comments as long as Bogush J Mann`s , they are not easy reading . Also his points skip from one to another in one sentence.Far better to make one or two good points and leave it at that.Readers will then be able comment more easily and freely. Top Valley resident, Nottingham

	20-February-2003 Jeez, I keep promising myself not to be drawn back in: Andrew, Beeston, says: "Contrary to Bogush's arguments the following are absolutely undisputable facts in Nottingham.. 1) Pollution arund major roads exceeds national guideline levels (see LTP)." ... ...Correct, but as one of your fellow pro-tram posters confirmed: it's not caused by cars.___ ___2) Road vehicle pollution is linked to health concerns and asthma aggravation (see NHS/DfT)... ...Correct, but as one of your fellow pro-tram posters confirmed: it's not caused by cars, it's caused by buses (and the power stations that power your trams). In fact, if you are refering to the NHS report I'm thinking of it actually states that there are NO health OR environmental reasons for restricting car use! DO keep up!!___ ___3) Congestion is a major problem around the city at peak and other times (see LTP). 4)... ...Correct. Of course it is: they have widened all the pavements, narrowed all the roads, sharpened all the corners, halved all the lanes with 24 hour bus lanes (where all all the 24 hour buses), closed half the roads for pedestrians, and the other half for the tram works, and what little is left has been covered by traffic "calming" so bad that the buses refuse to try to negotiate them, and whenever they want to detour a bus down a road formerly only used by private transport the council have to dig up, at enormous expense, the bumps they put in at a cost of £hundreds of thousands, and replace them with humps that can actually be crossed at speeds in excess of 1mph. At a cost of more £hundreds of thousands. Can someone from the pro-tram lobby confirm that these costs have been included in the tram costings? Of course congestion is a problem: I keep telling you this, and it has nothing to do with cars.___ ___A road building programme the nature of which you wish to see is prohibitively expensive and environmentallly unthinkable. (see costs of M6 toll)... ...Errrrmmmmmmm Don't recall mentioning a road building programme. However, how about telling me what the cost of a tram route built from scratch would be, rather than on roads provided by (highway robbery) motorists. Or the cost of UPGRADING rail lines (to allow the trains to go faster, despite Speed Killing, and despite the fact that they can never actually afford to take advantage of the speed potentials because of the additional cost of fuel and maintenance to sustain high speed running). You could also look at the cost of building a rail line from scratch. And if you're really interested in transport infrastructure provision costings you might want to look at the costs of converting rail-roads to car-riageways, and the running cost and passenger and freight capacity comparisons between the original rail-road, and the car-riageway converion!___ ___5) London is not like Nottingham... ...So what?___ ___6) Trams, when segregated and given priority over traffic can solve many of our congestion/pollution/safety problems at less cost than road building... ...Ahhh, you mean the trams will be running on nuclear power, the polluting buses (see above) are going to be banned and scrapped, and the bus lanes given back to the cars that paid for them? By the way, it's obviously been answered before, but I can't be bothered to search the archives, so perhaps you could enlighten me: if carriages running on rails are so dangerous that they have to fence them off, and have gate controlled crossings, why and how will the trams improve safety? Or are they going to put tyres on the trams wheels? (As for: see www.nottinghamexpresstransit.com / www.lrta.org.uk see www.mars-bar.com: does it say don't buy our mars bars, they are more expensive and not as nice as kit-kats, which are also far cheaper than our bars?!)___ ___7) We are getting trams whether you like it or not! (see the streets)... ...Correct: does that make you right? But I can't see any on the streets. When did the full scale mock-ups trial run the routes? Must have missed that! bogush j mann, nottingham

	20-February-2003 road works there are more road works on the M1. road works on Ilkeston Road. just wait till the next stage of the Ring Road resufacing gets underway...........................................extend the tram all over the city. to much traffic breaking the road surfaces. robert, nottingham

	20-February-2003 robert, nottingham Says: "what is backward thinking about a highly technically advanced modern tram?"... ...it's a bus with no tyres put on a leash!... ..."you are still rambling and not coming up with viable agruments!! ".... "if you won't go away and do any research for your self then i can not see that i can help you. i can smell a "wind up" here."... bogush j mann, nottingham

	19-February-2003 Trams Contrary to Bogush's arguments the following are absolutely undisputable facts in Nottingham.. 1) Pollution arund major roads exceeds national guideline levels (see LTP). 2) Road vehicle pollution is linked to health concerns and asthma aggravation (see NHS/DfT). 3) Congestion is a major problem around the city at peak and other times (see LTP). 4) A road building programme the nature of which you wish to see is prohibitively expensive and environmentallly unthinkable. (see costs of M6 toll) 5) London is not like Nottingham 6) Trams, when segregated and given priority over traffic can solve many of our congestion/pollution/safety problems at less cost than road building. (see www.nottinghamexpresstransit.com / www.lrta.org.uk) 7) We are getting trams whether you like it or not! (see the streets) Andrew, Beeston

	19-February-2003 Tram debate The Editor is quite right. The standard of debate in this column has degenerated into something akin to a taproom on a late Saturday night. Bad English and Eerrrrrrrrrrrm is not funny any more. Geoffrey Bennett, Wilford

	19-February-2003 Have Your Say Editor As I can't seem to have my say (twice) in response to posts that just might be construed as "offending others that use these forums" can I at least repost their "concise and to the point" postings as they haven't disappeared into the ether, unlike either of my replies: ----------------------------------------------------- 16-February-2003 Capital Punishment I thought we abandonned capital punishment 40 years ago. Not *** according to Bogush, if a pedestrian or a cyclist or a child makes a mistake then it's OK if cars instantly kill them *** - it's their fault! What a horrid society, *** what a horrid man ***! Freda Woodyard, The Meadows --------------------------------------------------------- 17-February-2003 Unpleasant postings How *** deeply offensive *** Mr *** Bogbrush’s *** postings are. I have looked past his *** insults *** and examined some of the claims in his *** ramblings *** and I believe that virtually *** everything he says is untrue ***. I can only say that thank goodness for the road features that he criticises in a most *** bigoted *** fashion. They are needed to prevent *** people like him *** from *** killing *** innocent pedestrians and road users. Unfortunately British society has long allowed people like him to make such claims under the guise of freedom of speech. What kind of *** low self esteem *** causes people to behave in this way? Dear BBC, can you restore balance to this forum by not allowing so many postings from one person? Four of the last six postings were Mr *** Bogbrush’s *** and some of them are so long that they are a pain to read. Drew, Chilwell ----------------------------------------------------- And a selection of the other "compliments" paid me on this page alone: ...talking rubbish, mad, i can see bogush j mann saying that everything is the wrong colour next!!!, his ramblings are unintelligible and he talks absolute rubbish..... bogush j mann, nottingham

	20-February-2003 Fatal errors Bogush admitted".... I've made a mistake!...." If you were a pedestrian and did the same you could well end up dead! Freda Woodyard, The Meadows

	19-February-2003 Early questions Bogush wrote (amongst other things) "Really? I only keep popping back to see if any of my questions from several years back now have been answered yet." ....Mr Editor - several suggests more than two. How long has this forum been running?.....All - I usually find that people take more notice of what you have to say if you remain calm, polite, and to the point. George, Clifton Hi George This debate has been running since the site was launched - about three years? We now have fifteen archived pages for the tram debate! Have Your Say Editor

	19-February-2003 bogush j mann what is backward thinking about a highly technically advanced modern tram? you are still rambling and not coming up with viable agruments!! in any case you missed the oppotunity to raise questions because the questions you are asking have been answered. if you won't go away and do any research for your self then i can not see that i can help you. i can smell a "wind up" here. robert, nottingham

	19-February-2003 David...... "Its clear that that NET has a very different mandate than that of serving the interests of the people ......".....These tramways not yet making profit is a concern for the private backers. The people have got an excellent deal - low fares, high efficiency service, increased property values, reduced road congestion etc...etc...May I agree with the Editor...This forum is losing it's way and is rapidly degenerating. Please all be polite and make your point concisely. Steve Barber, Chair BACIT

	19-February-2003 A Plea Can everyone please keep their postings concise and to the point. Also, please debate your points without offending others that use these forums. Have Your Say Editor

	18-February-2003 Ahhhhhhhh, Robert, "Forward thinking councillors"?! "If we were to follow your example then nothing would progress and we would still be living in caves!!"?! "get real mate!"?! I suppose the next big advance they are planning for us is wooden rails? Moving forward to steam engines? Progressing to horse drawn trams perhaps? Get real! There might be a lot of ways transport can progress. But backwards isn't one of them! Do do some research, please!! Oh, and none of the questions have been answered. Getting responses based on the marketing spiel issued by those with a financial or other axe to grind isn't getting an answer. I'd be quite happy for the government, or the EU (with what is, at the end of the day, 100% our money), or whoever, to set up a fleet of LPG or fuel cell powered buses, or even a fleet of solar cell or electric powered city centre minibuses, for development purposes. I'd be quite happy for a tube system, even if uneconomic. Or a Nottingham to London mag-lev sky-monorai! l (that Murdoch gets his finger into every pie!) even if it was a total white elephant, just for the hell of it. But what I won't accept is someone who tries to flog a claimed better alternative to the bus by taking the tyres off them, literally casting their routes in stone, hanging their reliability on overhead wires, with electricity fed from ancient, distant, dirty coal fired powerstations. And then claims that running them alongside the buses is going to save me a fortune. While charging me a fortune for something I (and that's a "royal" I) didn't need in the first place. "if the figures are not accurate or within tolerences then someone will be answerable. don't you think they will get their sums right before they commit the money" Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmm what planet are you on? Did Standard Life get it's sums right before, during, or after it started selling its product? Or Equitable? Or LLoyds of London? What about all those government IT projects that go massi! vely over programme and budget (before being scrapped!)? You don't mean to say that someone (selling something) got it wrong? Or the Channel Tunnel? Or The Dome? Or those railway train and track "improvements" that they are finding aren't actually going to work out, and they're quietly working out how to scrap? But of course: none of them are leading edge, ultra modern trams providing a service we desperately need, but have never found a way of obtaining before. The tram will, of course, work, and it will of course work efficiently and economically! get real mate! bogush j mann, nottingham

	18-February-2003 Errrrrrrrrmmmmm Steve Barber, Beeston, says: "Bogush - SJP and George have been debating the tram on this forum for several months now - longer than you and if you cared to go through the archives you would find the answers to most of your questions." Really? I only keep popping back to see if any of my questions from several years back now have been answered yet. Still no luck. Looks like I'll have to leave it for a few more months! But I live in hope that someday someone will have some convincing answers, rather than recycled spin. As for engineers: they are the people who moved us forward from dependence muscle power to canal, and from canal to rail, and rail to flexible transport. Please don't insult them. And as for PFI! Jeez: that's effectively what happened to the railways. Companies bought into the railways with business plans based on NOT running trains, paying the fines, but STILL making money on the subsidies. And who has ended up bailing out the railways? There are none so blind as they that will not! see! bogush j mann, nottingham

	18-February-2003 Hmmmmmmmmmm, George You seem like the sound of your "fact" that "a famous politician once said that the sign of a group or person with failing arguments is that they start to rubbish sound facts and research." Are you addressing Freda, Drew, BERT, Jackie, (anti) robert and even Dafydd (who's got nothing better to do than comply with endless red tape and bureaucracy and look out for smaller numbers on new tin signs hidden in hedgerows)". Now where did I "rubbish sound facts and research"? I pointed out the gaping holes in your argument and the glaring flaws. Is that the best response you can come back with? You are convincing no-one! bogush j mann, nottingham

	18-February-2003 Old trams Steve correctly stated that "Blackpool "balloon" type now being over 70 years old" There was a failed design - the Coronation of 1953 a disaster in tramway terms it only lasted 25 years. The oldest trams in public service in the world are now 110 years old on the Isle of Man. Most of their fleet is over 80 years old. The main reason trams are scrapped is because technology moves on and an improved design develops. The track etc lasts for at least 50 years with little maintenance. How old is your car Bogush? and how often are roads re-surfaced? The anorak, Beeston

	18-February-2003 Taxi companies I'm a taxi driver. I fear for my future when the tram comes. I get lots of fares to Bulwell and Hucknall and if the trams are going to be as good as everyone says then no-one will use my taxi. All my mates hate trams. Should I apply for a job on the trams? Mohammed, Radford

	18-February-2003 Thanks For Those Facts Gordon Mackley: "I do not believe for one moment that the pro-car extremists will even bother to read this, as they do not wish to debate on fact, merely on greater and greater emotion laden hyperbole based on their own selfish prejudices. However for those with more open rational minds, the following are proven facts......Diesel engines produce far more Nitrogen oxides and particulates than petrol ones, so buses do cause pollution. With the normal age mix of buses in the UK you need an average of about 20 people on a double deck bus for it to cause less ill-health causing air pollution than the equivalent number of people in their own cars (at about 1.5 persons per car and provided that they are all petrol and not diesel)." ..... And guess what the average passenger load of a bus is: eight or nine (don't forget that even in the rush hour they don't start full, and they return empty!)! Now, all you have to do is guess what kind of engines diesel engined trains, and diesel engined power st! ations use. Of course there is also gas, a hydrocarbon, just like diesel, burnt in power stations, and central heating boilers, and gas cookers (ever cleaned out a gas central heating boiler? And they tax you 5% on domestic gas, 350% on petrol!). Perhaps you prefer coal fired power stations (even dirtier)? Or nuclear? Or perhaps you thought that the trams were being run from a solar cell on the roof of the Greenpeace headquarters? If you did, here's another surprise: you waste more resources, and produce more pollution, making solar cells, than you save by using them! And as for asthma being caused by traffic pollution (regardless of whether it's generated by buses or cars): how come it's getting worse when traffic pollution is plummeting? And how come it's worst in places like New Zealand, and South Atlantic islands, when they have some of the cleanest air on the planet? "The incidence of childhood asthma in Britain is dramatically increasing ... there will be a lot ! less children growing". Did someone mention "emotion laden hyperbole based on their own selfish prejudices"? bogush j mann, nottingham

	18-February-2003 The financial viability of a tram network I've just received you latest offering on the proposed tram in my area. In the same post bag was the latest ENT newsletter. In it they write that : For some time now Nottingham Express Transit and their followers have held out Croydon's Tram, which opened in May 2000, as an example to us. Its been called "a shining example". It transpires that the Croydon Tram is broke. Or as the BBC put it when reporting the news: "Flagship Tram firm running out of cash". Documents lodged at Companies House reveal that Tramtrack Croydon, the firm that runs the trams, has insufficient funds to continue trading beyond March 25, 2003. The firm has debts of more that £100 million and it suffered a 34 per cent increase in pre tax losses to £9.47 million in the year to March 31, 2002. Crisis talks are currently being held to see if a rescue package can be found. However, one analyst has been quoted as saying "Its difficult to see how Tramtrack Croydon will ever make money. It doesn't break even at the operating level, so how can it pay down debt of more that £100 million?" In Birmingham we now hear that the Midland Metro, the tram system that links Birmingham and Wolverhampton is also on the brink of financial collapse after auditors refused to sign off the accounts of Altram LRT, the company that formed to build and run the system. Midlands financial position came to light after Altram produced its latest accounts. These state that the future of Altram, which recorded a pre tax loss of £11.4 million, is dependant on restructuring talks with Centro, the West Midlands Transport Authority. The Midlands Metro tram system has lost more than £16 million since it opened in 1999. It has been reported that this situation is blamed on high running costs and a lack of passengers. Tram bosses also blame fare dodging and vandalism for spiralling losses. Fares are now set to rise to try and recoup some of the revenue. When the Sheffield "Supertram' went bust and was sold to Stagecoach for £1 we were told that lessons had been learned and it would never happen again. At a meeting we held with NET last summer we were told that Net's figures would be checked by experts. Are those the same experts who checked the sums for Croydon, Birmingham and Sheffield? Wouldn't' it be crazy not to make sure it doesn't happen again in Nottingham? So lets see how line one fares before voting any more public money to promote further routes. ------------------------------------- I think you'll agree that its very interesting reading. Non of this found its way into the expensive glossy brochure posted through my letter box that I the tax payer am paying for. Its clear that that NET has a very different mandate than that of serving the interests of the people and there is a considerable lack of objectivity. David Green, Nottm

	18-February-2003 Wasting money? Darren - you are way out when you say the 130m the conjestion charge is expected to make is less than the Croydon tram costs every year. It is 100m less than it cost to build in the first place which means that you could build a Croydon system every 2 years from the proceeds! Basil,

	18-February-2003 "Tony's old chestnuts" "why not just add a couple of stops to the robin hood line that the tram follows?" asks Tony (17th Feb) Because that would then make the train journey for travellers living outside the Nottingham conurbation so long that they wouldn't use it - instead they'd switch back to their cars and take us back to square one. You have to remember , the Robin Hood Line wasn't re-opened to benefit the likes of us living in/near Nottingham, it was done to help regenerate the West and North Notts Coalfield areas that were expected to be in such dire straits when the pits shut down. And don't forget, Nottingham Station is 10 minutes (mainly uphill) walk outside the City Centre even to the fit and able-bodied, so actual 'door-to-door' times would be far worse than any bus service. The Tram goes where the Train can't, and stops where the Train won't. "I suppose when it goes over budget the council taxes will go up to cover the cost? Sheffield any one? This has been "done to death" five times over - Tony, just wade back through the Archives on this site and enjoy the spectacle of people being told something they find so improbable they still keep asking the same question over again (Please, everyone else, can we take this bit as read?) "Mind I am sure the councillors involved have done very nicely out of this..." - I can only read this as inferring there has been high-level corruption in the planning and building of this Project. This is an utterly disgraceful suggestion to make UNLESS OF COURSE you have evidence to back it up. So on this point, Tony, "Put Up or Shut Up"!!! Willie Whizz, Nottingham

	18-February-2003 anti it seems that once one anti trammer has been shown to talk rubbish, we get another one. bogush j mann is the classic example. for heavens sake mr bogush j mann go and do some research, because all the questions you are raising have been answered. if you are not happy with the answers you find then may i suggest you respectfully shut up. if the figures are not accurate or within tolerences then someone will be answerable. don't you think they will get their sums right before they commit the money. if Croydon can do it then Nottingham can. all the legitamate arguments have been settled and the tram has started to be built so no matter what you can dream up to stop it is purely hot air and you should be thankful that we have forward thinking councillors and government. if we were to follow your example then nothing would progress and we would still be living in caves!! get real mate. robert, nottingham

	18-February-2003 blackpool if the new tram system in Nottingham is half as good as the Blackpool tram then money well spent. lets extend it to other areas. robert, nottingham

	18-February-2003 Ilkeston Tram Sarah - you are quite right about Ilkeston not being served well by public trasport. Hopefully there is to be a heavy rail station built there but I wouldn't hold my breath! The M1 multi modal study proposed trams to Ilkeston so perhaps there may be a subsequent phase out that way. However, once phases 1 and 2 are operating the traffic to the North West and to the West of Nottingham should reduce therefore allowing you a smoother journey by car into town. You will then benefit as a non-user. Alternatively you could drive to either Bardills or Phoenix Park to get the tram in - not an ideal solution but nevertheless an improvement on some peoples very expensive suggestions of doing nothing or building more roads. Steve Barber, Beeston

	18-February-2003 Some answers and a big question Bogush - SJP and George have been debating the tram on this forum for several months now - longer than you and if you cared to go through the archives you would find the answers to most of your questions. however here we go yet again (regular readers please skip): "How much will the tram really cost?" The up-side of pfi is that we negotiate a deal with the private sector and that figure is the cost to the public purse. Any additional costs or indeed undercosts are then no longer our concern. Until the contracts are negotiated no-one yet knows the cost but current estimates are in the order of £224m. The benefits are £283m leaving us with a cost of £59m if we "do nothing". The capital equipment is planned to last 30 years and if it it prematurely fails then this is a concern for the private sector. In practise the trams last a lot longer, the Blackpool "balloon" type now being over 70 years old and the Manchester ones showing no sign of wear a third of the way through their c! os! ted life. The fares are to be less than the corresponding current bus fares. If the tram fares are too high then as happened in Sheffield, people will not use the trams and drastic measures will be necessary. I think NET are fully aware of that! It is estimated that 42% of all Croydon's 22m users ) have some sort of mobility difficulties. If you allowed taxis and buses to reclaim all their fuel duty the fares would probably change very little but congestion would increase. The cost of not having a tram is estimated at £59m. You seem to assume that the engineers are incompetent. This is simply not true, a lot of thought goes into acheiving the correct levels and the Local Authority inspectors would not permit something that later caused problems......Now a question for you..... What will be the running costs of your precious car over the next 30 years and who takes the risk of an overspend (higher than expected petrol prices, road tax, insurance, congestion charging etc.....)? Steve Barber, Beeston

	18-February-2003 Sound facts Bogush said (amongst other things) "As I said to George, George, George, George (and Stanley): analyse your "evidence"!" A famous politician once said that the sign of a group or person with failing arguments is that they start to rubbish sound facts and research. You are convincing no-one! George, Clifton

	18-February-2003 Wales too We have a Mr Bogush J Mann of England talking rubbish in Wales too. His comments about people who break the speed limits--------- ".....law-abiding citizens with more important things on their mind than complying with endless red tape and bureaucracy (like smaller numbers on new tin signs hidden in hedgerows)" ........I thought people your side of the dyke were mad, now I know it! Dafydd Rhys-Jones, Llanfairfechan

	18-February-2003 wrong colour i can see bogush j mann saying that everything is the wrong colour next!!! robert, nottingham

	17-February-2003 Ahhhhhhhhhh, George and SJP Just testing!;-) Funny how you can join in when you think I've made a mistake! Now that I have your attention: how much will the tram really cost. How long will the capital equipment really last. How much will the subsidy really be. How much will the fare really be. How many disadvantaged will really ride on each journey. And if you allowed taxis/minibuses, etc, to reclaim their fuel duty what could you provide without ripping up half of Nottingham, and blocking half the roads. And talking of ripping up and blocking, that reminds me: why are all the pavements being rebuilt with the kerbs higher than the shop thresholds?! Not another miscalculation surely?! Don't they have rain in France?! bogush j mann, nottingham

	18-February-2003 Ahhhhhhhhhh, Jackie, Cambridge Very clever burbling on your part. But not quite as unintelligible as you'd like to think. Would you like to confirm who, exactly, your "members" are then? And confirm, on the record, that Transport2000 does not receive funding from bus and train companies! bogush j mann, nottingham

	18-February-2003 DONT BASH THE BOGUSH MANN! I don't think people should criticise Bogush Mann. I know his ramblings are unintelligible and he talks absolute rubbish, but that's what one expects of anti-trammers. The point is, he does amuse us. I only hope he turns up at the public inquiry. I'll bet the serious anti brigade hopes he doesn't! BERT, BEESTON

	18-February-2003 JC said...... ....on 14 February, 'A 30 years mortgage on Trams will be paid for by our childern.' (sic) And they will be grateful that someone looked beyond their wallet/purse and those material things we all want but don't really need, and tried to do something to counter the forecast growth in road traffic, which is unsustainable. David, Wilford

	18-February-2003 Wasting money I see all this fus over the conjesstion charge only mackes £130m every year out of cars. That's £100m les than whot the Croyden Tram costs EVRY YEAR. What a waste! Thancks Bogush for tellin us. Darren, Aspley

	17-February-2003 Pollution, illness, use of oil - facts I do not believe for one moment that the pro-car extremists will even bother to read this, as they do not wish to debate on fact, merely on greater and greater emotion laden hyperbole based on their own selfish prejudices. However for those with more open rational minds, the following are proven facts. All internal combustion engines, petrol, diesel or whatever emit nitrogen oxides (of various types) sulphur compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and particulates (small particles). Medical research has proven that the nitrogen oxides and particulates cause asthma and lung cancers. It has always been known that these items exarcerbate existing asthma conditions. To enforce this, in case cynics do not trust medical research, the practical proof is already here. The incidence of childhood asthma in Britain is dramatically increasing but there is a marked difference in the incidence between rural and congested urban areas. Our children may have to pay for electric public transport but if you continue to have concentrated petrol/diesel road traffic in urban areas, there will be a lot less children growing up to pay for anything at all! Diesel engines produce far more Nitrogen oxides and particulates than petrol ones, so buses do cause pollution. With the normal age mix of buses in the UK you need an average of about 20 people on a double deck bus for it to cause less ill-health causing air pollution than the equivalent number of people in their own cars (at about 1.5 persons per car and provided that they are all petrol and not diesel). This is only health related pollution. You only need very low loadings for the bus to be more efficient in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (Carbon Dioxide for the most part). Air pollution kills thousands of people in Britain each year and in urban areas between 60 -70 % of such pollution comes from road traffic exhaust. There are no such things as 'clean' engines - only less dirty ones. However much the diehards put their heads in the sands, the end is coming for the petrol/diesel car. As we are now past the peak of oil production and are going along the graph where usag! e is increasing against production decreasing, abundant cheap oil will not be with us for very much longer. This means that whether 'bogush' or 'dave the driver' or the other likeminded folk like it or not, the future is electric public transport. This can be trams. Where these cannot be justified in terms of return against costs, you can also have electric trolleybuses (which cost much less in infrastructure terms). If you still wish to get around, what you cannot do is bury your head in the sand and believe that you can continue to drive cars around unimpeded without jams and at the same low cost. This is simply a fantasy. Gordon Mackley, East Malling, UK

	18-February-2003 PS Stanley and George: Where have I advocated building multi lane motorways through the middle of town? How do you equate pointing out that if you de-tyre buses and tie them to rail tracks and power lines (installed at vast expense) you aren't improving them? All I'm doing is pointing out that the emperor is de-clothed and you should track where the power lies. bogush j mann, nottingham

	18-February-2003 Routes and general moan! Why build a tram line which runs parallel with the Robin Hood Train Line? People in other areas of the County suffer as a result of there be poor public transport. As a resident of Ilkeston there is only 1 suitable bus which could take me to work in Nottingham City Centre. To catch this bus I would have to walk 2 miles. I would then have to wait however long it takes for the bus to get there. It is simply more convenient, warm, clean and less stressful to drive! Sarah, Ilkeston/Derbyshire

	18-February-2003 Stanley, Stanley, Stanley, Stanley (and George): Is Nottingham less amenable to road traffic than London (if so, how can it cope with bendy-buses, never mind road-running railways, oh, and what was the complaint that the anti-"roads" lobby had against big lorries being allowed into cities?)? If it can handle bendy-buses and road going trains then it can handle any other kind of road traffic. In London traffic has been going down, but congestion has been getting worse faster. Have you ever lived or worked there? I've lived in two different areas, and worked at four different locations, and I could only get to one of them more efficiently by public transport, and then only at certain times, on certain days of the week. And that was before traffic started to go down. Now you can't move, despite traffic probably having halved since then. Why? Because of all the roads having been halved with 24 hour bus lanes (where are the 24 hour buses?). And what's left having been traffic "calmed" and Kengestion Engineered. (It might surprise you to learn that I actually socialised with a lot of left-wingers, including some labour politicians, when I lived there, but I had already outgrown their "idealistic" beliefs, having actually opened my eyes, and seen for myself how the real world works, rather than how people would like it to!) It doesn't make any difference if traffic here has gone up 7%, or 70%. If you halve the road widths you MORE than halve capacity because of the gridlocking effects at junctions (even without actually blocking the junctions - just go out and LOOK at what happens as traffic approaches a junction and tries to manouvre past the ends of bus-lanes!). Which is why you now get massive traffic jams on, for example, Derby Road, in BOTH directions, in the rush hour, AND in between, AND outside of it! And as for your "primary" source: well, they would say that, wouldn't they! Did you believe Equitable Life when they said that they were a better deal because they didn't pay commission to third parties or have salesmen?! And guess what: all the "experts" in the specialist press and money papers confirmed it!! Didn't stop them paying some of the industry's highest "bonuses" to their advisers, managers and directors though, did it?! As I said to George, George, George, George (and Stanley): analyse your "evidence"! The figures I gave were from an anti-car government and some even from Ken's Transport for London. The figures you give are from an organisation that can publish a long list of road "improvements" which are almost exclusively the opposite! Think about it! bogush j mann, nottingham

	17-February-2003 Tram I think the tram will add to the congestion.. The current routes help very few people (why not just add a couple of stops to the robin hood line that the tram follows?) but I suppose when it goes over budget the council taxes will go up to cover the cost? Sheffield any one? Mind I am sure the councillors involved have done very nicely out of this... Tony, Nottingham

	17-February-2003 Unpleasant postings How deeply offensive Mr Bogbrush’s postings are. I have looked past his insults and examined some of the claims in his ramblings and I believe that virtually everything he says is untrue. I can only say that thank goodness for the road features that he criticises in a most bigoted fashion. They are needed to prevent people like him from killing innocent pedestrians and road users. Unfortunately British society has long allowed people like him to make such claims under the guise of freedom of speech. What kind of low self esteem causes people to behave in this way? Dear BBC, can you restore balance to this forum by not allowing so many postings from one person? Four of the last six postings were Mr Bogbrush’s and some of them are so long that they are a pain to read. Drew, Chilwell

	16-February-2003 Capital Punishment I thought we abandonned capital punishment 40 years ago. Not according to Bogush, if a pedestrian or a cyclist or a child makes a mistake then it's OK if cars instantly kill them - it's their fault! What a horrid society, what a horrid man! Freda Woodyard, The Meadows

	17-February-2003 Correction Bogush - You have made a significant error in reply to my statistic on Capital Cost per Annual Passengers - The Capital Cost is a one off payment of £230m, the passenger numbers are an annual figure (and they go up over time)................................................. Tramlink infrastructure has a lifetime of considerably more than 1 year............................The statistics I quoted are crude but they are a very easy way of establishing value for money - The name for this measure, used by one of the worlds leading tramway experts is the "Bums per Bucks ratio". .....................And regarding the Taxi option, given a choice between 1 hour in a stretched limo in a traffic jam or a 15 min tram ride, I'd take the tram thanks! SJP, West Wickham, Kent, UK

	16-February-2003 scratching the surface Bogush..... I’ve decided to do a bit of primary research into some of your claims, so let’s kill a few of your myths:….. 1) “there is NO EVIDENCE that either general or urban traffic volumes are increasing”…….. Please see the local transport plan for Nottingham statistics http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/temps/docs/ltpprogress2002.pdf page 109 states there was a 12.3% increase in traffic in Greater Nottingham 1990 to 2000 with a 2.3% drop 2000 to 2001. However during the latter period there was a 2.8% increase in peak period traffic within the city centre………2) “buses produce more pollution, use more fuel, and take up more road space than cars”…….Ah but you conveniently forget that they also carry more passengers. May I suggest that you visit http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm59.htm a learned paper covering not only energy usage but also “embedded energy” the energy used in the manufacture of the vehicle and it’s infrastructure. The results really are interesting: given in Mj/Pass-K! m ! bicycle 0.8, Light rail 2.1, bus 2.8, heavy rail 2.8, petrol car 4.4, diesel car 4.8, lpg car 4.8. ………This small bit of research together with your crass statement that Croydon Tramlink costs £230m PER ANNUM to maintain just demonstrates to me that one doesn’t have to research very far to realise that you are simply making false assumptions and talking absolute rubbish. Please will people do their homework a bit more thoroughly before making rash claims to this learned audience. George, Clifton

	17-February-2003 Taxi fares "....SJp, West Wickham, Kent, UK says Tramlink has cost £230m for 21m passengers (ie journeys)/year...... ........So that's over £10 per journey " WRONG its that amount for 99 years worth of journeys or 10p per journey. How far would a taxi take you for 10p? George, Clifton

	17-February-2003 Traffic growth et al Firstly Ed, apologies that this is long. Bogush, so many points and so little time... I think your biggest weapon is wearing people down rebutting all your arguments. Fair enough - you certainly get a good argument going. So where are these taxis going to run then? Obviously not on roads as you've not included any capital funding for all those new urban motorways we'd need. And why do you use the demand for 1 year? Do we need to rebuild the entire system every year? One of the criteria for government funding of the LRT is that the system covers its own operating costs - there is no operating subsidy per year and financing is just for the capital cost. I'm also curious how a "packed out" bus can possibly be less energy efficient than a car - are the engines intrinsically different? Presumably walking and cycling are also less energy efficient than the wonderous eco-car you've invented. On to your "traffic reduction" evidence, private person trips into central London have declined - ok, and well spotted - but did you notice public transport usage has increased, mode share up from 83% to 86% (the only place it has)? Central London is a special case as it's well served by PT - and there are also lots of pedestrians and hence pedestrian crossings. Very few people actually have to drive there. But let's look at traffic in the whole of London (London isn't just central London just as Nottingham isn't just the Square where traffic has also declined - on purpose!) Here traffic has increased by 7% between 1990 and 2000, (national growth is 19%) (see http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/indicators/regional/2001/h11.htm). Locally, urban traffic growth has been marked - traffic volumes entering the inner area of Nottingham increased by 9.7% between 1989 and 1999 (http://utc.nottscc.gov.uk/ltp07.htm). Note that the national average for all urban roads was an! increase of around 0.5% - on already congested roads. There is also some interesting info on the non-growth of traffic at the DfT's stats site (http://www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/tables/2002/tt/section1/section1.htm#1.1). I apologize the data isn't 2003 but you use 1997 data yourself. So some roads have been closed to traffic - you're upset by this and seem to think that all roads are designed to be filled with traffic - do you really think Clumber Street is suitable as a traffic thoroughfare, or did you enjoy playing chicken with the lorries on Pelham Street? Where would the cars fit today with all the shoppers? Clearly that policy has destroyed Nottingham's attraction to shoppers. But back to London - you seem to see it as bad news that car traffic in central London (the best PT-served area in Britain) has decreased (mode share down from 17% to 14%). Let's consider what would happen if we were to close down the "subsidized" and "inefficient" tube and buses (even though London public transport attracts pitiful funding compared to all big international city systems) and instead build lots of new motorways into central London. Well, there'd be a hell of lot of them as we'd have to serve 86% of the market currently using the "inefficient" public transp! ort, but if we could afford it (presumably from all those subsidy savings), at last we'd be able to drive unhindered to er... nothing - there'd be nothing left to get to 'cos we'd have built roads and carparks over it all. And you were the one to use central London as an example. Do you think councillors and transport planners are just trying to make life harder for people out of spite? Don't you think people have actually researched the best way for cities to develop? Would you like British cities to become like Los Angeles where no-one walks anywhere, the city & urban sprawl takes up an enormous space and the air quality is terrible? That is a city designed around the automobile. That is your dream. Me? I would like a city more like those in continental Europe where public transport is properly funded, cities are compact and countryside is not converted to concrete. Stanley, Basford, Nottingham