August 2002

"BACIT campaigns for the best possible tram system for Chilwell and Beeston. It also campaigns for a fair package for those disadvantaged by the tram's construction. ... But looking at the currently proposed stops, a clear omission by NET is apparent."

Read more.

BCBRA are running a 'Thought for the day' feature on their web site in a pop up box when you visit their home page. Somewhat ironically this as been the same for several weeks (fill in your own joke about BCBRA's capacity for thought) and it is highlighting the fact that the trams with carry 190 passages but 120 will have to stand. For once BCBRA have got their facts right. That's right, each tram will carry 70 people sitting down, getting on for twice the seating capacity of a Barton's bus and the 190 maximum capacity is about two and a half times the maximum capacity for a bus. Plus trams can carry wheelchairs (manual or motorised), push chairs and bicycles a lot easier than a bus can.

It also nice to see BCBRA being concerned about the trams not being big enough. They used to be worried that not enough people would use the tram.

From Brian Lomas of the Light Rail Transit Association:

"I have uploaded a series of pictures of Nottingham trams at the Bombardier works at Derby. There is also an article on Nottingham in the September issue of Tramways & Urban Transit."

On the BCBRA web site, they are running a story about how Beeston and Chilwell will lose out to the redeveloped 'Meadow Hall' style Broadmarsh because people will just get the tram to the Broadmarsh rather than shop in Beeston and Chilwell. This is odd, because one of the anti-tram lobby's constant claims is that we have a very good bus service which means we don't need a tram but BCBRA don't appear worried that people will use the buses to go to the Broadmarsh. Could it be that even BCBRA recognise people are more willing to use a tram than buses because they are quicker, cleaner and more convenient than buses? Another anti-tram claim is that no one will use the tram and now they are worried that too many people will use the it. Make your mind up BCBRA.

The sad truth is that BCBRA have a point. The new Broadmarsh may damage trade in Beeston & Chilwell (with or without a tram). This makes it even more important that Chilwell Road can compete with it. Broadmarsh is a soulless building full shops you can find all over country. Chilwell Road has some genuinely interesting, one off shops and restaurants that people want to travel to but at the moment the traffic makes it a very unfriendly shopping experience. With the redevelopment the tram will bring with its wide pavements, better parking and better road layout Chilwell Road can compete with Broadmarsh and win.

Whilst hunting for facts and figures to combat the latest anti-tram rubbish, one of our members came across this story in the Guardian from February 2002. Its full of quotes such as:

"...experts have pinpointed Nottingham as a model of good practice... ...Nottingham and its surrounding area singled out as topping the table... ...European Commission regards the area as a pioneer ...".

Isn't it odd how the hoi-polloi of the anti-tram lobby like to portray NET as idiots who don't realise the damage they are doing but any who knows anything about public transport and urban planning thinks Nottingham's is going to get a first class scheme.

Last Thursday (8th August) BACIT held a members only question and answer session with Broxtowe MP, Nick Palmer. You can read the full write up here.

BACIT have learnt that NET submitted the draft Annex E application at the end of July to central government. The Annex E is a key part of process for getting funding and the Transport Works Act Order. Negotiations with the government will continue over the summer and autumn. We also understand that there is ongoing discussion between NET, Nottinghamshire County Council and other bodies for additional money to help regenerate Chilwell Road.

At last week's BACIT meeting, Councillor Simon Rich, stated that Broxtowe Borough Council had requested that NET examine a route up Styring Street (map), by the bus station, to the Last Post pub (bottom of Foster Avenue) before continuing down Chilwell Road. Broxtowe's decision is influenced by a working group of councillors looking at the redevelopment of key parts of the town centre. This includes the Shaw & Marvin site between Station Road and Acacia Walk, parts of Wollaton Road and the possible redevelopment of the square, the bus station, the multi-storey car park and the fire station.

Unfortunately Broxtowe Council do not put minutes of their meeting on their web site. They are available for inspection at the Council House on Foster Avenue.

Have you got a question you would like to put NET? Want to know more about the trams themselves, the route, the public enquiry or the timetable of events? Well, here is your chance. E-mail your questions to AskNET@BACIT.org and we at BACIT we distil them into the five or ten questions that reflect what people most want to know. We will send these off to NET around the end of August, early September and then publish their reply verbatim on the web site.

So get writing with those questions to: AskNET@BACIT.org

Following the confusion about the Liberal Democrat's tram policy during the recent by-election, they have made the following policy statement.

"Broxtowe Liberal Democrats support wholeheartedly the development of the tram system in the Borough of Broxtowe. Our support for any proposed route will depend entirely upon the merits of the individual proposal.

Broxtowe Liberal Democrats support the development of the tram system via the currently proposed NET route from Nottingham to the QMC, Beeston, Broxtowe College, Chilwell Valley and the Toton Island. We assert that this route has many advantages, and an alternative to this route would be supported only if it was found to be more viable.

Broxtowe Liberal Democrats call upon NET and the local authorities to maximise the social, economic and environmental advantages of the tram to the benefit of Broxtowe people, and to minimise the impact of any difficulties along the selected route."

A reader of both the BACIT and BCBRA websites was kind enough to copy us in on an email to BCBRA about their website. It is a well written email that is fair and refects the views of many in BACIT.

'I have just spent a read the homepages of both the anti and pro tram websites, and I feel it is necessary to make the following observations. Firstly, I believe your page is very emotive, with "tabloid style" headlines. Comments like "Neighbours from Hell" and implying that NET are evil imperialists ...'

Read on and I'm pleased to say that the author has since joined BACIT.