July 2002

Dr Nick Palmer, MP, dropped me a few comments on the July 15th story of 'NET Investigate Alternative Route'.

"The speculation about a Labour manoeuvre is a bit off the mark, as there are almost no links between me and the city party - I suppose I must have met John Taylor, but I wouldn't know him in the street, and I've certainly not asked him to do anything for me on this. Rather, I think they feel that the alternative has sufficient going for it that they need to show that they've looked into it, since otherwise they could be directed to do so at the public enquiry. I'm under no illusions and fully realise that they don't expect the outcome to have the same positive cost-benefit analysis as their own proposal, but once they've done the work we will have serious data to discuss, whereas at the moment it's all guesswork."

This week's front-page headline in the Nottingham & Long Eaton Topper is "MP Joins Tram Row" can covers Nick Palmer's campaign for alternative route. The article gives an anti-tram slant to Nick's statement with lines like:

"[Nick Palmer MP] is backing business bosses and residents, most of whom are against the extension idea"

You can e-mail the newspaper to express your views at TopperNewspaper@aol.com.

NET have announced that they will investigate the feasibility of Nick Palmer's proposed Chilwell route. NET have previously said that this route would not be economically viable. What brought this change of heart about? One possible reason is that Nick has put forward a good argument and convinced NET of the potential this route holds. A more cynical point of view might be that this is all just political manoeuvring by the Labour Party. After all, Nick is a Labour MP, Councillor John Taylor (Labour) is chair of the NET development board and Labour have just lost a seat in Chilwell to the Tories, almost certainly due to the tram. Sound suspicious? Well consider this. The County Council have already agreed to submit an application for funding to central government based on the current route. This application is going in sometime over the summer. NET say their investigation into the alternative route will be done by the end of the summer. What are the chances that Nick's route is not only as good as the current Line 2 route but is so much better that NET will be willing to cancel their current application for funds and throw out all the work already done? Finally, if Nick's route is so good, haven't NET therefore been incredibly incompetent for not spotting it in the first place?

Its amazing the rubbish we hear about the tram from anti-tram campaigners or people who have been speaking to them.

"...talking to someone at work this week and was told that the tram will only have 16 seats and that it was going to be hugely over budget. Given some of the other dross I have heard recently I was thinking of starting my own rumour that trams can go up stairs and see how long it took to get back to me." M.F., BACIT member.

For the record, the Nottingham trams have seating for 70 and total capacity of 190. Read the full specification here. As to the budget, lets hear it from the horse's mouth, Colin Lea of NET.

"Line One is on schedule to open in November 2003, on time. Budgetary implications are a risk for the private consortium building Line One and not the councils. If the project were to overrun on cost the consortium would be liable. We believe, however, that the project is running to budget."

Do let us know the rumours you are hearing, regardless of how wild they are, and we try to get definitive answers. BACIT is always keen to give out the facts that enable rational debate. Let us know at discrepancies@bacit.org.

BACIT recently got a message from a engineer working on the Manchester system.

"There is something about the no tram site that rings a bell. In 1993 we had the same material sent out by contra tram groups..."

Read more.

At the last BCBRA meeting (see our write up) a gentleman stood up and claimed that the Manchester Metrolink system had killed 10 people. As BACIT our dedicated to finding the truth we checked with Metrolink. This is what they said.

"... their have been six Metrolink related fatalities over its life. All have been suicides. ...If this is a fair reflection of anticipated railway experience, then Metrolink would appear to have reduced the number of lives lost."

Read it in full. Just to put these fatalities in perspective, about 10 people per day die on the roads. According to this Department of Transport report, journeys by car are 6 times more dangerous than rail and this includes the fatalities from major rail disasters such as Paddington. We have, of course, passed this information on to BCBRA.

Last week (June 28th, "Shopkeepers Write") we ran stories on how NET were failing to sell the benefits of the tram and more importantly,b keep those most effected by its construction informed. The same day we received a wonderful letter of support that made exactly the same point....

"I feel helpless in a tide of anti info ... ...I am a cyclist and they don't even respond to my questions about our routes to work"

Read it here.