Memorandum by Environment Not Trams (LR
17)
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT: THE FUTURE OF LIGHT
RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS IN BRITAIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Environment Not Trams (ENT) is an organisation
opposed to the development of a tram route from Clifton via Wilford
to Nottingham, which is one of two additional routes that Nottingham
Express Transit (NET) hope to build.
1.2. ENT was formed in July 2001 as a result
of a meeting of concerned residents from the affected areas. Our
case is that the route does not make environmental sense nor does
it make economic sense. We enjoy wide local support and are funded
by voluntary contributions. We issue a regular newsletter and
have a website at www.environmentnottrams.co.uk.
1.3. There is widespread opposition in Nottingham
to NET's plans. We will not dwell on the detail of this since
we recognise that your inquiry is looking at wider questions.
However we feel there are some issues that have arisen locally
which have wider relevance and may be of interest to you.
2. COST
2.1. In a report to Nottingham City and
Nottinghamshire County Councils in 2000, NET stated that the cost
of the two additional tram routes would be in the region of £77
million. In a subsequent report in 2002 the cost estimate had
risen to £220 million. By mid 2004 this had increased further
to £300 million.
2.2. Within four years therefore the estimated
cost has quadrupled and NET's statement that "£300 million
is in the right ballpark as a budget estimate of outturn cost"
appears to offer plenty of scope for further increases.
2.3. It is interesting to put this sum of
money into a local context. Nottingham's tram Line One opened
in March 2004. Because of construction and testing delays, the
City Council saved a few months of the £1.5 million per month
"availability payment" received from central government
and which it now has to pay to the tram operating company.
2.4. The council decided to give £1.3
million of this saving to rebuild Ambleside Infants and Junior
School, a run-down inner-city school that recently came out of
special measures. City Councillor Graham Chapman, executive member
for education, said at the time that this money is "a drop
in the ocean" and estimated that around £220 million
is needed to improve Nottingham's school stock.
2.5. If the further Nottingham tram lines
are shelved, every one of Nottingham's schools can be improved
with the money saved and there will still be nearly £100
million remaining for increased investment in bus services or
funding other transport improvements.
2.6. Nottingham City Council has used a
further £4.5 million of the saved "availability payment"
to help bail out Nottingham Forest football club. Is this what
the Government intended?
2.7. Nottingham's previous experiment with
trams lasted just 35 years. If this latest attempt to resuscitate
19th century technology does proceed any further, the cost of
the three routes will have been in excess of half a billion pounds
and it is questionable whether they are likely to outlast previous
experience. The cost of decommissioning will be considerable and
NET has confirmed that this cost will not be borne by the operating
company.
3. BENEFITS?
3.1. Whereas the cost of building tram lines
is painfully apparent, the benefits are difficult to quantify.
The cost-benefit calculation used to assess projects such as this
offsets against the enormous capital outlay, such factors as the
apparent time saving that may be made by people using the system.
A time saving of a minute or two per day is multiplied by the
number of people who may use the system and multiplied again by
a number of years. An hourly rate is then applied to this figure
to arrive at a financial estimate of total time saved over the
lifetime of the project. The National Audit Office has described
this approach as "pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo".
3.2. The complication increases when the
cost escalates as described above. In 2000 when the cost of the
NET extensions was £77 million, the cost-benefit ratio required
to obtain Department for Transport approval was positive. Despite
the fact that the cost has now risen to £300 million, NET
maintain that the ratio remains positive, although it has been
unable to confirm which benefits have escalated at a similar rate
to the costs.
3.3. The identification of non-monetary
benefits is equally difficult. NET has made bold claims regarding
modal shift however it has been unable to back these up with figures.
NET's advertising claims about the reduction in the number of
car journeys have been criticised by the Advertising Standards
Authority.
3.4. The claimed regeneration benefits of
tram routes are also unclear. Commenting recently on Line One,
John Taylor, the chair of NET and a City Councillor said "If
you look at Hucknall, the feeling of the place has been completely
changed. It was a town in the middle of nowhere and it is now
attached to a major city by the tram".
3.5. Hucknall is a suburb of Nottingham.
It enjoys frequent bus services into the city and is also on the
route of the highly successful Robin Hood rail line, which runs
from North Nottinghamshire to the centre of Nottingham. From the
perspective of a City Councillor, this may appear to be "in
the middle of nowhere" but it is not a description recognised
by local residents.
4. INFLEXIBLE
4.1. It is impossible to construct a tram
network to service the whole of Nottingham. NET has already stated
that routes to some areas of Nottingham will not meet the criteria
set out by the Department for Transport and that access by tram
to some other areas is prevented because of engineering constraints.
4.2. Tram routes are inflexible and unable
to respond to changing patterns of demand. Even routes that are
apparently cost-effective at the time of planning may be overtaken
by events during the approval and construction process. For example
NET's proposed route from Clifton appears to have been made largely
redundant by the new main-line rail station to be built just outside
the city.
4.3. The new station will offer a park-and-ride
facility for visitors or commuters to Nottingham leaving M1 junction
24 and will ease congestion on the A453. The rail service will
be frequent and faster than the tram. The rail infrastructure
is already in place so no further environmental damage will be
done and NET's proposed tram park-and-ride site, which they want
to build on green-belt land, should not now need to go ahead.
4.4. Furthermore, the station will be built
in 2007 and will cost £17 million—many years sooner
and a fraction of the cost of the tram.
5. LESSONS LEARNED?
5.1. Amongst other criticisms of tram systems,
the National Audit Office stated that "In France and Germany,
light rail systems connect hospitals, universities and commercial
and shopping centres, which generate passenger numbers. This has
not always been the case in England, where some light rail routes
have followed old railway lines remote from traffic generators".
5.2. NET profess to have learned from the
mistakes of its predecessors, however the NAO description sums
up perfectly the centre section of NET's currently favoured route
from Clifton via Wilford village to the city centre.
5.3. The route runs along a disused railway
line, abandoned over 30 years ago and now a nature trail and Site
of Importance for Nature Conservation. If the route proceeds,
the nature trail will be completely destroyed. Opening a similar
trail in Nottinghamshire recently, David Bellamy commented "It's
becoming a rare thing and it's important that people have places
like this close to where they live".
5.4. Submitting evidence on the route last
month in connection with the Rushcliffe Borough Council Replacement
Local Plan, Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust stated that they "are
extremely disappointed that the Borough Council has chosen to
give tacit support to such an extremely environmentally destructive
route as a means to provide a theoretically more environmentally
friendly form of transport. NWT sincerely hope to see public transport
play an increasing role in the movement of people into and around
Rushcliffe, but this should not be achieved at the expense of
our irreplaceable natural assets. We therefore support ENT's objection
to this proposed provision of a route in the draft Local Plan".
5.5. The route is also remote from traffic
generators. It does not serve the Nottingham Trent University
campus and completely bypasses the Queen's Drive area, which has
been described as Nottingham's main employment corridor.
6. ENGAGING WITH
THE LOCAL
COMMUNITY
6.1. A barrier to the development of light
rail in Nottingham has been lack of engagement with the local
community.
6.2. The principal promoter of NET is Nottingham
City Council. NET is staffed by council employees who have been
working on the project for a number of years and who have developed
an allegiance to the project that outweighs their objectivity.
6.3. NET has issued consultation brochures
but there is little evidence that the views of members of the
public have altered NET's pre-determined plans. Many have been
left with the feeling that they are just a box to be ticked as
part of a theoretical paper exercise.
6.4. NET's schizophrenic attitude to local
views is demonstrated by their initial description of dissenters
as "well-organised and vocal opposition groups", changed
in a later statement to "helpful input from the public".
6.5. The Department for Transport has confirmed
that, even if the further routes are given approval, it will fund
a maximum of 75% of the cost. NET has not consulted at all on
how the local contribution of at least 25% is to be raised. For
the time being it appears to suit NET to present the routes as
a "free ride".
6.6. In view of the huge amount of money
involved in the scheme, one would expect that those living alongside
the route would be offered high levels of mitigation. With regard
to noise barriers however, NET's statements have been less than
reassuring: "consideration will be given to providing noise
barriers where significant impacts are predicted and where it
is practical to do so". Replacement planting to screen the
tracks will be provided "where possible".
6.7. There is great concern that if cost-savings
are sought, the small amount of mitigation that has been offered
will be reduced even further.
6.8. People living near the proposed routes
are also concerned about reduction in the value of their property.
NET on the other hand maintain that property prices will increase.
A simple solution to this situation would be for NET to adopt
the Property Protection Scheme (PPS) offered by Central Railway.
6.9. The PPS has been widely acclaimed and
commended. A study by the then Department of Transport, Environment
and the Regions into the effects of blight concluded that it is
the scheme which best addresses the possible effects of civil
engineering projects on property values and recommended that the
scheme should be used as a model for other engineering projects.
Gordon Wheeler
Chair
February 2005
| 
