Memorandum by Beeston & Chilwell Business
& Residents' Association (LR 24)
LIGHT RAIL TRANSPORT SYSTEMS
BEESTON AND
CHILWELL BUSINESS
AND RESIDENTS'
ASSOCIATION
The Association was formed in late 2001, in
response to proposals by Nottingham Express Transit to extend
the planned tram route from Nottingham to Beeston town centre
further west through Beeston to Chilwell and subsequently to the
A52, initially by the owners of businesses which would be affected
along Chilwell Road, Beeston, and High Road, Chilwell, who were
quickly joined by residents concerned about the effect the proposals
would have on the community, such as proximity to and destruction
of residential property, especially the four elderly persons'
complexes affected, loss of valuable and attractive urban open
spaces, threats to the Green Belt and the effect on community
and retail services.
The Association is a serious non-political organisation
which is not oppose to light rail transportation in principle
but is opposed to the chosen route which will impact adversely
on our community. We have organised a protest march, mounted informative
exhibitions in Beeston town centre, held a number of public meetings,
organised a petition and conducted a comprehensive survey of local
residents. We have participated in media discussion of the issues
involved and sought and obtained an interview with Ms Charlotte
Atkins, Minister in the Department for Transport, in November
2004. Dialogue has been maintained with NET, elected representatives
and officers of the local and county councils, the local Labour
MP, Dr Nick Palmer, other protest groups and local community organisations.
COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS
FROM A
LIGHT RAIL
SYSTEM
The Association believe that a light rail system
should;
(1) serve the communities through which it
passes, not merely the community where it terminates;
(2) provide the areas through which it passes
with a transport system no less convenient than before, with feeder
services and links with other forms of public transport, in terms
of frequency of service, accessibility, etc;
(3) seek to solve the current transport problems
of the area it serves while also addressing future needs, ie a
route with potential for commercial and housing development to
be preferred to one where future development is unlikely;
(4) contribute to the prosperity of the various
commercial centres along its route;
(5) preserve the integrity of the communities
it serves;
(6) preserve the character of the area it
passes through, with every effort made to avoid the destruction
of residential property and small local retail centres, loss of
amenity and the introduction of nuisance such as noise and the
diversion of traffic congestion, eg the use of off-road routes,
where available, such as redundant rail lines, etc (in the case
of the current proposals part of the route was that of a relief
route planned several decades ago; unfortunately, in the interim
the land had been built over in several places and much of it
had become dedicated as public open space by the local authority;
and
(7) result in claimed reductions in traffic
congestion, air pollution and accidents which should be quantifiable,
identifiable and provable.
The Association also believe.
(1) that the financial implications of any
scheme should be available to the public at a very early stage
in any consultations; and
(2) that the public should be offered viable
alternatives to choose from and not offered a fait accompli
where only the fine tuning is up for negotiation.
NET PROPOSALS FOR
TRAM ROUTE,
NOTTINGHAM TO
BEESTON, CHILWELL
AND A52
The original proposals put forward by the NET
were for a line to serve major areas of employment in the south-western
part of Nottingham City and the south-western part of Broxtowe
Borough, the Queen's Medical Centre and Nottingham University,
terminating in Beeston Town Centre. Although there were problems
with the route through the eastern part of Beeston, this route
would have served major trip generators well. It was then decided
that the route did not meet government criteria and it was extended
through Beeston and Chilwell to a park-and-ride site on the A52
route between Nottingham and Derby, claiming that this would attract
the additional patronage needed.
The proposed route would bring the line through
quiet residential streets, require the demolition and rebuilding
of part of an elderly persons' complex, pass close to a site earmarked
for a supermarket with a large car park feeding into the same
road, requiring the demolition of a number of small and medium-sized
retail outlets in the town centre, without plans for replacements.
It then drives a double track through one of the narrowest streets
required to accommodate this. The said street is already a busy
bus route into Beeston and Nottingham from the south-western part
of Broxtowe Borough and Long Eaton, serving areas of active commercial
and housing development. Again a number of retail units would
be destroyed and very difficult working conditions imposed on
the survivors. Proceeding westwards, the line would require the
demolition of further good quality residential property and take
so much land from others to completely change their character.
A further three elderly persons' complexes would be affected with
the line within a few metres of the buildings. The line would
transect two popular and accessible recreation grounds, one of
which would lose half its grassed area. There would be considerable
loss of amenity along the line, particularly the loss of mature
trees and wildlife habitat along the wetland area the line follows.
At its western end the line would cross an area of Green Belt,
a valuable green "lung" for the community and terminate
at a 1,400 space park-and-ride site on the A52.
The potential benefits claimed for the line
were reduced journey times to the Queens Medical Centre and Nottingham
City Centre, reduction in traffic congestion, particularly fewer
private cars, less air pollution and fewer accidents. NET also
claim that it will lead to commercial regeneration of the areas
served.
The Association do not feel, however, that these
aims can be achieved. The proposed park-and-ride site, the only
one proposed for the line, would make very little impact on the
22,000 or so vehicles using the A52 each day and, in the event,
the congestion the tram itself would cause on High Road, Chilwell,
Chilwell Road and Middle Street, Beeston, would probably divert
enough traffic onto the A52 to cancel out any reduction. It would
certainly increase congestion on the A6005 from Long Eaton, already
an extremely busy road; in fact, it is proposed that, in order
to facilitate the running of the tram, active steps would be taken
to divert more traffic onto this road. Accident reduction remains
an unproven factor, given that Line 1 has been running for so
short a time. The advantage of reduced journey times cannot be
evaluated at present, but it would seem that this would be a factor
weighing with a minority of users from Chilwell and Beeston, who
already enjoy excellent bus services on an west/east axis to Nottingham
City Centre. This is a short line and any advantage in journey
times for the tram when compared to buses would be due to the
priority given to the tram over road traffic. If proper priority
were to be given to buses at intersections and by the provision
of dedicated bus lanes, the difference would be much smaller and
buses would have the advantage of greater flexibility of routes
and rapid response to changes in demand.
Constraints upon the success of the route chosen
for the tram are:
(1) Competition with existing bus routes.
Much of the additional patronage necessary to make the proposed
route viable would only be achieved by transfer of passengers
from existing public transport. Unfortunately, on the major route
affected, the NCT 36 and Barton-Trent 5, the buses are crucial
to users whose journeys start too far from the tram route for
it to be of any use to them. Any reduction or rerouting of services
would have serious implications for them. On the 36 route, a frequent
service underused outside peak times, the greater capacity of
the tram would be relevant; the 5 route is one of the busiest
in the area, but the tram route proposed ignores the obvious demand
for improved public transport this demonstrates. The normal 5
journeys, with frequent stops, have recently been supplemented
by an express service.
(2) The stops are at a considerable distance
from each other, making it less accessible than buses, although
this has been addressed in Chilwell, where it is claimed the tram
would help end social deprivation by providing easier access to
jobs. However, the tram is at a greater distance from the targeted
area than the bus and it is unlikely therefore to be an inducement,
once the novelty phase has passed.
(3) The size and location of the park-and-ride
site would make it unlikely that it would offer much relief to
parallel routes and there is no provision for parking for tram
passengers along the route through Beeston and Chilwell, other
than in competition with users of existing car parks or by parking
on residential streets.
(4) The proposals do not address problems
Beeston and Chilwell have with lack of public transport routes
from the north and links with Beeston rail station. As rail users
can use London trains from Beeston, this should have been taken
into account.
(5) Although there is some evidence that
travellers into Nottingham do transfer from bus to the tram on
Nottingham's Line 1, aided by the cross-ticketing arrangements
on Nottingham City Transport, people here are not accustomed to
a multiple transfers between forms of transport. Cross-ticketing
does not work with bus companies other than NCT.
(6) Relief of traffic congestion and improvements
in air quality along the route would be minimal. At peak times,
all the principal highways through Chilwell and Beeston are congested
and the siting of a major supermarket with its 400 space car park
in the town centre can only add to this. Through the town the
tram will be in competition with, and probably contribute to a
build up of, slow-moving and standing traffic and published studies
have demonstrated that air quality is damaged most by this situation.
The National Audit Commission report published earlier this year
found that trams had only a limited effect on congestion, pollution
and accidents. Evidence from areas currently served by trams is
that early reduction in congestion has not been maintained.
(7) Local businesses are concerned that the
loss of a substantial number of small and medium sized retail
units, of which only a small number will be able to relocate in
the town centre, thus reducing the variety of retail outlets and
therefore the attraction of the area for the shopper, together
with the problems of trading profitably during the construction
phase, will mean that the tram would have a negative economic
effect rather than the promised regeneration.
It is feared that the real motivation behind
these proposals is the creation of a commuter line to serve Nottingham
City Centre.
SURVEYS OF
PUBLIC OPINION
Following a rather sketchy initial survey when
the public were invited to submit suggestions for routes, NET
commissioned an NOP survey, of which our information is based
solely on the Summary Report prepared by NOP Social and Political
on behalf of NET in November 2002, as NET has refused to make
available any further detail. However, between late July and the
end of August 2002, 994 interviews were conducted "in Beeston".
The summary report covered the answers to 16 questions asked out
of a possible 22 plus and covered:
(a) opinions on traffic congestion in Nottingham
and whether there was a need for improvement;
(b) awareness of the construction of Line
1 and of proposals for Lines 2 and 3;
(c) attitudes towards the new tram lines;
(d) likely usage of them; and
(e) a series of questions on the proposals
generally.
The interviews were conducted with residents
living within about 500 metres of the proposed route, thus excluding
many likely to be seriously affected by the proposals in their
use of public and private transport, while concentrating on those
most likely to benefit. It was also felt that the questions were
worded and arranged in such a way as to get the desired response.
The BCBRA survey was based on the electoral
wards of Beeston West, Chilwell East and Chilwell West, taking
every tenth person on the electoral roll, 937 in all, 374 from
Beeston Ward and 563 from Chilwell. 539 responded, ie 57.5%.
It was found that only 14% used public transport
to get to work, while 30% used it for leisure, the inference being
that the majority of those surveyed used private transport to
go to work. Most people surveyed had existing bus stops nearer
to them than the proposed tram stops and only a very small proportion
contemplated changing to the tram. There was general ignorance
regarding projected journey times and only 23% felt the tram would
have an appreciable effect on traffic congestion. As regards the
cost of the tram, only 34% were aware of the estimated cost of
the proposals and there was resistance to 25% of the cost being
met through local taxation. When asked for their preferences as
to the spending of public money, most chose law and order or education
services, rather than the tram. 67% of those surveyed did not
allocate tram lines any priority whatsoever.
FINANCING OF
TRAM ROUTES
The question has been frequently raised whether
tram schemes represent value for money, as they have a history
of running well over budget. Numerous schemes have been delayed
or abandoned on the grounds of cost. In our own area, Nottingham's
Line 1 was estimated to cost £88 million in 1998, but by
late 2004 this had risen to over £200 million. The line became
operational after a six-month delay to deal with problems and
there is still remedial work to be done to deal with problems
of noise and vibration.
Private sector contractors have faced significant
losses from involvement with tram schemes, with the Nottingham
phase 1 contractor Carillion suffering a £10 million fall
in profits as a result of its association with the schemes. Such
losses have been repeated elsewhere and can only act to increase
future contract bid prices as a means of insurance against further
loss. As the Nottingham City Council and the Nottinghamshire County
Council have recently experienced great difficulty in managing
their financial affairs effectively, local people are sceptical
of their capacity to control expenditure and would anticipate
that costs would spiral in the manner characteristic of these
schemes.
The financing of Lines 2 and 3 would require
the participating authorities to raise 25% of the cost locally,
presumably by means of some form of local taxation, the most probable
choices being a workplace parking levy or a congestion charge.
Both these options would be highly unpopular with local people
and could deter employers from locating in Nottingham in preference
to other cities which did not have such measures in place. Raising
the money by means of more general taxation, such as the council
tax or local income tax, would mean taxpayers throughout the county
paying for a service which was far removed from them geographically
and from which they could derive little or no benefit. The promoters
need to guarantee that these massive funds can be raised and prove
how it would be done.
Nottingham's Line 1, which has only been in
operation for a few months, is claimed as a financial success,
but it is surely impossible to prove this until audited accounts
for the first year's trading are available. The tram is not achieving
its full potential as there are problems with non-payment of fares,
which will require further investment in ticket machines, etc.
Patronage is attracted by cheap all-day fares etc, which cannot,
perhaps, be sustained in the long term. At the same time, there
has been an adverse financial effect on bus services around and
to the north of the tram terminus at Hucknall and on the Robin
Hood rail line serving the north of the county, with the potential
for reduced public transport services for those living beyond
this terminus.
ALTERNATIVES TO
LIGHT RAIL
Our Association see our community as requiring,
now and in the future, the utmost flexibility in the improvement
and development of public transport services and we do not feel
that the tram line proposed to run through our community could
provide this.
Although the County Council is joined with the
City Council in this enterprise, the area of the county to be
served by the line is very small so the major benefactor of the
current proposals is the City Council. Development and regeneration
in close proximity to the line within the city must be on brown
field sites and therefore limited in extent and time scale. However,
the City Council apparently see a future need for increasing worker
numbers on finite sites, drawing them in from increasing distances
at considerable expense in travelling and associated costs. Within
our own community, the only area for potential development close
to the line is a limited amount of Green Belt which we wish to
retain.
It is interesting to note that, until money
for a light rail system became available, Nottingham City Council
and the Highways Agency showed very little interest in improving
access to the city from the west. No park-and-ride sites were
established nor were dedicated bus lanes provided outside the
city limits until very recently.
Several major employers are located in Beeston,
although their sites will not be benefited by the tram scheme
they are likely to be adversely affected by measures such as workplace
parking levy and it is probable that the southern part of Broxtowe
enjoys a surplus of workers coming into the borough over those
travelling out to work in other areas, including Nottingham City.
The community is also becoming affected by factors such as studentification
of areas of low cost housing, forcing first time buyers who are
also in the early years of their working life to settle further
and further from the city.
We feel that, rather than allowing residential
areas far from the city centre to become dormitory suburbs, employment
opportunities should be created in peripheral centres, an aim
which can only be achieved by a truly flexible public transport
service, which could be achieved by the intelligent use of buses.
If bus services are properly supported by park-and-ride sites,
bus lanes and bus priority at intersections and on-board conductors,
we believe that acceptable journey times can be achieved and a
reduction in the use of private transport achieved.
We are assured by Trent-Barton buses that, for
an investment of only a small fraction of the cost of the tram,
they could purchase a fleet of state-of-the-art buses, which,
if the above measures could be taken, would provide a service
to equal that of the tram but covering a much wider catchment
area.
CONCLUSION
In our own case, in our community, the tram
represents the imposition of an unacceptably rigid transport route,
at enormous financial cost, which will probably not pay its way
and will not achieve its other aims of reducing congestion and
pollution on a route where it can only be accommodated by squeezing
it in, leaving a trail of destruction. In fact, it will destroy
homes, bring noise and disruption to previously quiet neighbourhoods,
create a nuisance in close proximity to elderly persons' homes,
destroy businesses and make the town far less interesting and
attractive, rob the community of open space and amenity, especially
by the loss of large numbers of mature trees. Our community is
being asked to pay far too high a price for questionable benefits.
If this is the cost of light rail schemes, they need to be closely
examined as a matter of urgency.
Before any government commits vast sums of public
money to LRT systems in future, full independent evaluation of
existing systems should be carried out along with full and open
public consultation at the beginning. Each new scheme proposed
should be scrutinised fully to see if all claims can be met.
Barbara Cliffe
Secretary
February 2005
|
