For "Artigen" News Tickers see: [World News] [SciTech] [Coolsite] [InfoTech] [Health]

This is the page that started it all!

I had been involved in a series of exchanges with one "Stanley of Basford" on various BBC Nottingham forums.

They never appeared.

Then a note from the webmaster appeared "reminding" everyone of the maximum length of post allowed.

My "long" response (see below) to that never appeared either.

So I decided to create a web page to publish the posts myself: and this is that web page!

[Top ^]

Search WWW Search It's YOUR Duty!

[Top ^]

Hi Stanley, so I'm not the only one awake over Christmas. Hope you had a good time.

1) Don't know either, that's why I asked. Be interesting to see how it compares with the cost of the tram project: could you run the whole of NCT for a century on it, or a bus for a week, or something in between (I would have hoped someone at the council/NET had this interesting fact at their fingertips - as it would (should) have been one of the first things considered).

2) Ahhh, so YOU have the figures! (See 1 above).

3a) But do "we" know where the National Grid gets it's power from. Contrary to the green illusion, it's not from a solar panel on the roof of Greenpeace headquarters. It comes from those carbon fuel generators, each one of which pumps out more pollution and greenhouse gas in a week than all the country's drivers do in a year.

So will the tram use some fraction of one stations weekly output, all of it, or several times it?

3b) You say energy consumption per passenger-mile WILL be lower than for buses/cars and that they only use energy when they are moving.

But, and this was the question, is it consumption in the power station, or on the tram - that may be the same, or massively different.

3c) You say pollution is zero at point of use, but what about at point of generation. Somewhat significant when you've lots of people downwind as in cities like ours. DON'T MAKE ME BREATHE YOUR SMOKE!

And are all the greens who protest about the visual pollution of powerlines, and cancer from cables high in the sky, now going to start protesting about the tram (with cables just above passengers' heads/next to pedestrians)?!?!?

4) The tram might have been chosen because of its ability to take tight corners, but the competition was other trams, not merry go round toy buses. We're talking a small TRAIN here, running through olde worlde, non flattened in WW2 and replanned/rebuild, non boulevard disected, non wide open Aussie countryside, British inner city streets, pay attention.

5) Don't really have to ask what powers the (private) operator has: their post says it all: "to move whatever is in the way" ..... "if its path is ever blocked"?

But who mentioned parking? What about those cyclists who moan about cars not giving them enough room. Or a pedestrian with a zimmer frame, or a push chair and three nippers, who can't get across quickly enough. Or someone who's fainted in the street. Or an emergency vehicle. Or an accident. Or an anti tram demo :-) Or a refuse truck (OK, so that would be "parked"). Or a broken down (5 carriage) tram even!!!!

Incidentally, as the greens keep protesting about the death and destruction caused by cars, could we please also have the top and average speeds, and braking distances, of these five carriage/250? passenger road going tra...ms please?

6) You'd also be a bit daft to leave the gas main below the concrete/tarmac/hardcore slab of the road foundation, so why is it only a "Good idea, but hardly a priority. Might be a little expensive relative to the benefits?" How many £Billions pa do "road" works cost road users. But then again, they only pay £36 Billion in motoring taxes, they can afford to fork out a few extra £Billions. Why should the council carry out its statutory duty to minimise road disruption, when it's got its hands full with more important things.....like road disruption.

Incidentally, why is the council ripping out all the tank traps on, is it, Berridge Road. It's not because they are going to divert buses down there while they build the tramway is it? Then again, buses have such little ground clearance, and such tiny wheels, that you couldn't expect them to negotiate tank traps designed for motorbikes and ambulances, could you?! But I'm glad to see that they appear to be replacing them with nice low ones - it's keeping someone employed - and I've always called for more construction work when unemployment is high. I wonder if these will be dug up, and replaced with "proper" speed humps (did you ever read my post about proper proper speed humps?!?!), when the tram construction works have finished?

And at what cost?

Do you have these figures??

7) My point is: "Once Line One has proved its worth - IF it will - they WON'T have ANY case for developing future lines" if "The route was chosen as it's the MOST financially viable."

8) You ask "don't you think bus users will want to use the tram? If there was no current bus service on the NET corridor you'd have to wonder why not."

So? - There is already a public transport option, and low car use on the tram route, as stated by NET, and yourself.

You then say: "As the network develops transfer from car will increase since you'll be able to make your entire journey by the NET. The whole reason for it being a high quality rail-based mode is its ability to attract car users."

But if the whole idea, and the aim of the government/council/greens/etc/etc is to get people out of "polluting/congesting" cars and save the universe, WHY aren't they building it where the drivers go?!?!

And FIRST?!?!?!?

I take it you will never again complain about car users untill the whole NETwork is complete then!

Or are you expecting car users to cycle over to the tram route from West Brigford, or wherever, or just move?

9) Yes, my car would still need oil when it runs out, so I, along with all the other road users who contribute £36 Billion pa in motoring taxes, won't be able to carry on contributing. So, whatever alternative energy source the tram uses, even their own solar panels, how much will they be taxed to make up the shortfall? And how will that affect the calculations?

10) As for "Pleeeaassse, can you say something positive about anything? How's about some answers rather than relentless questions and criticisms?"

That's not my place, nor is this the time.

If you'd asked me 20 years ago to sit down and try to save the world, I'd have been quite happy to.

But if someone says that they ARE going to put speed cameras on a dual carriageway 40mph main road to trap and fine people doing 41mph, and so force them onto residential roads, what "positive suggestions" do you suggest I make?

If someone PUTS tank traps on residential roads, causing drivers to do 1 mph over them, and 80mph in between to achieve an average 40mph, what "positive suggestions" do you suggest I make?

If someone then suggests leaving those motorists to it, while SPENDING £200 Million to run a light railway to serve existing bus users what "positive suggestions" do you then suggest I make?

Do I honestly think returning to car worship is the answer?

Where have I ever suggested that?

As I've said before, it's common sense I worship.

And it's not trams I hate, but ideological claptrap.

[Top ^]

Well, OK, perhaps The Telegraph and The Daily Mail, aren't government spinners, but neither are they that widely read. I don't know where The Daily Express stands now that red rosie has left (or am I thinking of some other paper?), The Times?! - have changed!, The Sun, The Star, don't know if they are rabidly pro or anti at the moment!

But I was thinking more of Today and Newsnight - have you endured the embarrassment of listening to them recently. You'd think that they were labour's straight men, feeding them lines, when they "interview" the government, then when (if) they give the so called "opposition" a "hearing" they spend the whole "interview" heckling and drowning them out.

1)I didn't ask why you want high fuel taxes. I answered your question as to what the groups you say you don't agree with have to gain from high fuel taxes. You might not know why they hold those beliefs either. But you use their arguments!!

2)You asked for evidence of double standards and hypocricy. You got it. You ignored it.

He's the prime minister for goodness sake. NOT the President.

Of the UK, NOT the USSR.

WE pay THEM to run our country NOT visit other ones - we PAY the Queen for that.

He should LEAD by EXAMPLE.

If he wants us to be green, he should be greener.

And he doesn't even have to walk.

Between him, Cherie, and the treasury, surely they can afford an electric Rolls!

But if Ghandi, or Bhudda, or the Dalai Lama were offered the choice of walking along Whitehall, or polluting it, which would they choose?

So why do you defend his hypocritical, double standards?

You say "Let's get your energy figures in Joules/person eh? Electricity is not the problem, carbon-based energy is."

And the difference is?

Or are you a nuclear fuel supporter?

3)You say: "Petrol is important, and that's the problem. You've answered your own question."

No - I answered yours.

So why do you want an essential commodity taxed at 340% - a tax only the poor pay.

The rich and the reasonably well off drive company cars taxed at a fraction of the real value, with all the fuel they can burn thrown in - I know - I've often been in that lucky situation.

You cleverly say "Err... I did geography at university too, but I don't think you can blame the flooding of the rivers Severn and Ouse on isostatic rebound considering they're in the West and North."

But having done geography, you'll also know that they are also in the south, and the east!

Yes, I know it was rivers, not the sea that flooded this time.

But actually, I did civil engineering, after being totally wound up by law.

So I know that water does not usually flow uphill on lower reaches of floodplains.

And yet the sub sea Dutch survived, and we didn't.

You're right when you say "building on flood plains, whilst stupid, does not lead to the warmest and wettest years on record."

But neither does it prove what caused the floods, and certainly not the weather.

But being a geographer, you probably also know that the "records" don't go back very far, and "accurate" ones hardly exist at all, and that even they are disputed.

And that record breaking weather conditions are par for the course throughout geological time.

[Top ^]

Updated 14.05.2002 - all the usual www disclaimers, apologies, acknowledgements, caveats, etc, apply.