Click here for General FAQ's
Click here for Chilwell via Beeston and
QMC FAQ's
What were the results of the NOP opinion poll?
An alternative route is available (via Queen’s Drive) isn’t it?
I live alongside the old railway embankment –
what mitigation measures are you likely to provide?
How long would it take on a tram to travel from Compton
Acres / Wilford to the Old Market Square?
Could objectors lobby the Inspector at any Public
Inquiry to change the route to CQD?
I am concerned about the privacy and security of my
property if the tram passes close by.
Will the tram increase the risk of flooding at Coronation
Avenue, Wilford?
Why are you proposing to build on green belt land?
Your Questions...
Q: What were the results of the NOP opinion poll?
Over the Summer, NOP, an independent national research company, undertook an opinion poll of the views of the public along the route of each proposed line. For the Clifton via Wilford route, the results show that:
• Three quarters of people asked believed that public transport
needs to be improved.
• Only 5% of people asked believed trams were unsafe.
• 3 people to every 1 approved of the route of Line Two (Clifton
via Wilford).
• 4 people to every 1 approved of the re-opening of old railway routes
for public transport.
back to questions
Q: An alternative route is available
(via Queen’s Drive) isn’t it?
No it isn’t. In the April and May 2002 reports to the City and County
Councils we reported that our consultants’ feasibility studies had
shown that the route via Queen’s Drive (CQD) would not be viable
and could not be supported by Government, as it falls substantially below
the criteria for funding. Journey times were calculated to be significantly
slower, potential patronage less and capital costs over £25 million
more.
The feasibility data indicated relatively low levels of travel to the
Riverside commercial area, primarily due to the low-density development
and wide dispersal of people travelling to the area. People who travel
to work in the Queen's Drive area do so only once a day, at peak periods.
They come from all over the conurbation and beyond, as do visitors to
the retail outlets. Only a small proportion travel from Clifton or the
A453.
The greatest majority of potential tram journeys in the corridor are predicted
to be to and from residential areas (Clifton, Compton Acres, Wilford etc.)
and the city centre, or from the Park and Ride site proposed for the edge
of Clifton. These trips are best served by the Clifton via Wilford (CW)
route which has extremely competitive journey times, high levels of segregation
from road traffic (63% of the route) and the prospect of a very reliable
operation.
back to questions
Q: I live alongside the old
railway embankment – what mitigation measures are you likely to provide?
We anticipate lowering the level of the embankment South of Wilford Lane
to reduce any overlooking effect from people travelling on the trams and
to provide space for vegetation and tree planting. This planting will
provide a screen to adjacent properties, maintain a pleasant local environment
and contribute to maintaining a local wildlife habitat. Noise barriers
could also be erected where necessary and a path would be included for
pedestrians.
More detailed plans will be put to the public in the next few months as
our design work nears the next stage of development. We want to hear your
views on these plans and it is important that you get involved and have
your say on these local issues.
back to questions
Q: How long would it take on
a tram to travel from Compton Acres / Wilford to the Old Market Square?
Current estimates point to a journey time of 9 minutes from Coronation
Avenue, 12 minutes from Compton Acres and 14 minutes from Ruddington Lane
and you wouldn’t have to change trams to other destinations as Line
Two trams would continue onto the route of Line One through the heart
of the city centre.
back to questions
Q: Why are you proposing another
Park and Ride site in the Greenbelt south of Clifton when one is planned
at Ratcliffe on Soar?
There is a proposal by Midland Mainline to build a 'parkway' station with
a Park and Ride near Ratcliffe on Soar power station. This may well attract
a few car users travelling into Nottingham, but the rail service would
be relatively infrequent and so of limited attraction. It is expected
that most use of the parkway station would be by passengers travelling
to London or the north without having to start their journey in the centre
of Nottingham and benefiting from an enhanced train service as trains
from Leeds, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham would all stop at this point.
Therefore, the parkway station will not be a substitute for the proposed
NET Park and Ride facility.
By contrast, the NET Park and Ride site, situated on the edge of the built
up area, would be best placed to attract drivers before they enter the
most congested roads and where they could connect with a very frequent
and reliable tram service into the centre of Nottingham and beyond.
back to questions
Q: Could objectors lobby
the Inspector at any Public Inquiry to change the route to CQD?
Following further design and appraisal work and subject to the agreement
of both Councils, NET would apply under the Transport and Works Act 1992
(TWA) for the powers to build and operate the Clifton via Wilford and
Chilwell via Beeston and QMC routes. We would not apply for, or include
in any application, the Clifton via Queen’s Drive (CQD) route because
it does not meet the Government’s criteria for funding.
The Public Inquiry, if called, would consider the merits of routes put
forward in any TWA application. The Inquiry’s main purpose is to
give objectors a chance to put their case to the Inspector and for him/her
to decide whether the proposals meet with the public interest.
It will be up to the Inspector to decide what information can be presented
to the Inquiry but he/she will not usually consider routes other than
those presented in the TWA application. This is because major changes
to the routes would require a new TWA application and the Public Inquiry’s
remit would relate only to the current application (i.e. the Clifton via
Wilford route).
The Inspector would report to the Secretary of State for Transport (currently
Rt. Hon. Alistair Darling MP) who would make a final decision on the application
documents and the Inspector’s report from any Public Inquiry. The
decision could only be further challenged in the High Court, if procedures
or rules had been broken during the TWA process.
Q: I am concerned about the privacy and security of my property if the tram passes close by.
A: If you already live beside a road, the passage of the tram will make little difference to the amount that vehicle occupants can look into your homes. In this respect it would be much like living on a new bus route. Where the tram would pass along quieter roads, it is acknowledged that this may mean more passengers passing your property. However the presence of the tram may actually act as a deterrent to illegal or anti-social behaviour, particularly near stops which will have full CCTV coverage, with video links to the police.
If the Wilford embankment route is chosen, this is already accessible
to the public and people walking along the top can see down into gardens
and homes. One of the reasons the proposal for this route option includes
removal of the embankment is to reduce this overlooking effect and provide
space for visual screening. Again, the CCTV coverage at stops will help
with security.
Q: Will the tram increase the risk of flooding at Coronation Avenue, Wilford?
A: For any routes crossing the river Trent floodplain the Environment Agency will have to be reassured that any new structures do not cause obstructions to the flow of flood water or increase the risk of water over-flowing the flood protection banks. As a general rule, the Agency does not favour new bridge crossings unless these have very wide spans so avoiding construction of piers in the main floodplain, making such options very expensive.
If the route using the old railway embankment is chosen, it is proposed
that the track would follow the line of the flood bank, which would be
widened alongside Coronation Avenue. This could be done with very little
impact on the important nature site of Iremonger Pond. Alternative alignments,
moving away from Coronation Avenue would mean building the track up on
a viaduct across or around Iremonger Pond. Although removing some visual
impact from households along Coronation Avenue these alignments would
definitely have an impact on the floodplain and would have more adverse
impacts on the nature site. With these options, a stop serving Wilford
village and the schools would be located up on the embankment which would
make it inconvenient and hard to access, especially for those who have
mobility difficulties.
Q: Why are you proposing to build on green belt land?
A: The Government planning policy guidance note PPG13 permits the development of Park and Ride in green belt providing certain conditions are met.
The route across the green belt would be designed sympathetically with
appropriate landscaping measures and existing footpath links would be
maintained. The track would be ballasted preventing its use by any other
vehicle. Building a Park and Ride site in green belt land does not in
any way reduce the protection the land has against residential and commercial
development.
