NottinghamExpressTransit

* High capacity with regular services
* Fast access to many parts of Nottingham (City Centre, Station, District Centres etc.)
* Links to other modes of transport (park and ride, cycle parks, bus routes, national rail etc.)
* Accessibility for all (Line One vehicles are 100% low floor and fully comply with the Disability Discrimination Act)
* Comfortable public transport (Line One trams are fully air conditioned and smooth riding)
* An environmentally friendly addition to Nottingham's integrated transport strategy.
* Tackling congestion and pollution which is already affecting our ecomony.

Greater Nottingham's future economy, environment and accessibility will suffer as more and more traffic wishes to travel on its roads. The congestion and the pollution that this traffic creates is a challenge that our conurbation needs to address now if it is to continue to grow as a vibrant and attractive area to live, work and visit.

In other cities in the UK and Europe, trams have been successful in reducing congestion and pollution by persuading people to switch from driving their cars to using public transport for some journeys.

We all know that congestion on key routes at peak times is a problem. In the future, congestion will become a whole-day phenomenon and it won't just affect the key routes. If we don't act soon our whole area will suffer from unacceptable levels of traffic congestion through most of the day.

In the past, the sole answer to our expanding transport needs was to build more and more roads - a short term, unsustainable policy. Future transport development cannot simply follow the model of the past as it fails to take account of the long-term needs of our community. We must develop a more sustainable transport system, taking full account of the social, economic and environmental impacts of our decisions over the long term, ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come.

NET is an important part of this wider sustainable transport strategy for Greater Nottingham which is set out in the City and County Councils' Local Transport Plan. A good way to explore our plan in a user-friendly way is to log on to www.thebigwheel.org.uk.

Our Local Transport Plan seeks to accommodate the rising demand for travel; to make our area safe, pollution-free, pleasant and healthy, economically successful and an attractive place to live, work and invest in. It aims to support existing communities and open up opportunities by developing attractive alternatives to the car that are accessible to as many people as is possible.

To achieve these aims Greater Nottingham needs a more integrated transport system with much better public transport options. This will require investment in a package of measures such as our railways, bus services, Park and Ride and cycle and pedestrian networks. However, the tram network is considered to be the most essential element of the package because of the considerable change in public transport use it is expected to achieve, particularly on busy corridors and where significant lengths of segregated running, avoiding traffic delay, are possible.

A network of tram lines would also offer the opportunity to provide through services to Line One stops and to other possible lines. Lines entering Nottingham from the south would not terminate at the railway station but continue as through routes on Line One. So for example, you could travel from Clifton to the Royal Centre (Theatre Royal/Cornerhouse etc.) in one journey without changing.

back to questions

Why are we re-building a system that was ripped out in the past? Why not build trolley buses or fuel cell/hydrogen buses?

Nottingham's modern tram will be very different from the historic vehicles and systems removed from our streets in the mid 1900s.

It is technologically advanced, clean, efficient, fully accessible and very much part of the modern city image - as demonstrated by its adoption in many cities in Europe, the US and elsewhere. In France, for example, brand new tram systems have been built in a number of cities including Strasbourg, Orleans, Nantes, Grenoble, Montpellier and parts of Paris over the past 15 years, with more to come.

Fuel Cell technology for use in modern bus fleets is a welcome addition to the efforts to reduce pollution and it may very well have a future role in Greater Nottingham. Currently, however, it is not fully proven in service and on busy corridors it still has the same limitations on capacity and reliability in traffic as diesel-engined buses.

Before deciding to promote a tram system for Greater Nottingham a number of different transport systems were assessed. Most were considered as too costly, environmentally intrusive or inappropriate in terms of the likely passenger numbers for our city. For example, underground systems can only be justified in the very biggest cities (London, Glasgow etc.). Elevated monorails are highly visually intrusive. Even trolley buses require more visually intrusive overhead wires than the tram. Trolley buses also carry fewer passengers and therefore would have more impact on traffic flows. On segregated routes they would require full road construction rather than the ballasted track suitable for trams. The tram was concluded to be the best option for Nottingham and it is important that any new routes have the same technology as Line One to allow for through journeys.

A mixture of systems can only be justified in the very largest cities where separate networks can co-exist, often serving wholly different areas. In a conurbation the size of Greater Nottingham the needs of integration and economics require public transport provision to be built on the modes of rail, bus and tram.

back to questions

I am concerned that Sheffield's Supertram was initially unsuccessful and cost local taxpayers.

Line One of NET is a PFI project and as such all operating and patronage risk is taken by the Concessionaire and not the Councils. We would expect further lines to follow this model and shift the risk away from the Councils. The situation in Sheffield was different and the tram system did struggle initially, suffering from strong competition with buses. Nottingham City Transport is part of the Arrow consortium and will integrate trams with its bus routes rather than competing with the tram. This fits with our vision of integrated transport in Nottingham. Sheffield's tram is now successful as are the systems in Manchester, Croydon and Birmingham.

back to questions

Will my Council Tax rise because of the tram?

The funding for further NET lines has yet to be determined and will be subject to detailed discussions with Government. However, we can take guidance from current Government advice and the experiences of Line One.

The central Government funds we would have to bid for to fund tram routes is ring fenced for new transport systems; it is not available for other purposes such as schools, hospitals or buses. If we are to have a successful bid for Government and Private Sector finance we must pass certain tests. Farebox income must exceed running costs and the costs of the scheme must be met by benefits, measured in terms of reduced journey times for passengers, traffic decongestion benefits for other road users, accident savings, regeneration and employment gains, reductions in pollution, etc. Only the most robust options will pass these economic and commercial tests. Also, no private company would be able to borrow money from banks if they couldn't show that the project would be viable. Our transport consultants are assessing the relative economic performance of the route options to help the councils to choose which, if any are the most appropriate to pursue. Further commercial analysis will follow later.

For Line One the construction costs are almost entirely being met initially by the private sector through bank loans and equity. Only about 5% is public investment (Government, European and Council funds). All design and build risks therefore lie with the private sector contractors. Once in operation, the Councils will use funds from Government (Revenue Support Grant) to pay an 'availability' fee to the operator for running the service against performance targets of reliability, punctuality, cleanliness, good maintenance, etc. The farebox revenue will be at the risk of the private sector. The availability fee ceiling is fixed. No financial risk falls on the local Councils if less people use the tram than expected - but if patronage is much higher than expected the Councils receive some of the profit. Therefore there should be no risk of increases in Council Tax.

For new lines it is expected that a proportion, possibly 25%, of the cost will have to be met locally. However this could come from a number of sources including council owned land, contributions from developers, cash from reserves and capital budgets, deductions from future Local Transport Plan or other capital receipts from Government and, significantly, the City Council's proposed workplace parking levy. Patronage revenue risk would again lie with the private sector concessionaire - there would be no operating subsidy. It is therefore expected that any burden on City and County Council taxpayers would be minimal.

back to questions

We already have a good bus service, why do we need a tram? Buses are empty all the time, why will trams be any different?

Our proposals are about planning for the transport needs of the future, not simply replacing the public transport system of today. As our travel demands increase year on year we need to ensure this does not mean more and more cars on our roads. We need to act now if our communities are not to grind to a halt through ever-increasing car dependency.

The primary aim of the proposed network of tram lines is to bring the environmental, economic and accessibility benefits of this high quality public transport system to as much of the conurbation as is reasonably and economically practicable. We believe that these capacity and quality needs cannot be achieved by improvements to bus services alone. We see trams and buses working together to build a better public transport service for the future.

Where NET would replace existing underused bus routes, experience indicates more people will be attracted to NET by the quality of the services. Where the tram would replace well-used local bus services, the current bus passengers will benefit from the better service that the tram will bring. Operators of the replaced bus routes would be encouraged to run feeder buses in corridors not served by the tram, where together the two types of transport (bus and tram) can serve a wider area more effectively and efficiently. Thus, people travelling from Gotham, Ruddington, East Leake and other villages or from Stapleford, Sandiacre and Toton might use the bus to link with NET at an interchange tramstop. We need additional public transport of a quality and reliability to persuade car drivers not to use their cars for every journey, especially into the City and District Centres. For areas not covered in this way, buses will continue to serve those communities.

In many areas of the conurbation, the bus will remain the most appropriate public mode, as it is very flexible and can penetrate into the heart of residential communities. However, once buses get on to main traffic routes, they can be subject to traffic delay. Even with the provision of bus lanes, the ability to provide a fast and reliable journey is mainly determined by the extent to which buses can be given priority over other traffic at junctions and to enter the heart of the city. Unlike buses, trams can be accommodated in pedestrianised areas of sufficient width (e.g. the city centre) where they are convenient for passengers and do not impact on other traffic. In many areas, segregated tram lanes can be constructed to avoid traffic congestion and to reduce journey times. These segregated tram routes are far more effective than bus lanes as they can only be used by trams with no other traffic able to enter them.

Although it is accepted that, due to a lack of available space, segregated tram lanes cannot be provided on some sections of the proposed tram routes, a single tram can carry as many passengers as three buses and therefore can be given a much greater level of priority at traffic lights and in traffic management arrangements with less impact on other traffic. Similarly, the city centre has minimal spare capacity for bus stops and therefore there is a limit to the number of buses that can be safely accommodated. Using the tram on busy corridors can free up space to allow for bus frequency increases elsewhere and for new routes.

back to questions

How will ticketing work, how much will fares be?

Whatever the technology of the buses, it is intended that they will be as fully integrated with the tram routes as possible. We will seek arrangements with bus operators for feeder services, interchanges and through-ticketing so a customer is able to buy a ticket on the tram that can also be used on the bus and vice versa. This arrangement is already agreed for Line One. This concept of integrated ticketing, timetabling and the provision of good interchange facilities is a major part of the strategy to create an integrated transport system for Greater Nottingham.

Ticket prices on Line One trams will be broadly the same as on a comparable bus journey. Holders of bus passes and concessionary discounts will enjoy the same reduction on trams as on buses. We expect similar arrangements to apply for any tram lines in a future network.

back to questions

I am worried about the safety of a tram system, especially next to schools

All available evidence based on experience elsewhere suggests that trams are among the safest forms of road transport and, by reducing the overall growth in traffic, the tram should help overall to reduce accidents.

Operating speeds would be determined by the Highway Authority and the Railway Inspectorate to ensure that those selected are safe. The tram will strictly observe pre-set speed limits and often run well below them.

A tram has an efficient triple braking system. Consequently, a tram will consistently give high performance at stopping in emergency situations and drivers will receive a high level of training. The vehicle follows a predictable path and is easily seen by other road users, including pedestrians. Trams have an excellent safety record and should not increase danger outside local schools, where children having to cope with the many passing and parked cars are the main safety concern. By encouraging people, particularly car users, to transfer to the tram, the number of road accidents is expected to fall.

back to questions

What about cyclists?

The importance of thorough design and safety education referred to above applies to cyclists as well as pedestrians. The presence of rails in the road may present a small additional danger to cycle users and this is one of the many issues where we have sought experience elsewhere and had significant advice from local cycle user groups for the detailed design stage of Line One. The design process would look at the exact track alignment and how cycles can move along or across it safely. Consideration would also be given to the provision of separate, parallel cycle routes. As with many matters of detail, we hope you will understand that we cannot be definitive at this early stage of development, but the matter will be addressed at the appropriate time. Any new arrangements would then be incorporated into the road safety education programmes.

back to questions

How can you avoid emergency vehicles being delayed by the tram?

Fire, Ambulance and Police vehicles on emergency call will always be given priority over the tram.

The NET control centre will have direct contact with the emergency services and with the tram drivers, ensuring that the tram is out of the way before the emergency vehicles reach it. The tram would only continue its journey if the route was clear and safe. Delays to the tram in such circumstances would be a relatively rare event and therefore not unacceptable. If necessary, the NET power cables can, in a matter of seconds, be shut off to enable emergency activity to take place unhindered.

back to questions

I am worried about the possible health risks associated with power lines.

There are no known health problems associated with power systems for trams.

The tram system operates on direct current (DC) and therefore does not generate the alternating magnetic fields that have been the subject of concern. The steady magnetic field created by such a direct current supply has no known effect on humans. Secondly, the NET tram system uses a power supply at a relatively low voltage (750v DC). No significant ionisation occurs from a 750v-supply system. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that there is a health risk to any member of the public caused by the presence of the overhead power supply system for NET. There have been public concerns regarding much Higher Voltage AC 'National Grid' or electrified main line railways giving exposure to alternating magnetic fields at high power frequency. Cables for the tram are neither high voltage nor do they produce alternating magnetic fields.

The Health and Safety Executive would require that the tram is a very safe system. The overhead wires would be 5.8 metres (19 feet) above the tracks and would not be a hazard to pedestrians or cyclists. The power is low voltage (750v) direct current which presents no hazard whatsoever for public health.

back to questions

How noisy are trams?

The tram is a relatively quiet form of transport. However it is true that the introduction of occasional noise impacts to a very low noise environment is likely be more disturbing than a similar impact in a location with higher ambient noise levels. Careful design can minimise any impact and this is one of the important factors that will be considered in making route comparisons.

Trams have quiet electric motors and the main source of noise is from the steel wheels running on steel rails. There has been a view, based on measurements taken at Sheffield by the Institute of Hearing Research (IHR), that trams are noisier than buses. This data gives a wide range of noise levels, depending on estimated vehicle speeds and the distance away that the measurements were taken, varying between 68 and 87dB(A) for trams and between 73 and 91dB(A) for buses. This wide scatter makes simplistic comparison difficult. Since noise decays with distance a meaningful comparison of noise levels must adopt a standard distance. Correcting the Sheffield data to account for distance would give an average level for trams of 80.0dB(A) and for buses 81.3dB(A). In the Sheffield study therefore tram noise is slightly lower than bus noise although it would be unreliable to draw any general conclusion from such a small sample. Also, the Sheffield tram is larger, heavier and more powerful (more motors to power the vehicle up Sheffield's steep inclines) than the Nottingham tram. The Nottingham tram is most likely to be quieter; noise specialists ERM have made measurements of the latest generation of modern trams elsewhere and found noise levels at least 5dB(A) lower than those reported by the IHR study.

These comparisons also take no account of possible mitigation measures such as the speed of the vehicle (likely to be relatively slow through residential streets - less noise), track design, or the presence of any intervening obstructions (walls, earth bunds or from within a building etc.) all of which reduce the impact. Noise nuisance is also dependent on the number of vehicles passing. One tram has a similar passenger carrying capacity to three buses and so there are fewer incidents of noise overall. And experience elsewhere indicates 20-25% of tram passengers will be people who otherwise would have travelled by car - so even less noise.

back to questions

Will my property lose value?

Experience elsewhere indicates property prices have not fallen following the introduction of a tram route - indeed many estate agents believe that houses are more saleable near tram routes.

People who live on one of the route options have expressed concern that the value of their homes will fall due to the tram. This is an understandable concern and one for which, regrettably, we can give no categorical answer because there are so many factors which affect the property market. However, estate agents in cities where trams have been introduced increasingly see the tram as positive to house prices. In Manchester houses next to and within walking distance of tram stops were more "saleable" and for people looking for a new home, being within easy access of the tram was a factor listed as a "medium to high" priority (Bridgfords Estate Agents). Similar positive views were made by estate agents in Sheffield where it is seen as "an advantage [to live close to the tram] as it gives easy access to the city centre" (Blundells). In Dublin, where work is underway on a tram system, agents are saying, "that the tram will definitely have a positive effect on the area" (Sherry Fitzgerald) and "the building work is not going to become a critical factor in the property market and it certainly will not result in the depreciation of values. People can recognise the long-term benefits" (Gunne Residential). Already, the Nottingham tram is being cited as a positive feature by property developers along Line One (The Pentland Property - new apartments on Radford Road) and on Channel 4's programme "Location, Location, Location"). The picture appears to be that houses are not devalued.

If any property is acquired by the project the owners will be fully compensated at the market value. Even if no part of your property is acquired you may, in due course, be entitled to compensation for 'injurious affection' (depreciation of your property due to 'physical factors') under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. These physical factors are noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting or discharge of substances onto your property from operation (not construction) of the tram. You may also be able to claim for noise insulation under the Railway Noise Insulation Regulations 1996. (Contact DTLR on 0870 122 6236 for a leaflet). There is currently no compensation for loss of amenity.

back to questions

I am concerned about the effects of construction.

If a route to Clifton goes ahead, the main construction of the whole line would be expected to be completed in about two years, although, at any one location, works would be over in much less time. It is inevitable that construction would cause some localised noise and disturbance and involve temporary traffic arrangements. The impact on people living locally or needing to travel through the area would be mitigated by sensitive working methods, close public liaison and intensive communication of information, as is being utilised during the construction of Line One.

Work for the on-street sections broadly involves three stages:

* Moving and renewing the utility pipes and cables under the road (gas, electric, sewers, telephone etc.);

* Excavating a broad trench and laying communications cables and a concrete slab on which the rails are fixed and then surrounded by the final road surfacing as well as realigning and resurfacing the road and footways;

* Putting up poles and the overhead power cables, erecting tramstop shelters, signs, etc and installing signals.

Each stage is done as a rolling programme so any one location only has works for a limited period. Work would normally be undertaken in approximately 100 metre long sections and half the road width at a time. For example the most impact is in the second stage - track laying - where each work section would last about eight weeks. Essential access to properties would be maintained, diversions would be implemented for passing traffic and safe routes provided for pedestrians. Crossings of important traffic routes would be undertaken so as not to cause major delays. There would, no doubt, be more impact if a route was chosen that utilised considerable lengths or numerous crossings of roads (e.g. parts of the Queen's Drive route and along the pink and red - Ruddington Lane - routes) but for options which simply cross the road (e.g. the orange route - old railway embankment - where it crosses Wilford Lane) the impact would be small.

Where the tram doesn't run on roads the works are simpler with much less need for utility diversion and a simpler track formation. However if the Clifton via Wilford route is chosen and the old railway embankment is removed to allow for screening, a footpath and other environmental mitigation, works to remove the material forming the embankment would involve 2-3 months of excavations.

back to questions

Will the tram delay traffic once it's up and running?

Traffic delay during operation of the tram system would be minimal.

A tram scheme will only obtain Government support if the overall costs are balanced by benefits. Significant in the benefit calculation is the impact on other road users. A successful scheme must be capable of reducing congestion and overall traffic delay by persuading more people to choose not to use their cars for some journeys. This would not happen if the passage of the tram severely delayed other traffic.

When running in traffic, the tram is just one additional long vehicle and is actually a little narrower than large lorries and buses. The tram would share space with other traffic and therefore does not prevent other traffic movements, cause delay or reduce ability for people to enter or leave their drives, etc. Where the tram crosses a relatively minor road it would have priority at traffic lights but again, delay to other traffic would be small. For example, a simple crossing of Wilford Lane would stop traffic for about 20 seconds every 5 minutes, or a total of 4 minutes in every hour (assuming a 10 minute peak service - less off-peak) and the tram crossing signals would be linked to adjacent traffic lights to minimise disruption to traffic flow. At junctions where the tram needed to be given priority, traffic lights would be introduced if not already there and alterations to the junction layout would be undertaken to ensure an acceptable capacity was maintained. At crossings of more major roads or at complex junctions, full priority for the tram may not be feasible, thus reducing the tram journey time somewhat.

back to questions

How will you stop people driving to tram stops and parking up? How will residents’ parking schemes work?

We have said that if parking near tram stops in residential areas becomes a problem, then we will look at introducing residents’ parking schemes. The passes required and parking spaces are free to residents and people visiting residents and there are fixed penalties for illegal parking. The County Council is currently looking at options to improve the enforcement of parking restrictions. The City Council has recently introduced ‘get streetwise’ – these changes mean that council parking attendants can now also issue tickets. The likelihood of being caught illegally parked has therefore been increased dramatically in the city area.

back to questions

What happens next?

The City and County Councils have decided to pursue design work on two preferred routes for the next lines; to Clifton via Wilford and to Chilwell via Beeston and QMC.
After the design consultation has been completed next year, following agreement from the two councils and subject to approval of the economic case by the Secretary of State for Transport, we will commence the process to obtain a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). This would give the councils the powers to build and operate the new tram lines. The process also provides statutory rights for people to submit their comments on the proposals to the Secretary of State.

We expect an independent Public Inquiry to take place, probably in 2004, where the application for a TWAO is considered and in which all interested parties can participate. The inquiry will be extensively advertised in good time when more details and dates are known.

The final decision will be taken by the Secretary of State. If approval is granted works would not start before late 2005.

back to question

If a tram breaks down how does the system operate?

A modern tram system is extremely reliable and breakdowns are very rare events. The operator is developing procedures to deal with events such as these including the provision of crossovers so that trams can turn back to continue on as much of the network as possible. One tram can also push/tow another and every tram will carry backup batteries. The operator will also have a road/rail vehicle (with road tyres and rail wheels), which would be able to tow a tram.

back to question

Why are you bothering with a public inquiry?

As part of the Transport and Works Act (1994) process, the Government would call a public inquiry once we, the promoting councils (NET), have submitted an application.
An independent Inspector, appointed by the Government, would chair any public inquiry. Inspectors are specially chosen for their ability to handle inquiries and weigh up the evidence.

The Inspector would make sure that the inquiry is open, fair and impartial; report on objections that are presented at the inquiry; comment on the arguments for and against the proposals and consider the relevant facts and arrive at conclusions on the matters put to the inquiry and recommend whether or not the proposals should be approved with or without modification, or give reasons for not making any recommendation.

It is important to remember that the Inspector simply makes a recommendation. The Secretary of State makes the final decision after considering all the representations and objections, the Inspector's report and the Government's policies.

back to question

Will trams link to Line One or will I have to change at the station?

The new lines will directly link to Line One, offering through journeys to the city centre and the north without changing trams. So, if you wanted to, you could travel from Clifton to the Old Market Square, Royal Centre, Nottingham Trent University and to other stops on Line One without changing. 47% of people asked in the recent NOP opinion poll were unaware of this link.

One of the clear successes of the Croydon system is its integration with the local bus services. What plans do NET have for integration?

NCT (Nottingham City Transport) is a partner within the Line One contract - the project will benefit from the provision of new feeder buses and a reduction in competing services (buses would not offer the same access, reliability, speed, ride quality or punctuality as the tram). The use of elderly and disabled persons concessionary fares, joint ticketing and joint timetabling, on trams and buses is planned as well. With further lines there can be no guarantee that any bus company will be involved. We have held initial discussions with the companies and we will encourage them to provide these integration benefits.

back to question

What plans do NET have for disbaled people?

Nottingham Express Transit will provide unprecedented access to public transport for disabled people. People with mobility or sight impairment and/or hearing difficulties will all benefit.

Nottingham Express Transit is the first UK tram system to be fully compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act requirements before going into service. As such, disability issues have been considered very closely by those developing and promoting the tram system, with help and advice from the national Joint Mobility Unit and local Disability Advisory Group.

A full-scale tram replica was created which allowed these groups to make comments on the design before the real trams went into production. When the replica went on display in Nottingham's Old Market Square in September 2001, 20,000 people visited it, including many in wheelchairs, powered mobility scooters and people with other mobility needs. One of the most heart-warming comments about the event came from those people who said it would give them a new freedom to get out and about.
Improvements are being made all the time to other types of public transport to make it easier to use for disabled passengers. But with NET we were starting from scratch and have been able to incorporate many special features into the system, such as wheelchair spaces, audible and visual announcements and thoughtful design.

I am concerned that Croydon Tramlink is currently experiencing financial difficulties. Could this happen to NET?

The funding arrangements for Croydon Tramlink and Midland Metro tram systems are similar, in that they both solely rely on operating profits to pay back the bank debts incurred during construction. This differs significantly from the way NET is funded, which is not relying on operating profits in the same way.

It is also worth noting that, due to tough and possibly unrealistic contracts with financial backers, both Croydon Tramlink and Midland Metro were expected to start showing high patronage figures from day one - whereas a gradual build-up of service is required to satisfy NET's contractual obligations. In Croydon's case, the tram system has seen an impressive rise in patronage figures but the profit from these has been limited by a fare structure controlled by Transport for London (meaning there are a high number of reduced fare passengers) and by an unexpectedly high proportion of short journeys. In Midland Metro's case, there were extreme difficulties in getting the system running efficiently and consequently public confidence in the service was low - although passenger numbers are now on the increase.

Since so-called 'second generation' tram systems are relatively new to the UK, operators, financial backers and the Government are now realising that it is more realistic to set up funding structures which allow patronage to build up gradually.

The Nottingham scheme will receive Government 'availability' payments every month for the duration of the 27-year initial concession period, linked to operating performance. This means that assuming Arrow is able to meet the agreed targets for performance, such as reliability, punctuality, cleanliness and so on, it should be able to meet the majority of its bank debt obligations. Any operating profits will be used to pay off only a small amount of the debts, as well as providing a return on the equity investment put into the project by the Arrow companies.

So even if no operating profit was made, Arrow are unlikely to face bankruptcy.

Not only is the NET scheme financed differently and so will not suffer the difficulties faced by Croydon, there are significant protections within the various contractual arrangements to ensure the NET service remains 'on track'. The NET arrangements have been thoroughly scrutinised by HM Treasury in the knowledge of the less robust arrangements for earlier tram schemes - potentially offering a model for future systems to follow.

back to question

Line One | Line Two | Line Three | More Information