Item no

Wards affected: Abbey, Bridge, Clifton East and West, Wilford.

EXECUTIVE BOARD 24 April 2002

NET DEVELOPMENT BOARD 17 April 2002

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR – NET

NOTTINGHAM EXPRESS TRANSIT – NETWORK DEVELOPMENT

1. SUMMARY 1.1 NET is an essential part of the transport strategy for the Greater Nottingham Area to help meet the growing demand for travel in a sustainable way, consistent with the needs of the local economy. Faced with growing traffic congestion, the conurbation’s developing employment, commercial, leisure and environmental scene must be complemented by a transport system that is more attractive, reliable, non-polluting, accessible, compatible with pedestrian areas, high capacity and space efficient than that presently available. As part of the wider, integrated land use and transport strategy, NET is compatible with these criteria. 1.2 Investigations into route options have been undertaken in the three corridors of Beeston & Chilwell, Clifton and West Bridgford and a widespread consultation exercise has been undertaken, the results of which have been independently analysed.

1.3 The investigations show a substantial economic benefit to Greater Nottingham from pursuing routes to Clifton via Wilford and to Beeston and Chilwell via QMC. Alternative route options would not pass Government funding tests. A number of local options have been looked at in Beeston and Wilford but they would have no obvious advantages and have received little public support. The investigation and public consultation identified clear areas of concern and these are dealt with in the report with suggestions of where mitigation measures would ease the problems.

1.4 The West Bridgford routes do not currently pass Government funding tests, and it is considered that neither should be taken forward at this stage, but should be revisited following further reporting on development proposals in Rushcliffe and the Government commissioned A453 and A52 multi-modal studies.

1.5 The report is lengthy because of the complex and important subject matter. It is split into the following sections • Strategic context • Public consultation • Route comparison and selection of preferred routes

1

• Beeston & Chilwell route comparison • Clifton route comparison • West Bridgford route comparison • Concluding comments and the next steps

2. RECOMMENDATIONS IT IS RECOMMENDED that: -

2.1 Members of the NET Development Board Note the conclusions of the report and give their support to the recommendations below.

2.2 Members of the Executive Board (i) The Beeston via QMC & Chilwell extension and Clifton via Wilford routes as identified on Plan 1 be taken forward through the Government economic appraisal process and work continue on these routes in preparation for a Transport and Works Act Order application and that; (a) all relevant environmental issues, in particular the proximity of the Clifton via Wilford route to the Wilwell Cutting Site of Special Scientific Importance, and mitigation measures, be investigated in detail as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment; (b) discussions continue to be held with the public and other interested parties affected by the proposals; (c) the Director of Design and Property Services be authorised to negotiate the advance purchase of required land at Coventry Road, Beeston and Farnborough Road, Clifton in consultation with the County Council; (d) discussions be undertaken with Broxtowe Borough Council to identify a preferred route through Beeston Town Centre; (e) the County Council’s offer to consider a financial assistance package to support the most vulnerable businesses on Chilwell Road/High Road, Chilwell during the construction phase be welcomed; (f) investigations into the scope for the integration of bus and tram services in the proposed routes be undertaken with operators; and (ii) In the light of current uncertainties concerning development in Rushcliffe and the emerging work of the multi-modal studies, and the outcome of the economic assessment, a decision on the West Bridgford routes be deferred but that the information obtained be used to help inform the Local Plan process and multi- modal studies.

3. BACKGROUND 3.1 A number of reports have been presented to Members culminating in the current work to investigate alternative routes to Beeston & Chilwell, Clifton and West Bridgford. Eight firms of specialist consultants had been appointed to undertake the necessary studies to identify and appraise the best performing

2

routes. The main route alignments under consideration are shown on Plan 2.

4. STRATEGIC CONTEXT 4.1 Nottingham has the ninth largest travel to work area in the Country, comprising around 740,000 people. The core catchment area for the City Centre’s retail and leisure sectors has a population of around 1 million and more than 3 million people live within 1 hour’s drive of the city. Experian estimate that over 2 million people (800,000 households) regularly shop in Nottingham City Centre. According to a number of recent retail surveys Nottingham ranks in the top four in the UK, outperforming many larger cities. It is estimated that over 25% of the City Centre retail turnover is drawn from outside Greater Nottingham. 4.2 The Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review (1996) predicts that the total population of the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan area will rise by only around 2% by 2011. However, the reduction in household size and other demographic factors means there will be a substantial increase in the number of households; for the whole of Nottinghamshire this is estimated at 16% 1991 - 2011. Much of this growth will be at the edge of or beyond the Greater Nottingham urban area, despite unprecedented demand for ‘urban living’ developments in the City Centre. 4.3 Nottingham has already experienced the highest percentage rise in employment of any major UK city in recent years and there has been particularly marked development activity focused in the ‘Southside’ locations, including Capital One and the Inland Revenue, near the hub of any expanded NET network. Demand for office accommodation is outstripping supply with the number of office planning applications received by the City Council having trebled in the last year alone. Forecast employment growth for the area is for a further 40,000 jobs in the next decade, a large proportion of which will be in the City Centre. 4.4 The continued buoyancy of the local economy and expected demographic and employment changes suggest that there will be a significant increase in the demand for travel within the area. This will be particularly apparent along the main radial routes into the City Centre but to a lesser extent, also to other retail and employment areas such as the District centres. 4.5 The conurbation is already suffering from increasing levels of traffic and congestion with a 21% increase into the inner traffic area recorded between 1987 and 2000. The patterns of peak spreading indicate that the main radial roads are saturated in the busiest periods. An analysis of the most recently recorded annual traffic flows (2000) shows that the largest annual average daily traffic flows on the main radial routes are on the A453 (51,000) and the A52 (W) (47,400) both of which are higher than levels over Trent Bridge. Forecasts from the multi-modal traffic model for the city suggest that without any additional major infrastructure (apart from NET Line One), the demand for road travel within Nottingham will increase by around 20% to 2021. 4.6 In parallel with local concerns regarding traffic growth, the Government has commissioned major studies to investigate the ability of the motorway and Trunk Road network to cope into the future. These ‘multi-modal’ studies have

3

been undertaken for the M1 corridor (between Junctions 21 and 30) and for the A453 Nottingham to M1 Junction 24. They have reported that without significant change in travel behaviour traffic volumes will increase by 23% in the next 20 years. The emerging recommendations of the studies propose significant increases in highway capacity on the M1 and A453. The studies also see light rail (tram) schemes as an essential element in the strategy and a significant network is suggested, including the current proposals for NET. A larger NET network base would improve the economic case for further extensions. Furthermore, by reducing congestion on main roads on the NET corridors it would give a greater confidence that the proposed highway improvements on the strategic road network (M1 and A453) could be implemented without overloading the local network. 4.7 Set against this growth in demand for travel the Local Transport Plan has set targets for limiting traffic growth across the conurbation and for increasing the public transport modal share by 5% to 2006 and 10% by 2011. 4.8 Maintenance and enhancement of Nottingham’s buoyant position in retail activity and employment while addressing the expected growth in traffic demand is only possible through a number of transport measures. The Local Transport Plan sets out the transport strategy for the area. This includes objectives to increase sustainable accessibility to the City and District centres to reduce traffic growth and proposes four integrated strands for action: sustainable land use policies, travel demand policies, travel awareness measures and improving public transport provision. 4.9 The growth in travel demand will place a heavy burden on the local transport network. Further improvements to the road network are extremely limited. Bus expansion is constrained by highway and central area stopping capacity but improvements across the conurbation could achieve increases in bus use. Initial indications from ongoing work on bus based alternatives to NET within the Beeston and Clifton corridors however indicate little opportunity for substantial benefits. The capacity of the heavy rail system is also constrained but again improvements including the possible development of the South Notts Rail Network (SNRN) will accommodate a relatively small but worthwhile benefit to passenger trips into the City Centre. 4.10 Among a range of new infrastructure proposals for Greater Nottingham are the NET network, heavy rail developments, bus priority measures, park and ride and other transport interchanges and cycle and pedestrian routes. Each proposal will contribute to achieving the objectives but the NET network is considered to be the most essential scheme because of the step change in public transport use it is expected to achieve (see Appendix 2). 4.11 Journey times by tram are generally quicker than most alternatives and are more reliable. This advantage will increase if congestion worsens in the future. In addition, modern trams can act as a catalyst for regeneration by attracting developers to a new or improved transport link and inspiring confidence. Within the City, NET will build on recent traffic management improvements such as the ‘Clearzone’, improving the environment in the centre. It will help facilitate further expansion in the ‘Southside’, including the redevelopment of the Broadmarsh centre and provide an improved economic case for implementation of the emerging Nottingham Railway Station Masterplan,

4

bringing major improvements to the area’s main transport interchange. A tram interchange stop would be provided over the station as part of the Masterplan. Tram movements would include cross-city services between Line One and the southern extensions. 4.12 The benefits of a NET network will also be widespread throughout the Greater Nottingham Area and include improved accessibility to jobs, shops, leisure and other facilities in the city and district centres on all the NET network corridors. 4.13 Investment in a NET network in the southern sector of Greater Nottingham will not preclude transport investment elsewhere. In the eastern sector of the conurbation, the County Council was successful last December in its Local Transport Plan bid for the Gedling A612 major integrated transport scheme. The SNRN proposal will also increase transport choice in this corridor and on routes from Nottingham to Trowell/Ilkeston and Radcliffe/Bingham. Investment in the NET network will also not prejudice future levels of Government local transport funding in North Nottinghamshire because it is a separate Local Transport Plan area.

5. PUBLIC CONSULTATION 5.1 A major public consultation exercise for the route options was undertaken between December 2001 and March 2002. This included; • Preparing brochures for each of the three corridors, which were distributed on a door to door basis to over 70,000 households and businesses. The brochures included a pre-paid return card requesting views on the options. • Over 200 stakeholders contacted by letter, including 55 environment groups/organisations. • Consultation events at seven locations close to the routes, offering the opportunity for local people to discuss the proposals with Officers from the City and County Councils. The events were mostly well attended. • Press advertising and information on the website. 5.2 An independent company with experience of public consultation work, Keydata, was appointed to undertake a detailed analysis of the consultation returns, including letters and e-mails. The purpose of the consultation was to seek the public’s perception of the project and Keydata consider that the consultation has proved to be very successful in highlighting the main concerns held by the public. However, they also indicate that the overall response rate to the consultation was low, and the respondents are unlikely to represent the population or demographics of the area covered by the consultation, and that the findings should not be viewed in an overly statistical manner. Keydata have produced a report for each of the three corridors and an executive summary is provided in Appendix 9. Stakeholder responses are summarised in Appendix 10. 5.3 A substantial number of people had positive views on the tram and proposed routes. However, the proposals have raised very strong opposition in certain locations. Some of the public’s concerns reflect an unfamiliarity/lack of personal experience of how modern trams operate in urban areas, but more significantly, others reflect genuine concerns about the immediate local impact

5

of a new development in their locality on individual properties and community life. A number of petitions have been received expressing opposition to some of the proposals (see Appendix 11 ). 5.4 All the concerns expressed are taken very seriously and any proposals will take account of the views of people in affected areas and where possible will deal constructively with the issues. In most cases it will be possible to provide mitigation. However, in some cases this will not be possible and adverse local impacts will need to be balanced against the overall benefit of the proposed scheme. There will also be a further opportunity for the public to comment on preferred routes taken forward into Transport and Works Act procedures and which may well involve a public inquiry. 5.5 Detailed ‘Consultation News’ leaflets have been prepared which address the public concerns identified by Keydata, including a range of issues such as safety, noise and impact on property prices. Leaflets have been circulated to Council Members, and everyone who has replied to the public consultation in Beeston and Clifton corridors (where addresses are identified). A leaflet for West Bridgford will be produced shortly. 5.6 In some areas, local groups have been set up to campaign against the proposals. These groups have prepared literature, which has been circulated locally and on the internet and held meetings. This has helped inform public interest in the proposals but unfortunately in some cases inaccurate information has been disseminated. The Keydata reports confirm that a number of comments from respondents appear to be very similar in many areas to literature, which has been circulated by these groups, and that this provides further concerns about the validity of a statistical analysis of the findings.

6. ROUTE COMPARISONS AND SELECTION OF PREFERRED ROUTES 6.1 The consultants’ studies have assessed the route options against appraisal criteria which reflect national and local transport objectives to improve the environment, safety, the economy, accessibility and to ensure integration with other forms of transport and new development. 6.2 Recent work undertaken by consultants MVA has in particular focused on developing a set of economic forecasts, which are now considered to be sufficiently robust for decision making purposes. A table of key statistics for each route is provided in Appendix 1 and a summary of MVA’s findings is provided in Appendix 3. To be considered eligible for Government funding, projects will normally be expected to have a benefit–cost ratio of greater than one (benefits must be equal to or greater than costs) and not require an operating subsidy (revenue must exceed operating costs). These tests are critical in considering the route options . The economic benefits derived for the routes are mainly time savings to public transport and highway users, accidents savings and vehicle operating cost savings. 6.3 It is important to stress that the route options taken forward need to be as strong as possible to demonstrate to Government that they represent value for money and should receive funding. Route development is at an early stage and experience from Line One suggests that there is a need

6

for some margin to absorb changes, which may occur in response to detailed analysis by Government.

7. BEESTON & CHILWELL ROUTES • The Beeston via QMC (BQ) option serves the major destinations of the Queens Medical Centre (QMC) and the University of Nottingham and operates through the Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) development site, which is expected to achieve employment levels of up to 4,000 by 2005. • The Beeston via Boots (BB) route would operate through the Crossgate Drive / Riverside and Boots industrial areas, and serves the Rylands residential area to the south of Beeston and the Queens Drive park and ride site. • The Chilwell extension (CE) serves the Chilwell Road/High Road commercial area and residential areas in Chilwell and a new park and ride site at Stapleford. • All options serve Beeston Town Centre and would help to limit traffic growth, congestion and pollution on the busy A52 and A6005.

Route comparison 7.1 A detailed summary of the route options against the appraisal criteria is provided in Appendix 4a. The benefit-cost ratios (which should exceed 1 to meet funding criteria requirements) are as follows; Benefit-cost Economic ratio benefits (£m) Beeston via QMC & Chilwell(BQ & CE) 1.14 147 Beeston via Boots & Chilwell (BB & CE) 0.73 104 Beeston via QMC(BQ) 0.61 60 Beeston via Boots (BB) 0.49 55

• The BQ route with the Chilwell extension (BQ & CE) will bring positive economic benefits to the area and the key economic criteria indicate that the route is viable when tested against Government criteria. • The options of terminating at Beeston or operating to Chilwell via Boots fall substantially below the required levels. • The route via QMC is 18% faster, £13million less expensive and would attract 25% more patronage than the route via Boots. • The Chilwell extension performs particularly well due to the residential catchment population and proposed park and ride site. 7.2 The routes are feasible in engineering terms and environmentally BB is considered by consultants to have slightly less impact than BQ. The BQ & CE route has significant ecological impacts, including passing a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and a wildlife corridor. Appropriate mitigation should however minimise these impacts.

7

Public consultation and local issues. 7.3 Public consultation returns were low in percentage terms but indicated a clear preference for the BQ route compared to the BB, due to being accessible to more people, more direct and serving the QMC and University. There were high levels of adverse comment relating to the Chilwell extension, which focused on key local issues (see Appendix 9). 7.4 The public consultation identified strongly expressed concerns held by Beeston and Chilwell residents. The promoters take these concerns very seriously and the Consultation News provides detailed responses to the points raised. Locations of particular concern to local residents are discussed in more detail in Appendix 5. The main points include; • At Lower Road/Fletcher Road in Beeston, there has been considerable public concern about the need to acquire a block of flats at Neville Sadler Court . Discussions have been held with the owners of the flats, which led to a proposal to rehome the residents affected to a new modern building on adjacent land at Coventry Road, and it is proposed that the land is purchased now to safeguard it for the new building. Of general concern to residents along the streets the introduction of noise impacts to a very low noise environment is likely to be more disturbing than a similar impact in a location with higher ambient noise levels and careful design can minimise any impact. Three alternative route options (plus the core route) were presented in the Beeston consultation brochure and these are shown on Plan 3 and summarised in Appendix 6. There are significant reliability concerns about all the alternative routes and they do not meet the Government economic criteria. In view of the relocation proposal, it is recommended that the core alignment, which operates along Lower Road and Fletcher Road, should be pursued. • Concerns were expressed about operating through the Square in Beeston Town Centre , but the choice of alignment through the town can await further discussion with Broxtowe Borough Council in relation to the possibility of other development proposals. • Concern has been expressed about the viability of Chilwell Road/High Road, Chilwell following the introduction of the tram. With suitable off-street parking, servicing provision and improved hard and soft landscaping, the route could be designed in such a way as to enhance the future prospects of the local businesses. Land acquisition would be necessary to achieve this. To address the short term difficulties, the County Council will consider a financial assistance package to support the most vulnerable businesses during the construction phase on the basis of the model used at Hyson Green. • An alternative alignment adjacent to Broxtowe College is proposed instead of using Cator Lane. Although some property would need to be acquired, this option would avoid the very difficult servicing problems raised by residents on Cator Lane. Discussions have been held with Broxtowe College, who are keen for a tram stop to be provided at this location. • There were concerns about operating through Sandby Court , but full and safe access can be maintained at the residential complex and adjacent Doctors’ surgery, although some parking would need to be located nearby.

8

• There were concerns about the loss of open space in Chilwell but the route would involve only a small part of the whole area. Walkways and main play areas would be maintained and new landscaping/tree planting would minimise impacts. • The park and ride site can be compatible with recent Government planning guidance concerning greenbelt land. 7.5 These local issues are clearly extremely sensitive. There would be some inconvenience for local people, although with the mitigation measures proposed, this can be minimised and the number of people directly affected is relatively small. It will be very important to maintain a regular dialogue with those affected to ensure that every effort is made to address their concerns. However, as indicated above, with careful management and the emphasis on mitigation, a safe route alignment can be built through the corridor providing a high quality public transport system, and bringing significant benefits to a large number of local people and to the conurbation as a whole. 7.6 The responses of stakeholders are summarised in Appendix 10. Serving the Queens Medical Centre is particularly important, as it is probably the largest generator of trips in the conurbation outside the City Centre, with over one million patient related journeys per year. The site is already congested and the Hospital has offered its unequivocal support for the BQ route, which would operate through the centre of the site. The Hospital are planning a major extension with a new Diagnostic & Treatment Centre, which would be linked into the tram route (see Plan 5). 7.7 Broxtowe Borough Council have confirmed support for the NET extensions in principle but the Council is concerned about “the nature and extent of the practical issues raised during public consultation and requires NET to prepare detailed proposals to overcome or minimise these legitimate concerns”. Beeston & Chilwell Routes Conclusion 7.8 In view of the clear economic performance advantage and the possible mitigation measures at local ‘hotspots’ identified above, it is recommended that the Beeston & Chilwell via QMC route is taken forward to the next stage, and that the preferred alignment as shown on Plan 1 is pursued. This alignment includes Lower Road, Chilwell Road/High Road, Chilwell and the route option via Broxtowe College . 7.9 In parallel it will be important to develop opportunities enabling linkages with bus services serving the Ring Road, Lenton Lane and Riverside commercial area, Beeston Rylands and towns to the west of Chilwell.

8. CLIFTON ROUTES • The Clifton via Wilford (CW) route would be convenient for residential areas in Compton Acres, Wilford and the Meadows. • The Clifton via Queens Drive (CQD) route would serve the Crossgate Drive/Electric Avenue (Riverside) commercial area and the Queens Drive park and ride site. • Both routes serve Clifton centre and residential areas, and a new park and ride site, which would help to relieve congestion on the A453.

9

• Serving Clifton by tram has been identified in the emerging consultation report on the A453 multi-modal study as a key element in a package to tackle the strategic transport problems in the area. 8.1 A detailed summary of the route options against the appraisal criteria is provided in Appendix 4b. The benefit-cost ratios (which should exceed 1 to meet funding criteria requirements) are as follows; Benefit-Cost Economic ratio benefits (£m) Clifton via Wilford (CW) 1.41 136 Clifton via Queens Drive 0.61 72

• The CW route will attract substantial patronage and have a positive economic benefit on the conurbation and the key economic criteria indicate that it is viable when tested against Government criteria. • The CQD route is 13% slower, would attract 15% less patronage, is £26million more expensive and falls substantially below the required economic levels. The data indicates low levels of travel to the Riverside commercial area due to the low density development and wide dispersal of people travelling to the area. 8.2 The routes are feasible in engineering terms although the CW route requires the acquisition of two properties on Farnborough Road, Clifton and it is proposed that this is pursed now and the houses are for the time being included in the Council’s tenanted stock. There are significant environmental constraints, particularly on CW, and these were identified in the consultation as key local concerns (see paragraph 8.5 below). 8.3 As requested at the City’s Executive Board meeting of 29 October 2001, a route to Clifton via Trent Bridge has been investigated. Although the route provides links between Clifton and the employment area around Trent Bridge, it is significantly slower than the other routes, has lower patronage and falls substantially below the required economic levels. It is not proposed to pursue this option. Further information is provided in Appendix 12.

Public consultation and local issues 8.4 Public consultation returns were again low in percentage terms but indicated a clear preference for the CQD route compared to CW. This preference reflected the dissatisfaction with the CW route from the Wilford and Compton Acres area (see Appendix 9). Important concerns were raised by residents in the route corridor during the public consultation and the Consultation News provides responses to the points raised.

The former railway line at Wilford 8.5 The potential use of the former railway line has been of concern to local residents due to the loss of habitat and impact on wildlife, proximity to some houses, visual intrusion and the reduction in the amenity of the footpath. The route passes close to the Wilwell Cutting Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI), and there are concerns about possible indirect impacts.

10

8.6 It is accepted that there will be a local environmental impact by using the former railway alignment. Whilst the line has no statutory wildlife designation and no protected species have so far been identified, the numbers of characteristic species identified on the site is sufficient for it to be designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Mitigation measures can however minimise any indirect impact on the SSSI and reduce impacts arising from loss of amenity and intrusion. These important issues, and concerns held in particular by English Nature and the Wildlife Trust, are discussed in further detail in Appendix 7. The amenity of the houses close by will be affected, but this can be mitigated through landscaping/screening and other measures. 8.7 The Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review has a Policy (5/3) to protect land for the development of new rail facilities. Under section (F) of the Policy it refers to ‘protection against the development of land that would prejudice the retention or appropriate development of the rail network.’ This is further expanded in paragraph 5.36, which states that former rail lines (such as the Wilford route) are considered to be an important resource and should be protected against development, which could prejudice their retention as part of the rail network. This policy would need to be balanced against protection provided in the interests of nature conservation. 8.8 Two alternative local route options to the former railway line (plus the core option) were presented in the Clifton routes consultation brochure and these are shown on Plan 4 and summarised in Appendix 8. The alternative routes are significantly slower and costlier than the core route and have lower economic benefits. They would be subject to increased reliability risks due to the higher proportion of on-street running and would require residential land acquisition. The combination of the embankment to the north of Wilford Lane with Ruddington Lane to the south is the best performing alternative in economic terms, meeting the Government economic criteria, albeit marginally. 8.9 In strategic terms the development of a tram network is considered to bring long term environmental benefits to the Greater Nottingham area by encouraging modal change from car to public transport. Utilising the former railway line provides important benefits to the CW route. The 2.5km section (33% of the total route) would allow a fast and direct operation on a segregated section, significantly enhancing the journey time and reliability of the whole route. This will in itself encourage greater modal shift and increased environmental benefits through reduced congestion, providing a benefit to the majority of people in the route corridor. 8.10 Given the very significant benefits to the CW route as a whole, it is recommended that the route via the former railway line should be pursued. However, in recognition of the former railway line’s designation as a SINC and the proximity of the Wilwell Cutting SSSI, work will continue with English Nature and the Wildlife Trust to ensure that the impact on habitat and wildlife will be kept to a minimum by effective mitigation measures. 8.11 Rushcliffe Borough Council have indicated support in principle for extending the tram system into the Borough and in relation to the CW route, have sought “assurances that the impact on local residents will be minimised and that there

11

will be opportunity provided to comment on the proposed methods of mitigation.”

Clifton Routes Conclusion 8.12 In economic and commercial terms, the CW route performs significantly better than CQD, which is not viable when tested against Government funding criteria. CW has extremely competitive journey times, offering high levels of segregation from road traffic (63% of the route) and offering the prospect of a very reliable operation. Nonetheless it will be important to demonstrate to all concerned parties that the environmental impact will be kept to a minimum by effective mitigation measures. It is therefore proposed that the CW route via the former railway line is taken forward, and that the preferred alignment as shown on Plan 1 is pursued. 8.13 In parallel, it will be important to continue to promote bus services linking the Clifton area with the Riverside commercial area. Enhanced infrastructure will be implemented through the Bus Quality Partnership (BQP) programme and the multi-modal study places a high priority on retaining bus services from Clifton along the A453 in addition to endorsing tram services in the corridor.

9. WEST BRIDGFORD ROUTES 9.1 The West Bridgford routes are compared below; • Both the Gamston (GT) and Sharphill Wood (SH) routes serve the east Meadows, the major sports grounds and offices around Trent Bridge, and West Bridgford Town Centre. • The GT route also serves residential areas in the east of West Bridgford and a park and ride site at Gamston, which would help to relieve congestion on the A52 and the A6011 Radcliffe Road. • The SH route would serve residential areas in the south of West Bridgford, including the proposed Sharphill Wood development site and a park and ride site near the Melton Road/A52 junction. It would help to relieve congestion on the A606 Melton Road and A60 Loughborough Road.

Route comparisons 9.2 A detailed summary of the route options against the appraisal criteria is provided in Appendix 4c. The benefit-cost ratios (which should exceed 1 to meet funding criteria requirement) are as follows; Benefit-cost Economic ratio benefits (£m) West Bridgford via Gamston (GT) 0.35 22 West Bridgford via Sharphill (SH) 0.35 26

• The key economic criteria indicate that performance levels for GT and SH are similar but substantially below the levels required to pass Government funding tests due to high capital costs, relatively low levels of patronage and small journey time benefits.

12

• There may however be opportunities to boost the case in the future due to other transport initiatives in the area (see below) and potential population changes suggesting greater growth in demand for West Bridgford compared to other routes. 9.3 Both routes are feasible in engineering terms and have only modest environmental impacts (assuming development has taken place at Sharphill Wood.)

Strategic issues 9.4 There are further important issues to consider regarding park and ride and location of new development. The park and ride site at Gamston is seen as a key element in the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan. This site is proposed initially as a bus based operation, although its design would take account of a possible upgrade to tram operation at a later date. This park and ride site is likely to serve much of the existing demand, and although subject to planning permission, the site is included in the County Council’s LTP capital programme for this year. 9.5 In the last consultation on the draft Rushcliffe Local Plan , the Highways Agency objected to several major residential sites on the grounds that they would overload the trunk road network (A453 and A52), which is already near capacity. Work on the Local Plan has therefore been suspended until the publication of the first draft of the Joint Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review, expected in late 2002. This will give guidance on the scale of new housing development required in the Borough up to 2021. The Local Plan process will be further informed by the outcome of the A52 Nottingham to Bingham multi- modal study, which will commence in July 2002, and report in late 2003. This will give advice on the most appropriate location for development in transport terms up to 2021. The scale and location of future development proposals clearly could have a significant impact on the usage of both proposed tram routes. 9.6 Rushcliffe Borough Council has noted that the NET options do not currently meet Government criteria but indicate that they could be reassessed in the future, providing “an opportunity to consider an integrated approach to resolving the transportation problems in the Borough and link any NET proposals to the outcomes of the various multi-modal studies.” In the meantime, Rushcliffe “urge the County Council to take steps to improve public transport in the Borough”. Local issues 9.7 The public consultation returns indicated a very similar level of support for the Gamston and Sharphill routes. Overall responses were however again very low (see Appendix 9). Important concerns were raised by residents in the route corridor and these included street running along Davies Road and Musters Road, further disruption on Central Avenue, concerns about development associated with the deferred Local Plan and the economic justification for the West Bridgford routes.

13

West Bridgford Routes Conclusion 9.8 Overall there is little difference between the route options, but neither route appears to be economically viable at the current time. The routes perform strongly at the strategic level, providing an important link between the south of the conurbation and the City Centre, and enhancing the integration of land use planning with public transport provision. However, in view of the current uncertainty on development proposals and the trunk road network, it is recommended that neither West Bridgford option is taken forward at this time . Instead there should be further discussions with the Borough Council, Highways Agency and GOEM over future transport provision in the south of the conurbation and the West Bridgford options should be revisited following further reporting on the Local Plan and multi-modal studies. In the meantime, further improvement to the bus network will be considered as part of the Bus Quality Partnership programme along with other elements of the Greater Nottingham LTP programme in Rushcliffe.

10. CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND THE NEXT STEPS 10.1 Expansion of the NET system is an essential element of the transport strategy for Greater Nottingham and there are very clear economic reasons for the choice of the preferred routes to Beeston & Chilwell via QMC and to Clifton via Wilford. These choices, however, are a precursor to further work and no irreversible decisions are being recommended at this stage. There is a necessity to undertake detailed work to assess the performance of the preferred routes in relation to Government objectives, their commercial viability, and to undertake detailed engineering and environmental impact assessment. 10.2 Approval from the DTLR for the economic case is required before any routes meeting the necessary criteria can be considered by the Authorities for a Transport and Works Act Order application (TWAO). If the City and County Councils determine to submit a TWAO, which would provide the powers to build and operate the lines incorporating appropriate mitigation measures, there is likely to be a public inquiry giving the public a further opportunity to make representations. The final decision will rest with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). 10.3 DTLR approval of the economic case could be forthcoming later this year, prior to submission of the TWAO application. At the same time, discussions will be held with Government and potential private sector concessionaires and funders to secure a funding package for the scheme.

11. OBSERVATIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 11.1 In February 2001 the Executive Board approved studies on further possible tram routes to Clifton, Beeston and West Bridgford. The estimated cost of these studies was £3,490,000, to be met jointly by the City and County Councils, from their Local Transport Plans. The City Council’s funding included SCAs issued as part of the Workplace Parking Levy advance payments. 11.2 As a result of the extended public consultation over the routes, the total costs of the studies have increased. The latest forecast of costs to further

14

progress the two identified routes, to investigate procurement and funding methods and to submit a Transport and Works Act Order, is estimated at £4,088,000, as follows: - £’000

2000/2001 33 2001/2002 790 2002/2003 1,606 2003/2004 1,348 2004/2005 311 ------4,088 ------11.3 The costs incurred in 2000/01 and 2001/02 have been split between the City and County Councils on a 65:35 basis, calculated on the estimated length of the three routes being investigated. Negotiations are currently underway to agree a revised split between the two authorities, based on the two routes now proposed. 11.4 The City Council’s share of the costs will continue to be met from its Local Transport Plan, including further SCAs from the Workplace Parking Levy advance payments. 11.5 Appendix 1 provides some initial estimates of the likely capital costs of the routes examined. Although this enables a useful comparison between the various options, further work is required before the final costs can be assessed, along with the methods for procurement and funding.

12. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATION 12.1 NET Line One is being designed to be Disability Discrimination Act compliant, with low floor vehicles and level access to facilitate ease of use for people with mobility difficulties. The network extensions will bring these advantages to a wider and larger population, and provide greater accessibility for those without cars.

13. CORPORATE OBJECTIVES 13.1 Regeneration / creating local employment opportunities. The report refers to development sites and regeneration potential within the corridors to be served by the system. 13.2 Sustainability. By providing a clean, pollution free (at point of use) travel alternative, the NET network will help to protect and enhance the environment and will promote and sustain the quality of the city and the urban area.

14. BEST VALUE 14.1 Extending the NET system will add value to the public investment already made in Line One. The DTLR criteria for financing future investment include

15

the requirement for Best Value, which will be sought through a combination of public and private funding.

Plans 1. Recommended routes (Beeston Via QMC and Clifton Via Wilford) 2. Main Routes 3. Beeston via QMC Sub-options 4. Clifton via Wilford Sub-options 5. Queen’s Medical Centre (Integrated transport and development proposal)

Appendices 1. Network Extensions – Summary of key statistics 2. Impact of Local Transport Plan proposals on traffic reduction. Road Traffic Reduction Act 3. Progress Note on route options economic appraisal (MVA – April 2002) 4. Route comparisons: Beeston & Chilwell (4a), Clifton (4b) and West Bridgford (4c) 5. Beeston and Chilwell: Key issues arising out of public consultation 6. Beeston via QMC - Comparison of route options between University Boulevard to Beeston Town Centre 7. Clifton via Wilford: Key issues arising out of public consultation 8. Clifton via Wilford – Comparison of route options between Wilford Toll Bridge and where the former railway line crosses under the A52 Clifton Boulevard 9. Executive Summary of NET route options consultation report produced by Keydata (April 2002) 10. Public Consultation – Summary of Stakeholder responses 11. Public Consultation – Summary of Petitions received 12. Clifton via Trent Bridge - Assessment of route option

Published documents referred to in compiling this report.

Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham. (2001/02 – 2005/06) The Joint Nottinghamshire Structure Plan. November 1996.

Background papers other than published works or those disclosing confidential or exempt information.

Public Transport Mode Choice –The Options for Nottingham, 2001. Appraisal criteria for route selection. NET network extensions engineering reports for Beeston, Chilwell, Clifton, West Bridgford, and route combinations. Mott MacDonald, October 2001. Nottingham Express Transit Line One extensions: Environmental Appraisal of Options. ERM, October 2001.

16

Updated summary of route extensions (cost and journey time information) Mott MacDonald, April 2002. Beeston via QMC route: University to Beeston Options. Reports by Mott MacDonald and ERM, April 2002. Beeston via QMC route: University to Beeston Options – Traffic Overview for Route Alternatives. MacDonald, March 2002. Additional Chilwell (Cator Lane) options. Reports by Mott MacDonald and ERM, March 2002. Clifton via Wilford route: Local options. Reports by Mott MacDonald and ERM, April 2002. Clifton via Wilford route: Iremonger Pond/Coronation Avenue options. Reports by Mott MacDonald and ERM, April 2002. Review of Clifton option adjacent to former railway corridor. Reports by Mott MacDonald and ERM, March 2002 Have Your Say consultation brochures for Beeston & Chilwell, Clifton, West Bridgford and the Meadows. Consultation analysis reports for Beeston & Chilwell, Clifton and West Bridgford. Keydata, April 2002. Consultation News – Your questions answered for Beeston & Chilwell and Clifton, April 2002. Stakeholder letters Clifton via Trent Bridge route. Reports by Mott MacDonald and MVA, April 2002.

Neil Bates EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR - NET Lawrence House Talbot Street Nottingham NG1 5NT

Contact Officer: Pat Armstrong, NET Project Office. Ext. 56713

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

APPENDIX 1

NETWORK EXTENSIONS – SUMMARY OF KEY STATISTICS

Opti on Beeston Beeston Clifton Clifton West West via QMC via Boots via via Bridgford Bridgford and and Wilford Queens – – Chilwell Chilwell (CW) Drive Gamston Sharphill Extension Extension (CQD) (GT) Wood (BQ & CE) (BB & CE) (SH)

Total length (kilometres) 9.8 10.9 7.6 8.4 4.3 5.6

Length segregated (%) 59 60 63 30 38 33

Journey time (minutes) 27.5 32.5 21 24.25 14.75 18.5

Number of tram stops 15 16 13 13 8 11

Fleet size 8 9 7 8 5 6

1 Capital costs (£million) 130.4 143.5 93.9 119.8 66.2 78.9

Operating costs (£million 3.0 3.4 2.5 2.6 1.4 1.5 per annum)

Patronage (millions of 5.1 3.8 3.9 3.4 1.5 1.6 trips per annum, 2009/10)

Benefit - Cost ratio 1.14 0.73 1.41 0.61 0.35 0.35

Economic benefits 147 104 136 72 22 26 (£million)

1 Capital costs include land estimates and a 30% contingency

24

APPENDIX 2

IMPACT OF LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN PROPOSALS ON TRAFFIC REDUCTION

Impact of proposals on traffic reduction

Proposal Short term Medium term Long term (0-5yrs) (6-10 yrs) (11-20 yrs)

NET very large very large very large

Robin Hood Line/ slight moderate moderate South Notts Rail Network (SNRN)

Bus moderate moderate moderate

Park and ride - to inner area slight moderate moderate - to other areas neutral neutral neutral

Parking policies slight moderate large

Travel awareness/ slight moderate large Education

Cycling/walking slight slight slight

Land use initiatives slight slight slight

Reallocation of Road space slight large large

Source: Road Traffic Reduction Act (1997). Appendix A of Local Transport Plan for Greater Nottingham (2001/02 – 2005/06), published July 2002.

25

Progress Note APPENDIX 3

Title: Nottingham Express Transit: Network Extensions

Subject: Interim Route Options Appraisal: April 2002

Ref: C05903

Version No: 5

Date: 4 April 2002

Author: DC/mva

1 Introduction 1.1 Refinement of the earlier forecasts of patronage and economic performance for potential extensions to NET have taken place since the report to the NET Development Board of 18/10/01 and Executive Board of 29/10/01. This note reports on the appraisal of the three core corridor route options including variants, and provides patronage and economic appraisal indicators and a commentary of the key relativities between corridor options and option variants.

1.2 The forecasts of scheme patronage have been developed into a robust and comprehensive economic appraisal that considers capital cost and operating cost estimates together with estimates of the benefits arising to both public transport and on the road network users. The primary requirement of Government in approving local public transport schemes is that the total net benefits of any proposal exceed the total net costs; ie the benefit to cost ratio exceeds one.

1.3 The appraisal of scheme options is based on computer modelling of the existing and expected provision of public transport within Nottingham. Changes in transport provision are used to change travel patterns and generate forecasts of NET demand, from both existing public transport users and new users. These procedures are outlined in Section 4 below. Underpinning the forecasting work is a set of assumptions concerning the transport supply and the NET Extensions, as set out in Section 3. Outline appraisal commentaries for each of the corridor options are given in Section 5. Section 6 outlines some of the key steps required in taking the appraisals forward into discussions with Government. An Appendix provides a table of comparative performances between options.

2 Summary 2.1 The primary indicators of economic performance of the route options, the benefit to cost ratio ranks the proposed NET extensions in the following order:

1) Clifton via Wilford 2) Beeston via QMC with Chilwell 3) Beeston via Boots with Chilwell 4=) Clifton via Queens Drive 4=) Beeston via QMC 6) Beeston via Boots

26

7=) both West Bridgford route options

2.2 Of these options, only the Clifton via Wilford and Beeston via QMC with Chilwell routes perform strongly enough in economic terms to be taken forward to Government. The remaining options generate benefit to cost ratios of significantly less than one; a unitary ratio being the minimum required to meet current Government funding rules. Clearly, the stronger the economic case, the more able the preferred scheme options will be to withstand potential changes in costs and benefits in response to sensitivity analysis, as normally required by Government.

2.3 Combining the two best performing route options, Clifton via Wilford and Beeston via QMC and Chilwell, maintains the strength of the economic case; the small shared cost savings being offset by the limited extent of shared patronage and benefits.

2.4 It is not possible to identify combinations of other route options that would perform strongly enough to support the economic case. Further shared cost savings cannot offset the lower levels of benefits, either from the weaker performing options or due to significant levels of shared benefits, particularly from the Queens Drive park and ride site. Furthermore, it is most likely that Government would need to be convinced of the economic performance of each line individually before approving a package of network extensions as a whole.

2.5 Within the corridor options, the journey time benefits afforded by the Clifton via Wilford option provide significant benefits for the local population in Clifton together with an opportunity to develop a successful park and ride on the outskirts of the urban area. The route via Wilford also provides a significant improvement in accessibility to the City from Wilford and Compton Acres, in terms of journey times, frequency and access to central area destinations. Capital costs are significantly lower than the Queens Drive option strengthening the relative economic case further.

2.6 In contrast, the Queens Drive option is both more expensive and slower and it has a much more limited local population catchment, but can serve the Riverside employment area. However, employment and other related travel demand patterns from this industrial area are widely dispersed and a NET routeing can only offer improved access to a small number of employees. The Queens Drive route can serve the existing park and ride site, improving access to the City Centre compared to the existing bus service that terminates at Broadmarsh. However, existing park and ride users at the Queens Drive generate marginal benefits in economic terms, whilst benefits for new users are lower than for the Clifton site.

2.7 Within the Clifton via Wilford route there is one key route variant under consideration running along the former railway route to the north of Wilford Lane and then along Ruddington Lane. This variant would provide some positive and negative changes in accessibility, but at the cost of a significant journey time penalty for longer-distance trips into Clifton. As a result of increased costs and reduced benefits, this variant erodes a significant proportion of the benefit surplus for the Clifton route. Although still meeting the primary funding requirement of a benefit to cost ratio of above one, the reduced benefit surplus removes much of the strength of the economic case, particularly in absorbing any cost or benefit changes or in response to sensitivity analysis.

2.8 The key to the performance of the Beeston options is the extension to Chilwell and a park and ride site at Stapleford. This extension significantly boosts the level of patronage by providing high levels of service from the large catchment

27

areas west of Beeston and provides new park and ride facilities at Stapleford. For the QMC route option, the provision of a high quality park and ride service opens up opportunities to serve QMC together with access to Nottingham city centre. Capital costs of the routeing via QMC are lower than options via Boots, strengthening the relative economic case further.

2.9 The limited local catchment of the Beeston via Boots route restricts patronage potential, despite employment related trip opportunities at Boots itself. As with the Clifton via Queens Drive route, the Riverside area would benefit from improved accessibility, albeit with limited success given the widely dispersed, predominantly work related, travel patterns. Issues of serving the existing park and ride site at Queens Drive are also similar to the Clifton via Queens Drive and become still more important when considering a package of these two routes.

2.10 Within the Beeston via QMC route option are a number of route variants avoiding Lower Road/Fletcher Road. These variants generally provide some additional local accessibility through the provision of new stops, but at the cost of significant journey time penalties for longer-distance trips from Chilwell and the park and ride site at Stapleford. As a result of increased costs and reduced benefits, the benefit surpluses for all three main variants are fully eroded, resulting in benefit to cost ratios of 1.0 or less. Therefore, the economic performance of these route variants would not meet Government funding requirements.

2.11 With a high proportion of on-street running, capital costs for the two West Bridgford route options are relatively high. In appraisal terms, both options generate low levels of patronage and benefits, due partially to short route lengths, fairly diverse catchment areas for both options and relatively low journey time differentials between NET and the existing public transport network.

2.12 The high costs combined with the low levels of benefits result in economic benefit to cost ratios of less than one, suggesting that these options will not meet current funding requirements. However, there may be opportunities in the future to boost the strategic case for these options since underlying population changes suggest greater growth in NET demand from West Bridgford over time compared to other route options. Furthermore, some capital costs could be avoided were other extensions to proceed, largely by avoiding the cost of the infrastructure over Nottingham station. Other initiatives in the area could also provide patronage and benefit opportunities and the possibility of mitigating against the problems of introducing largely on-street LRT in West Bridgford.

2.13 A summary table providing key patronage and economic indicators for the route options and variants is provided as an Appendix to this note.

3 Key Assumptions 3.1 The appraisal of the route options has been based on a number of key assumptions.

§ Construction work commences in September 2004 with the selected route options opening for service in September 2007.

§ The network extensions would be integrated with the operations for Line One – outline cost implications of this have been considered in the appraisal, however, the full patronage impacts here need to be refined.

§ NET journey times from Nottingham Station are:

Clifton via Wilford – 21.0 minutes

28

Clifton via Queens Drive – 24.25 minutes

Beeston via QMC and Chilwell/Stapleford – 27.5 minutes Beeston via Boots and Chilwell/Stapleford – 32.5 minutes

Beeston via QMC – 19.0 minutes Beeston via Boots– 24.0 minutes

Gamston via Central Avenue – 14.75 minutes Sharphill Wood via Central Avenue – 18.5 minutes

§ Levels of service have been assumed to offer daytime peak and interpeak frequencies six services per hour, though frequencies may need to be enhanced in the peak periods;

§ Fares have been considered to be similar to the existing bus network, noting that the expectation is of continued real increases in NCT fares;

§ Park and Ride sites have been assumed to be provided at Clifton, Stapleford, and Sharphill Wood, in addition to the existing site at Queens Drive and the proposed bus-based site at Gamston.

§ The current forecasts are based on an assumption that there is no positive cooperation with NET from the existing bus operators. This assumption is required by DTLR to establish the strength of the economic case under such a scenario. Further scenarios will be considered to examine NET performance against less competitive and complementary bus network responses to NET, particularly in the Beeston corridor.

§ Scheme capital costs, including notional land costs, vehicle costs and contingency allowances, expressed in mid-2001 prices are:

Clifton via Wilford – £93.9m Clifton via Queens Drive – £119.8m

Beeston via QMC and Chilwell/Stapleford – £130.4m Beeston via Boots and Chilwell/Stapleford – £143.5m

Beeston via QMC – £103.9m Beeston via Boots– £117.1m

Gamston via Central Avenue – £66.2m Sharphill Wood via Central Avenue – £78.9m

§ Scheme operating costs; including operating, maintenance and business overhead costs are broadly similar within corridors. All costs assume that the NET extensions are integrated into the operations of Line One:

Clifton options – £2.5m (via Wilford), £2.6m (via Queens Drive)/annum

Beeston options – £2.1m (via QMC), £2.4m (via Boots)/annum

Beeston and Chilwell – £3.0m (via QMC), £3.4m (via Boots)/annum

West Bridgford options - £1.4m (Gamston), £1.5m (Sharphill)/annum

29

4 Forecasting and Appraisal Methodology 4.1 Forecasts of patronage and benefits for each of the route options are based on established techniques using a series of computer models that consider changes in detailed travel demand patterns resulting from new or improved transport provision.

4.2 Travel demand data for both public transport and road users was obtained from ticket machine data and surveys. This data was used to build up a picture of travel movements in the Greater Nottingham Conurbation, where the urban area was split into around 230 distinct areas or zones.

4.3 The models also include a detailed representation of the highway and public transport networks, including travel time, access times, journey frequency and public transport fares. For many travellers in the selected corridors the introduction of NET as a new or improved travel choice will reduce travel times, resulting in changes in demand as existing bus travellers and car users switch to the new mode. Established techniques are used for estimating the likely changes in demand arising from improvements in travel time and costs.

4.4 Estimates of the likely transfer of travellers to NET from a number of different sources have been made separately for peak and interpeak periods for two future forecast years. These future year forecasts incorporate expected changes in population, employment and car ownership, together with changes in journey times resulting from increased congestion. Using standard practice, annual forecasts are produced from these detailed estimates by applying factors to represent travel throughout the year during daytime periods, in the evenings and at weekends.

4.5 Patronage and associated economic benefits are assumed to build up over time as the system settles down following opening. Different factors are used by patronage source to reflect the likely variations in behavioural responses to the introduction of NET. The forecasts of demand are used to estimate the total benefits of the route options; these benefits being compared with total costs in the economic appraisal.

4.6 The three key issues considered in the economic appraisal of route options are:

§ Capital and operating costs including trackwork, structures, stops, service diversions, vehicle and land costs. Contingencies are also included as are costs falling on the local authority promoters.

§ Benefits – comprising of:

§ ‘User benefits’ representing mainly time savings to public transport users due to journey time, frequency and accessibility changes as a result of the introduction of new NET services;

§ benefits to highway users arising from decreases in highway journey times due to reductions in car travel demand following transfers of some travellers to NET, directly or via park and ride; and

§ Other benefits, principally accident cost savings, vehicle operating cost savings, and disbenefits including disruption during construction and the congestive effects of NET vehicles running on- street.

30

§ Benefit surpluses and benefit to cost ratios – the sum of (positive) benefits and (negative) costs gives a benefit surplus or deficit, whilst dividing benefits by costs produces a benefit to cost ratio. These indicators are crucial in determining whether options will meet the Government’s economic funding criteria and in demonstrating the robustness of the scheme to absorb changes in cost and other project risk.

4.7 In the economic appraisal, time savings to users and non-users are converted into monetary values using standard appraisal values. These benefits and all other monetary values are streamed over a 30-year operating period and presented as a single ‘present value’ of costs or benefits. The key patronage and appraisal issues are discussed in turn in the reviews of the individual corridor appraisals.

5 Detailed Corridor Appraisals Clifton Routes 5.1 The two core Clifton route options considered perform very differently in patronage and appraisal terms.

5.2 Patronage - the forecast patronage levels for the Clifton via Queens Drive route is 15% lower than for the Wilford route, but with a very different composition. The expected annual patronage for the Queens Drive route is around 3.4m passengers in 2009/10, comprising of over 35% park and ride demand (1.3m), of which around half is existing demand from the Queens Drive site. In contrast the Wilford route, with 3.9m passengers in 2009/10 takes just over 15% from park and ride sources (0.6m) all at the new Clifton site, but with higher levels of capture directly from public transport and car sources.

5.3 The key differences in attracting demand from existing public transport and car sources are the respective catchment areas and relative journey times. Within Clifton, the Wilford route is expected to capture a higher proportion of existing demand than the slower Queens Drive route. A further key source of demand for this option is likely to be generated from the Wilford and Compton Acres areas. Here NET will offer significant journey time, frequency and central area access benefits when compared to the existing poor levels of public transport service and the relatively awkward access by car into the City.

5.4 Whilst the Queens Drive route does serve the Riverside, Electric Avenue and Crossgate Drive employment areas, demand wholly within the Clifton and NET Line One corridors to this area is relatively modest. The forecasts suggest that peak period flows into the Riverside area using the Queens Drive route will be larger outbound from the City rather than inbound from Clifton. This reflects the widely dispersed employment travel patterns observed at key employment sites within these industrial areas. The forecast demand from these industrial areas, served by the Electric Avenue and Queens Drive stops, is smaller than the radial flows into the central area from the Wilford and Compton Acres on the Wilford option. Demand from this area on the Wilford route is expected to be around 2.5 to 3 times that of the Riverside area on the Queens Drive route.

5.5 Costs – capital costs via Wilford are £93.9m compared to £119.8m via Queens Drive, with the main differences arising from the extent of on-street running and structure costs with the Queens Drive route. Due to the longer journey times, the operating costs for the Queens Drive option are higher than for the Wilford route.

5.6 User Benefits – the linked issues of patronage and benefits per passenger lead to a significant difference between the performance of the two core options. As noted above, the faster journey times for trips from Clifton via the Wilford route attract higher levels of patronage and generate higher benefits than via the

31

Queens Road route. Further benefits for the Wilford option are generated from the Wilford and Compton Acres areas where NET offers significant improvements over the existing poor public transport provision. These benefits significantly outweigh the relatively small patronage base associated with the Riverside employment area served by the Queens Drive option. Overall user benefits for the Queens Drive routes are 45% less than Wilford.

5.7 Non-user benefits – the key issues here are the magnitude of transfers from car direct to NET or via NET-based park and ride together with the length of car journeys avoided by transfers to the NET system.

5.8 The two options generate broadly similar levels of total transfers from car to NET, but importantly a significant proportion of this demand with Queens Drive option is associated with existing park and ride demand at the Queens Drive site. For those existing park and ride trips that stay at the Queens Drive site no non-user benefits are generated as the demand has already transferred from car to public transport. For the remaining park and ride demand, some users are new to park and ride and use either the Queens Drive site or Clifton sites; the former generating only marginal benefits when compared to users at the Clifton site.

5.9 Due to journey time benefits the Wilford route attracts around 35% more park and ride users at the important Clifton site. The Wilford route also generates higher direct transfers to NET, both in Clifton and from the Wilford and Compton Acres areas contributing to the high levels of benefits associated with these reductions in car travel demand. The number of car kilometres removed from the road network with the Wilford option is 8.3m km per annum, falling to 4.2m km per annum for the Queens Drive option. Overall monetised non-user benefits for the Queens Drive route are around 45% less than the Wilford route.

5.10 The Clifton via Queens Drive route has increased on-street running compared to the Wilford option. The congestive effects of this on-street running has to be taken into account in the appraisal, contributing a further £2.0m difference in benefits between the two options.

5.11 Total benefits for the Clifton via Wilford route are £136m. For the Queens Drive options total benefits are £72m.

5.12 Benefit surpluses and benefit to cost ratios – the combined effect of the higher costs of the Queens Drive route together with the significantly lower benefits is to generate a wide variation in the economic performance of the two core route options. The Wilford route generates a very healthy benefit surplus of around £40m and a benefit cost ratio of 1.41, whilst the Queens Drive option has a benefit deficit of £45m and a benefit to cost ratio of 0.61.

5.13 The appraisal suggests that the Clifton via Wilford route is the only option within the Clifton corridor that will meet the Government funding criteria and provide the necessary robustness, both in appraisal and commercial terms, to proceed with as a preferred route option.

Clifton Route Variants

5.14 Two principal route options were considered as route variants within the Clifton via Wilford core option:

• running via Main Road and Ruddington Lane; and

• using the disused rail alignment north of Wilford Lane and then running via Ruddington Lane.

32

5.15 The revised routeings of the route variants offer some changes in local accessibility for the immediate catchment areas around the stop locations. Such changes are accompanied by extended journey times that will have an impact on longer distance travellers. Both of these factors have an influence on patronage and the economic appraisal.

5.16 It is understood that the Main Road/Ruddington Lane alignment has been ruled out as it involves a very difficult alignment, has significant safety, townscape and land take issues, and offers no overwhelming advantages over the core route.

5.17 The disused rail alignment/Ruddington Lane option is, however, feasible from an engineering perspective. A full economic appraisal has therefore been carried out for this option. This appraisal has considered the additional capital and operating costs of the variant, including the requirement for an additional vehicle to operate the service due to lengthened journey times. Issues of local accessibility and the impact of longer journey times on the ability of the system to attract patronage from the existing bus network, direct modal shift and park and ride use within Clifton have also been considered.

5.18 In patronage terms, the Ruddington Lane route would provide some local accessibility benefits for those focused around Ruddington Lane itself, at the north end around Wilford House and further south around the proposed stop at the Beckett School. However, this route would significantly reduce the journey opportunities for residents in Compton Acres, leaving much of the area with the existing poor levels of public transport service or very long access times to NET. This shift in the focus and accessibility of the route is expected to reduce overall local NET demand from this area by around 20%.

5.19 This route options involves a significant increase in the extent of on-street running that will have an impact on highway capacity, NET reliability and the congestive effects of NET. The difficult turns on and off Wilford Lane and length of on-street running on Ruddington Lane contribute to a £2.1m difference between the core route and variant appraisals.

5.20 For longer distance NET trips the Ruddington Lane route is associated with a longer journey time of the order 2.3 minutes. This significant penalty for journeys to and from Clifton will have a major impact on the expected patronage from Clifton into Wilford and the City. With longer journey times, demand from Clifton is reduced by around 7% for direct transfers to NET and by 9% for those using the park and ride site at Clifton.

5.21 The reduced levels of patronage from the significant market of Clifton and losses from Compton Acres outweigh any local accessibility benefits for trips from Ruddington Lane. Overall, patronage levels fall by over 10% compared to the core route option. The reduced demand, including transfers from car and reduced park and ride use, and reduced benefit per passenger transferring to NET have a negative impact on the net benefits for this route variant. The reduced level of benefits of £114m, together with an increased capital cost of £8.9m, reduces the benefit surplus to £10m and produces a benefit to cost ratio of 1.10.

5.22 Whilst the benefit to cost ratio of this variant remains above one, thereby still meeting the primary funding requirement, the significant erosion of the benefit surplus removes much of the strength of the economic case and makes the case marginal. The requirement for strength here is in appraisal and commercial terms. From the appraisal perspective, there may be a need to absorb further cost or benefit changes and to demonstrate the robustness of the economic case in response to detailed sensitivity tests or risk analyses as required by Government. From a commercial perspective, the viability of the system is crucial

33

to ensure long term sustainability of the system and to maximise any concession value.

Beeston Options 5.23 The two core Beeston route options can be considered both on their own or linked to the Chilwell option serving the proposed park and ride at Stapleford. The performances of the two underlying routes into Beeston vary considerably, with significant strength to either case provided by the Chilwell extension.

5.24 Patronage – the forecast patronage levels for the Beeston-only route options are broadly similar with the routeing via Boots attracting only 8% less patronage than the routeing via QMC. As with the Clifton options, the composition of demand varies with over 35% of demand on the route via Boots using the Queens Drive park and ride site. The routeing via QMC, however, has no park and ride facilities and so relies more heavily on the much larger catchment of existing travellers via QMC and the faster journey times for trips from Beeston centre. It should be noted that the ability to serve QMC will be most successfully achieved by the expansion of the current ‘southern’ entrance to the site integrated with a NET stop. Annual patronage in 2009/2010 for the Beeston-only routes is 3.0m for the route via QMC and 2,7m for the Boots option.

5.25 The Chilwell extension provides a significant boost to patronage particularly along the route via the QMC, both from local catchments to the west of Beeston in Chilwell and Inham Nook, but also in providing park and ride facilities at the Stapleford terminus. The routeing via QMC enables the provision of park and ride to QMC itself together with much faster journey times for other park and ride users than is afforded by the slower route via Boots. Annual patronage in 2009/2010 for the routeing to Stapleford via QMC is expected to be 5.1m with the routeing via Boots attracting around 3.8m passengers.

5.26 The key differences in attracting demand from existing public transport and car sources are the respective catchment areas and relative journey times. The routeing via QMC is expected to capture a significantly higher proportion of existing demand from the large residential areas to the west of Beeston than the slower Boots route. With this option there would be large journey time savings over the existing relatively poor bus service to Chilwell and Inham Nook. This route also provides access to the key University and QMC sites. However, as with the industrial areas further south, the wide range of origins for employees and visitors limit absolute capture rates, although demand at the University and QMC is not predominantly limited to peak periods only.

5.27 As with Clifton via Queens Drive route, the routeing via Boots serves the Riverside, Electric Avenue and Crossgate Drive employment areas as well as Boots itself. However, demand wholly within the Chilwell and NET Line One corridors to this area is relatively limited given the wide dispersal of residential locations for employees and other visitors to the key employment sites within these industrial areas.

5.28 Costs – capital costs to Beeston via QMC are £103.9m compared to £117.1m via Boots, with main differences arising from structure costs associated with crossing the A52 and running alongside the Trent floodplain. As noted above, the Chilwell extension costs add a relatively modest sum to the core Beeston-only costs, with total costs via QMC of £130.4m and £143.5m via Boots. Due to the longer journey times and increased vehicle requirements the operating costs for the routeing via Boots are just over 10% higher than the QMC option.

5.29 User Benefits – the linked issues of patronage and benefits per passenger lead to a significant difference between the performance of the two core options for 34

either the Beeston only or full route options to Chilwell. Benefit levels for the Beeston-only options are modest given the restricted patronage potential of the short routes. For the routes into Chilwell, the faster journey times via QMC attract higher levels of patronage and generate higher benefits than the route via Boots. The increased use of the Stapleford park and ride site with the routeing via QMC, both for central area and QMC journeys, also generates significantly increased park and ride benefits compared to the Boots route. Overall user benefits for the Chilwell via Boots route option are around 25% less than via QMC.

5.30 Non-user benefits – as noted above, the key issues here are the extent of transfers from car direct to NET or via NET-based park and ride, together with the journey length on the road network avoided by such transfers. As with the user benefit category, non-user benefits arising due to road congestion relief are modest for the Beeston-only options given the restricted transfers from car to NET direct, or for the Beeston via Boots option, using park and ride. The number of car kilometres removed from the road network with the QMC option is 3.8m km per annum, but only 2.5m km per annum for the Boots option.

5.31 Considering both routes with the Chilwell extension, the total transfers from car to NET are not too dissimilar, with just over 10% fewer trips transferred with the routeing via Boots. However, as with Clifton via Queens Drive option, a significant proportion of the park and ride demand captured by the Boots option is associated with existing park and ride demand at the Queens Drive site. Park and ride at this site generates only marginal benefits when compared to users at the Stapleford site.

5.32 The opportunity to provide direct access and park and ride from Stapleford to QMC with the routeing via QMC generates increased levels of car transfer and park and ride use with this option compared to the slower routeing via Boots. The number of car kilometres removed from the road network increases significantly with the Chilwell extension with 9.2m km per annum for the QMC routeing and 6.0m km per annum for the Boots option. Overall non-user benefits for the Boots route are around 30% lower than the QMC route.

5.33 Total benefits for the Beeston options are £55m and £60m for the routes via Boots and via QMC respectively. The significant benefits arising from the Chilwell options generate increases in total benefits to £104m with the routeing via Boots and to £147m via QMC.

5.34 Benefit surpluses and benefit to cost ratios – the relatively low levels of benefits generated by the Beeston-only options and relatively high costs generate benefit deficits and benefit to cost ratios of 0.49 and 0.61 for the routeings via Boots and QMC respectively. The effect of adding the Chilwell extension is to significantly boost benefit level but at the cost of only a relatively modest increase in capital and operating costs.

5.35 The synergy between the Beeston and Chilwell options is most apparent with the routeing via QMC where faster journey times and the ability to serve QMC by park and ride site generates increased benefits compared to the routeing via Boots. The Chilwell via QMC generates a modest benefit surplus of £18.5m and a benefit to cost ratio of 1.14, whilst the routeing to via Boots has a benefit deficit of £38m and a benefit cost ratio of 0.73.

5.36 The appraisal suggests that the Beeston via QMC with Chilwell option is the only option within the Beeston corridor that will meet the Government funding criteria and provide the necessary robustness, both in appraisal and commercial terms, to proceed with as a preferred route option.

35

5.37 However, the economic performance of the Beeston via QMC with Chilwell option is likely to be nearing the margins of economic acceptability. This is particularly the case given the need to present a robust case to Government that can withstand additional cost changes and the effects of key sensitivities. The primary issue that may require consideration as the scheme progresses towards full approval is that of potential reaction of local bus companies, which within Beeston corridor is likely to be more important than for the Clifton option.

Beeston Route Variants

5.38 Of a number of possible routes considered as variants to the Beeston via QMC core route option for the section between University Boulevard and Beeston town centre three were considered worthy of detailed analyses:

§ Queens Road East, running along Queens Road East, Queens Road and turning into Station Road to access Beeston;

§ Queens Road East/Humber Road – Queens Road East, then Humber Road (east), Middle Street and following the core route option into Station Street and central Beeston;

§ Broadgate Variants running via University Boulevard (west), Broadgate, High Road (east) and then via Humber Road or Regent Street or a one way arrangement around these two roads.

5.39 Full economic appraisals have been undertaken for these routes. These appraisals have considered the additional capital and operating costs of the variants, issues of local accessibility, impacts on the highway network and the impact of longer journey times on the longer distance users of NET.

5.40 All variants offer some changes in local accessibility for the immediate catchment areas as all involve additional stop provision. The Queens Road route provides two new stops on Queens Road but does not serve Middle Street, whilst the Queens Road/Humber Road route provides an additional stop on Queens Road East and the Broadgate option provides an additional stop on Broadgate.

5.41 Whilst there are local accessibility benefits within east/south Beeston, all the variants will have significant operating difficulties associated with additional on- street running on existing congested routes, particularly those variants using the extremely busy Queens Road. There will also be an adverse effect on service reliability, particularly for the Queens Road variant compounding the issues raised due to on-street running on Chilwell High Road.

5.42 The longer routes and additional stops result in extended journey times of between 1.6 minutes (Queens Road and Humber Road) and around 3.0 minutes (Queens Road and Broadgate variants). These extended journey times represent increases of between 8% and 16% for journeys to Beeston centre, resulting in an additional vehicle being required to operate the service. Such lengthening of journey times will also have an impact on longer distance travellers, particularly those from Beeston town centre, Chilwell and the park and ride site at Stapleford. For all variants, the impact of the additional journey time for such travellers outweighs any localised accessibility benefits, with significant impacts on the economic case due to losses in benefits.

5.43 All the three variants result in moderate losses in patronage of between 5% and 9% for the faster routeing via QMC. There are more significant impacts on the expected demand at the park and ride site at Stapleford site as journey times lengthen. For the Broadgate and Queens Road variants the longer journey times 36

also have an adverse impact on the level of benefits, both from user benefit and non-user benefit sources. Combined with moderate increases in capital costs and reduced levels of benefit, the benefit surplus of the core route is turned into a deficit of between £6.0m and £7.5m, making both variants not viable in economic terms.

5.44 The Queens Road/Humber Road variant has a smaller journey time impact on longer distance journeys and a reduced extent of congested on-street running compared to the other Beeston route options. However, the additional capital and vehicle costs together with benefit reductions fully erode the benefit surplus, leaving a deficit of less than £0.5m, again making this variant unviable.

5.45 The economic appraisals for these variants suggest that they do not meet current Government funding rules by generating fewer economic benefits than their costs. Whilst there is no strength in the economic case for the variants there could also be weaknesses in any commercial case. Key issues here include reliability problems and the commercial impact of additional on-street running on heavily trafficked routes, particularly Queens Road which acts as the major radial route from Long Eaton into Nottingham. These issues may prove unattractive to the private sector and reduce any concession value generated from potential system operators.

West Bridgford Options 5.46 Forecasts of overall patronage levels for the two West Bridgford route options suggest similar patronage levels, but with different sources of demand.

5.47 Patronage - general levels of NET capture are relatively small in both corridors. This appears to be due to the relatively low levels of underlying demand, which are spread across a wide range of different corridors served by the existing bus network. Due to the relatively short route length and extent of on-street operation, these options can only offer relatively small journey time differentials between NET and the bus network. Overall patronage forecast for the Sharphill route is 1.6m passengers per annum in 2009/10 with 1.5m forecast for the Gamston route.

5.48 In terms of local catchment, both schemes will attract the same level of demand on the common section of route to Central Avenue. The routeing of NET along Arkwright Walk with two stops in the area would be expected to provide higher levels of accessibility for Meadows than either of the Clifton or Beeston route options. The differences between route options emerge east and south of West Bridgford centre, with the Sharphill route having a larger potential local market. Initial indicators of the likely impact of the proposed development at Sharphill Wood suggest that overall patronage could increase further by around 0.25m journeys per annum (around 15%).

5.49 In contrast, the catchment on the Gamston route is smaller and already has high levels of service provided by the out-of-town bus routes to Radcliffe, Bingham and Cotgrave. The Gamston option performs better in terms of park and ride with this site located in a more accessible location for the eastern and south east of Nottingham travel to work area not well served by the current network of park and ride sites. The additional demand from the Gamston park and ride site over that expected for Sharphill largely offsets the differences in local catchment between the two route options.

5.50 Costs – capital costs for the Sharphill route are £78.9m, an increase of over £10m compared to the costs of the shorter Gamston route of £66.2m. This difference also includes one additional vehicle required to operate the Sharphill

37

service. Operating costs for the Sharphill route are also higher than the Gamston route due to longer journey times.

5.51 User and Non-User Benefits - the introduction of NET within West Bridgford results in relatively low levels of both user and non-user benefits. User benefits are higher for the Sharphill route due to increased local catchments. Non-user benefits are similar for both options, with around 1.5m car kilometres per annum removed from the road network. The extent of on-street running, across Trent Bridge and on secondary or minor radials, erodes around £4m of total benefits for both options. Overall benefits are £26m for the Sharphill route and £23m for Gamston. Initial indicators of the likely impact of the proposed development at Sharphill Wood suggest that there are opportunities for moderate increases in total benefits provided that this development is configured in a suitable way to encourage radial public transport use.

5.52 Benefit surpluses and benefit to cost ratios – the relatively low levels of benefits and high capital costs result in benefit deficits of over £40m and benefit to cost ratios of 0.35 for both options. Therefore, neither option would meet current funding requirements rules.

5.53 However, whilst the options do not meet the funding requirements at present, there may be opportunities to boost the case for these options in the future. In addition to the potential patronage and benefits arising from the proposed Sharphill Wood development, underlying population and other demand changes suggest greater growth in NET demand for either West Bridgford option compared to the other route options.

5.54 The development of the preferred network to Clifton and Beeston will also improve the economic case for the West Bridgford options by removing the relatively large cost of the Nottingham station bridge from the option appraisal. Whilst this cost could be shared as part of a fuller NET package of routes, the inclusion of one of the West Bridgford options would significantly compromise the performance of a full package. Further, Government are most likely to insist on an assessment of the economic performance of each line individually before approving any package of network extensions.

5.55 Other initiatives in the area, stemming from the Rushcliffe Local Plan and the forthcoming A52 Multi-Modal study could also provide patronage and benefit opportunities. Further initiatives could also introduce the possibility of mitigating against the problems, and monetised disbenefits, of introducing largely on-street LRT in West Bridgford.

6 Next Steps 6.1 In order to move forward into the submission phase for the NET extensions, the current forecasts need to be refined in some areas. This submission is commonly referred to as an Annex E and will start a process involving a detailed audit of the economic case for the preferred options by the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and their consultants. The submissions will also be considered by Treasury, based on the Annex E submission, but also considering other issues such as procurement strategies.

6.2 The key areas for further consideration within the Annex E include updated land costs; full risk-adjusted capital cost estimates, an assessment of the interactions with Line One and other refinements to the demand and benefit forecasts. A detailed operational assessment will also be required together with a change in the presentation of the economic appraisal to meet new appraisal requirements. Whilst such changes may alter the absolute economic performance of options, the relative performance of the corridor options and option variants will not change. 38

Appendix referred to in point 1.3 of Progress Note

Nottingham Express Transit: Patronage and Economic Appraisals

Beeston Beeston via via Clifton via Beeston Beeston Boots+ QMC+ Clifton via Queens via Boots via QMC Chilwell Chilwell Wilford Drive

Undiscounted Capital Costs (£million) 117.1 103.9 143.5 130.4 93.9 119.8

Total Annual Patronage - 2009/10 2.7 3.0 3.8 5.1 3.9 3.4 - Peak Periods 1.3 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 - Off-Peak Periods 1.5 1.7 2.1 2.9 2.3 1.9

Discounted Capital Costs (£million) -85.6 -76.0 -105.3 -95.7 -69.1 -88.3 Discounted Operating Costs (£million) -26.5 -22.8 -37.0 -33.2 -27.0 -28.8

User Benefits (£million) 33.4 30.3 56.5 75.3 65.4 36.2 Non-User Benefits (£million) 21.5 29.8 47.8 72.1 70.4 35.5

Total Benefits (£million) 54.9 60.1 104.3 147.4 135.8 71.6

Economic Benefits Benefit to Cost Ratio 0.49 0.61 0.73 1.14 1.41 0.61 Benefit Surplus (£million) -57.2 -38.7 -38.0 18.5 39.7 -45.5

39

Appendix (continued)

Nottingham Express Transit: Patronage and Economic Appraisals

Clifton Clifton Clifton via via via Queens Queens Wilford & Drive & Drive & Beeston Beeston Beeston West via via via West Bridgford: QMC+ Boots+ QMC+ Bridgford: Sharphill Chilwell Chilwell Chilwell Gamston Wood

Undiscounted Capital Costs 212.8 220.7 226.8 66.2 78.9

Total Forecast Patronage - 2009/10 8.7 5.7 7.8 1.5 1.6 - Peak Periods 3.7 2.6 3.5 0.6 0.6 - Off-Peak Periods 5.0 3.1 4.4 0.9 1.0

Discounted Capital Costs -156.5 -162.2 -166.9 -48.9 -58.5 Discounted Operating Costs -54.8 -59.0 -55.2 -14.9 -16.4

User Benefits 138.6 79.7 105.6 11.9 14.9 Non-User Benefits 135.5 77.7 96.4 10.6 11.0

Total Benefits 274.1 157.3 202.0 22.5 26.0

Economic Benefits Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.30 0.71 0.91 0.35 0.35 Benefit Surplus (£million) 62.8 -63.9 -20.2 -41.3 -48.9

40

Appendix (continued)

Nottingham Express Transit: Patronage and Economic Appraisals

Beeston/ Chilwell via QMC - Beeston/ via Beeston Clifton via Beeston Chilwell Queens Rd /Chilwell Clifton Wilford with via via QMC - and via QMC - via Ruddington QMC+ via Humber via Wilford Lane Option Chilwell Queens Rd Rd Broadgate

Undiscounted Capital Costs 93.9 102.8 9% 130.4 137.4 5% 136.3 5% 137.3 5%

Total Forecast Patronage - 2009/10 3.9 3.5 -12% 5.1 4.8 -6% 4.8 -5% 4.6 -9% - Peak Periods 1.6 1.4 -13% 2.2 2.0 -6% 2.1 -5% 2.0 -10% - Off-Peak Periods 2.3 2.1 -11% 2.9 2.7 -6% 2.8 -4% 2.7 -8%

Discounted Capital Costs -69.1 -75.9 10% -95.7 -101.0 6% -100.1 5% -100.9 5% Discounted Operating Costs -27.0 -27.7 3% -33.2 -34.2 3% -33.8 2% -34.2 3%

User Benefits 65.4 56.2 -14% 75.3 65.8 -13% 68.5 -9% 64.9 -14% Non-User Benefits 70.4 57.6 -18% 72.1 63.3 -12% 65.0 -10% 62.7 -13%

Total Benefits 135.8 113.8 -16% 147.4 129.1 -12% 133.5 -9% 127.6 -13%

Economic Benefits Benefit to Cost Ratio 1.41 1.10 1.14 0.96 1.00 0.94 Benefit Surplus (£million) 39.7 10.2 18.5 -6.0 -0.4 -7.5

41

APPENDIX 4a BEESTON & CHILWELL ROUTES COMPARISON

Both Beeston routes start at Nottingham Railway Station. Beeston via QMC (BQ) follows Meadows Way before passing through the Royal Ordnance Factory (ROF) Development site, over the Midland Main line, along Lenton Lane and Gregory Street and into the QMC site. It then crosses over the A52 on a new bridge into the University of Nottingham, before operating along a segregated section to the south of University Boulevard on Beeston Town Centre.

Beeston via Boots (BB ) follows Meadows Way before passing through the Crossgate Drive/Electric Avenue (Riverside) commercial area. It then serves the Queens Drive park and ride site before using Thane Road to enter the Boots site. It then goes alongside the Midland Mainline as far as Beeston Station before operating along Station Road into Beeston Town Centre.

The Chilwell extension (CE ) operates from Beeston Town Centre along High Road, Chilwell and through the Chilwell residential area via land behind Broxtowe College and the open space adjacent to Clumber Avenue and Eskdale Drive. The route terminates at a park and ride site adjacent to the A52(E) at Toton Lane / Stapleford Lane.

Route performance is set out below;

Journey Length Capital Operating Patronage Benefit- Time segregated Cost (£m) Cost (£m (Millions of Cost ratio (mins) % per annum) trips 2009/2010) Beeston via 19 48 103.9 2.1 3.0 0.61 QMC (BQ) Beeston via 24 51 117.1 2.4 2.7 0.49 Boots (BB) Beeston via 27.5 59 130.4 3.0 5.1 1.14 QMC & Chilwell Extension (BQ&CE) Beeston via 32.5 60 143.5 3.4 3.8 0.73 Boots & Chilwell Extension (BB&CE)

Operational capability . BQ has a significant journey time advantage over BB and importantly, over existing bus services (24 – 33 minutes). The strategic road network is crossed 4 times on BQ and 3 times on BB. CE has high levels of segregation from other traffic, but operates on–street along the busy High Road, Chilwell.

42

For all the options further detailed consideration needs to be given to priority requirements for tram operation when operating with other traffic and broader traffic management measures.

Usage BQ serves more densely populated areas, but this demand is largely offset by the Queens Drive park and ride site on BB. CE provides substantial increases in patronage for both base routes reflecting the high catchment population living close to the route in Chilwell, the relatively low frequency and circuitous existing bus service, and the park and ride site. The route via QMC captures a significantly higher proportion of demand from Chilwell and the park and ride site than the slower Boots route. It also provides access to the key University and QMC sites.

Costs BQ has a £13 million cheaper capital cost than BB, although this would reduce to approximately £4 million if BB is developed in combination with Clifton Queens Drive, enabling some costs to be shared. BQ has lower operating costs, requiring fewer vehicles to operate the service due to the shorter route length.

CE has a lower capital cost per kilometre than other routes, primarily due to the lack of significant structures and long sections of off-street running.

Benefit-cost analysis. BQ & CE is viable when tested against Government funding criteria reflecting high levels of demand and journey time benefits but with limited surplus. The remaining options perform substantially below the levels required to pass Government funding tests.

Integration. Both Beeston options offer enhanced integration with other modes, with BB linking to existing sites (Beeston rail station, Queens Drive park and ride site) and BQ offering the potential for interchange with buses at the QMC, to link into the Ring Road ‘major’ bus proposal, and at University Boulevard (with the potential to serves shuttle bus services from Boots, Siemens etc). Both options integrate with Nottingham Railway Station and Beeston Bus Station.

CE offers potential feeder bus services within Chilwell and from Stapleford and Toton. The park and ride could also be attractive for intermediate journeys to Beeston, the University (17 minutes) and QMC (19 minutes).

Development/regeneration potential . BQ has a strong potential with links through the ROF site, the QMC expansion and alongside the Highfields Science Park. This route has good potential for developer contributions. BB route passes adjacent to the ROF site and offers enhanced potential for the Riverside/Crossgate Drive industrial area. CE provides potential for a significant enhancement of High Road, Chilwell. All routes offer opportunities for Beeston Town Centre.

Engineering impact . All routes are feasible. BQ requires significant new bridges over the railway at Lenton Lane and over the A52 between QMC and University and involves the acquisition of 16 flats at Neville Sadler Court. A

43

strip of land is required from Highfields Science Park and the sports facilities alongside.

BB requires significant viaduct/retaining wall structures in the floodplain where it operates close to the River Trent. It has a difficult crossing under the A52 where headroom is restricted. There is also a very difficult crossing of the railway on a new bridge adjacent to Beeston Station.

On CE, some land acquisition will be required along High Road, Chilwell for the provision of off-street parking, loading facilities and a tram stop, and at Gwenbrook Avenue/Cator Lane for the off-street alignment via Broxtowe College.

Environmental impact . BB is considered “marginally less constrained” than BQ but no statutory conservation sites are affected on either route. BB has less impact on townscape, historic landmarks and noise. BQ has less impact on water resources.

On ecology, BQ passes 2 sites of importance for nature conservation (SINC) and a wildlife corridor. One of the SINC’s is passed on-street and is therefore not affected. The route passes close to the Kings Meadow Wildlife Trust Reserve and there could be a loss of habitat and a significant impact on wildlife. Based on Government guidelines, BQ is considered to have a significant and adverse impact on ecology, although this assumes no mitigation. BB operates through 1km of sensitive floodplain and it directly affects 1 SINC. It is considered to have a slight adverse impact on ecology.

CE operates along the open space corridor through Chilwell. Detailed route alignment designs can minimise environmental loss and the open space can be redesigned to preserve much of the existing visual amenity and recreation value. The route between Inham Road and the park and ride site is in greenbelt.

Public acceptability . The main issues identified by the public are summarised in the Keydata report (see Appendix 9).

44

APPENDIX 4b CLIFTON ROUTES COMPARISON

The Clifton via Wilford (CW ) option passes along Queens Walk, over the River Trent on the existing Toll Bridge and along the 2.5km former railway line behind Wilford and Compton Acres / Ruddington Lane. It then runs to the south of Silverdale and into Clifton.

The Clifton via Queens Drive (CQD ) route follows Meadows Way before passing through Crossgate Drive/Electric Avenue (Riverside) commercial area. It then serves the Queens Drive park and ride site and crosses the river on a new bridge before entering Clifton.

Both options serve Clifton Centre, and a new park and ride site at the terminus adjacent to the A453.

Route performance is set out below;

Journey Length Capital Operating Patronage Benefit- Time segregated Cost (£m) Cost (£m (Millions Cost ratio (mins) % per annum) 2009/2010) Clifton via 21 63 93.9 2.5 3.9 1.41 Wilford (CW) Clifton via 24¼ 30 119.8 2.6 3.4 0.61 Queens Drive (CQD)

Operational capability. CW has a significant journey time advantage over CQD and importantly over bus services (25 – 36 mins). CW has a much higher level of segregation from road traffic and does not cross the main road network except for the relatively minor Wilford Lane. CQD crosses the A453 on 3 occasions and operates through the congested Queens Drive area. This suggests CW will provide a substantially more reliable operation.

Usage . Patronage levels for CW are substantially higher as it serves more densely populated areas, including the Wilford/Compton Acres area which is relatively inaccessible, and attracts more patronage from Clifton due to the shorter end to end journey times. Demand for the Queens Drive park and ride site on CQD offsets this higher patronage to some degree. The data indicates low levels of travel to the Riverside Commercial area due to the low density development and wide dispersal of people travelling to the area.

Costs. CQD is £26 million more expensive to build than CW. Due to sections of shared infrastructure and shared cost, CQD would be approximately £20m more expensive than CW if developed with Beeston via QMC, and approximately £12m more expensive with Beeston via Boots. These figures assume that the CQD route operates on a new bridge over the Trent to the

45

east of Clifton Boulevard which is approximately £7m cheaper and over a minute faster than the western alternative.

Benefit-cost . CW is viable when tested against Government criteria, but CQD falls substantially below the required levels. CW has higher levels of patronage, shorter journey times and a lower capital cost.

Integration . CQD would serve the existing park and ride facility at Queens Drive, whilst CW provides the possibility of a small site at Wilford Road. Both routes integrate with Nottingham Railway Station and provide potential bus interchange in Clifton Centre and at the Clifton park and ride site.

Development and regeneration potential . CQD route passes adjacent to the ROF site and offers enhanced potential for the Riverside/Crossgate Drive industrial area. CW offers some modest potential for the Wilford industrial area.

Engineering impact . Both routes are feasible. CW operates along the pedestrianised Queens Walk and crosses the river on the Wilford Toll Bridge which requires widening to allow for the tram, pedestrians and cyclists. Works will retain the floodbank near Iremonger Pond. The old railway embankment between Coronation Avenue and Wilford Road requires lowering or removing to provide width for the tram, a footpath and landscaping/noise barriers. Entering Clifton, the alignment will require the acquisition of two properties near Farnborough Comprehensive School.There will be minor land acquisition elsewhere.

CQD requires significant viaduct/retaining wall structures in the floodplain adjacent to the River Trent. A major new bridge is required over the Trent.

Environmental impact . Overall, CQD is considered “marginally less constrained”. CQD has less impact on townscape, noise and ecology. CW has less impact on the water environment.

Based on DTLR guidelines, both options have a “significant and adverse” impact on the local ecology, although the impact is significantly greater on CW. (See Appendix 7). Both routes have sections in greenbelt, including the Clifton park and ride site.

Public acceptability . The main issues identified by the public are summarised in the Keydata report (see Appendix 9).

46

APPENDIX 4c WEST BRIDGFORD ROUTES COMPARISON

The route options share a common section over much of their route length. Both options operate along Arkwright Walk, over Trent Bridge, and follow Bridgford Road/Central Avenue into West Bridgford Town Centre. The Gamston (GT ) route operates along Davies Road to a proposed park and ride site adjacent to the A52(E). The Sharphill Wood (SH ) route operates along Rectory Road and Musters Road to the Sharphill Wood development site which was included as a development site in the Rushcliffe Local Plan first deposit draft (2000). A park and ride site would be provided near the Melton Road/A52 junction.

Route performance is set out below.

Journey Length Capital Operating Patronage Benefit- Time segregated Cost (£m) Cost (£m (Millions Cost ratio (mins) % per annum) 2009/2010) West Bridgford 14¾ 38 66.2 1.4 1.5 0.35 via Gamston (GT) West Bridgford 18½ 33 78.9 1.5 1.6 0.35 via Sharphill (SH)

Operational capability . GT has a journey time advantage over SH although the routes follow the same alignment between Central Avenue and the City Centre. Both routes have modest journey time savings over the bus services, which take 16 – 21 mins. Levels of segregation for both options are very low and they have significant interface with the highway, crossing the congested Trent Bridge area on street. There is a high risk of unreliable operations.

Usage . The patronage levels for both options are very similar. SH has a larger local catchment, whilst the Gamston park and ride site on GT offsets this higher local demand. Overall patronage levels are low due to the relatively low residential densities which are spread across a wide range of different roads served, and due to the small journey time differentials between NET and the existing bus network. There may be opportunities to boost the case in the future due to other transport initiatives in the area, and potential population changes suggesting greater growth in demand from West Bridgford compared to other route options. The Sharphill Wood development could increase patronage on SW by a further 0.25 million trips per annum.

Costs . GT has a lower capital cost than SH but the costs per kilometre are high due to large sections of on-street running.

Benefit-cost . Both routes fall substantially below the levels required to pass Government funding tests, primarily due to relatively low levels of patronage and small journey time benefits.

47

Integration. Both options offer enhanced integration with other modes, with links to Nottingham Railway Station and potential interchange with feeder buses at West Bridgford town centre and park and ride sites at the termini.

Development and regeneration potential . Both options will assist in the regeneration of the east Meadows and would provide a link to the Waterside Regeneration Zone. SH operates through the possible Sharphill Wood housing/commercial development site.

Engineering impact . Both options are feasible. Both routes pass along the pedestrianised Arkwright Walk, and follow the existing highway across Trent Bridge. The bridge and approaches will require widening, although the existing appearance would be retained. The alignment would operate along the recently traffic calmed Central Avenue. On GT, a new bridge over the Grantham Canal will be required. On both routes there is minor landtake from gardens/frontages to provide visibility splays at junctions and tramstops.

Environmental impact . Neither route is considered more constrained than the other. GT has less impact in terms of noise, townscape and historic landmarks. SH has less impact on the ecology and water environment.

Both routes impact on Trent Bridge (Grade 2 listed) and the setting of the old Trent Bridge, which is a scheduled ancient monument and both are therefore predicted to have “significant adverse impacts on archaeological resources”.

The GT route along Radcliffe Road and Gamston Park and Ride site are in greenbelt.

Public acceptability . The main issues identified by the public are summarised in the Keydata report (see Appendix 9).

48

APPENDIX 5

BEESTON AND CHILWELL: ISSUES ARISING OUT OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION.

1. Lower Road/Fletcher Road, Beeston. (Beeston via QMC route)

1.1 The core route alignment would operate along two existing culs-de-sac (Lower Road and Fletcher Road) and requires the acquisition of 16 (out of 48) retirement flats at Neville Sadler Court. The main concerns relate to the loss of elderly people’s housing and the fear of disruption to residents living along quiet streets.

1.2 Discussions have been held with the owners of the retirement flats, Housing 21, who would wish to see the affected Neville Sadler Court flats replaced to sustain the viability of the complex. A piece of land at Coventry Road immediately adjacent to the flats could be acquired to provide a replacement development. This would have fully modernised facilities, and can be linked to the existing accommodation.

1.3 On the route alignment, the main concerns can be mitigated. Lower Road and Fletcher Road are both sufficiently wide to provide substantial on- street parking in addition to the tram, and measures would be implemented to ensure that the route did not become a through route for other traffic, except for cycles. The introduction of noise impacts to a very low noise environment is likely to be more disturbing than a similar impact in a location with higher ambient noise levels and careful design can minimise any impact.

1.4 In view of the strong local concerns, three alternative local route options (plus the core route along Lower Road) were presented in the Beeston consultation brochure and these are shown on Plan 3 and are summarised in Appendix 6 . The alternatives have significant disadvantages; § All have higher construction costs, and longer journey times, requiring an additional vehicle to operate the service. § All have lower patronage than the core route and none are viable when tested against Government funding criteria. § All involve some land acquisition. § By operating on existing traffic routes all the alternative options would significantly increase the risk of tram unreliability and cause delay to road traffic on already busy roads. These additional disbenefits would reduce the ability of the tram to attract high levels of patronage, particularly from car users.

1.5 In the consultation responses, there was strong support for using the ‘core’ route of Lower Road. A very small proportion of respondents favoured any of the alternatives. The Lower Road option was seen as the most direct route causing least disruption to other traffic. The opposition

49

to the core alignment was almost exclusively from the roads directly affected by the proposals.

On the basis of the above, it is recommended that the core alignment, which operates along Lower Road and Fletcher Road should be pursued and that the land at Coventry Road should be acquired for a replacement development at Neville Sadler Court.

2. Beeston Town Centre .

2.1 Concerns were expressed that the alignment through the Square in Beeston would disrupt the activity and atmosphere of this focal point in the town. An alternative route could be achieved around the edge of the Town Centre, along Middle Street, but this would involve a tramstop some distance from the shopping area. Serving the centre of Beeston, particularly as a destination from Chilwell, the University and QMC, is a key objective and operating in the Square would maximise accessibility.

2.2 The introduction of the tram could assist in the redevelopment of the western end of the Town Centre including the area around the Square, and this possibility is being discussed in outline with Broxtowe Borough Council. Such a redevelopment would affect the choice of alignment and it is therefore proposed that no decision is taken on the route through the Town Centre at this stage.

3. High Road, Chilwell .

3.1 There is concern that business and other activities would be seriously affected if the tram were to utilise the High Road, Chilwell in particular through loss of on-street parking and servicing areas, and during construction .

Consultants Mott MacDonald consider that a traffic management scheme involving some on-street parking bays and use of side roads would be sufficient to retain the commercial viability of the High Road area. However, a larger scheme would provide a significant enhancement and help to revitalise an area that has been in decline. This could be achieved through:

§ Acquiring additional land and property and providing off–street car parks and specific loading bays for local businesses. § Environmental improvements, such as wider pavements, higher quality paving, landscaping and improved lighting. § Providing a tram stop to serve the retail area and other community facilities such as Broxtowe College to encourage people to visit. § Creating a safer environment by removing parking completely from the main carriageway, and improving the flow of traffic through the area.

Overall the improvement would maintain the integrity of the retail centre and bring sustained benefits to the area. These issues will also

50

be considered as part of a wider Beeston town centre study to be undertaken by the County Council, which will investigate opportunities to regenerate the area as a whole.

3.2 The concern regarding the impact of construction is a key issue. Careful management of the works, together with good communications with local residents and businesses has proved beneficial during the construction of Line One through Hyson Green. Nonetheless, conditions have been difficult for traders for several months and it must be expected that similar short term difficulties would occur along High Road. The longer term prospects however are positive with the environmental improvement scheme and the increased accessibility provided by the tram expected to give the area a much greater viability in the future.

3.3 To address the short term difficulties, the County Council is to consider establishing a financial assistance package to support the most vulnerable businesses during the construction phase. The details of the package would be negotiated prior to construction on the basis of the model used in Hyson Green.

4. High Road to Greenway, Chilwell .

4.1 The parking and access concerns of Cator Lane residents are fully recognised and could only be properly addressed through acquisition of some front gardens to provide servicing lay-bys. Therefore, the consultants have further investigated alternative route alignment options. In engineering terms Mott MacDonald have recommended that an off-street alignment behind Broxtowe College and Richmond Court, as shown in the consultation material, should be pursued. This option has a number of benefits;

§ The journey time is reduced by nearly a minute § A fully segregated operation is provided which has minimal interaction with traffic, unlike the Cator Lane option where there could be queueing at the junction with Chilwell Road. The Broxtowe College option is therefore likely to be more reliable. § The capital cost is at least £1.5m lower than the Cator Lane option.

However, there are also significant impacts:

§ At least three houses on Gwenbrook Avenue and one house on Cator Lane would be affected and might need to be acquired and there would be some loss of garden from further properties. § The tram would run very close to Greenwood and Richmond Courts but mitigation measures can be provided, such as the provision of a low wall for noise attenuation with planting to reduce the visual impact.

4.2 From a purely environmental point of view, consultants ERM have indicated a preference for the Cator Lane option, as the Broxtowe College route would involve loss of amenity and loss of habitat of

51

moderate conservation value. However, no designated sites are affected.

4.3 Although there would be some environmental disbenefit, it is recommended that the Broxtowe College option is taken forward as the preferred route option. This option has important operating and cost benefits and it would avoid the servicing difficulties along Cator Lane.

5. Sandby Court, off Bramcote Lane, Chilwell .

5.1 There are local concerns about safety and disruption to the elderly residents who live in Sandby Court by operating on the road through the residential complex. The space between the main blocks is wide, and the tram can operate on the existing access road, with footpath provision maintained on both sides of the road. The tram would be operating at an appropriately reduced speed through this section and emergency vehicles will always be given priority. The existing parking along the access road would have to be relocated nearby but vehicle access to the Doctors’ surgery and for residents parking would be maintained.

5.2 The local concerns are fully understood, and careful attention will be paid to the detailed arrangements. It is however considered that the tram can operate safely through this section with minimal disruption to the residents. Furthermore, it is likely that a tramstop will be located nearby, providing direct access to this fully accessible transport system.

5.3 An alternative route behind Sandby Court to the south has been investigated. This would run very close to some of the flats and would have a greater environmental impact. The existing watercourse would be affected and more trees would be lost. This option does not appear to offer any significant advantages over the core option.

6. The Open Space at Chilwell .

6.1 The local concerns relate primarily to the loss of amenity and environmental impacts of operating along the open space in Chilwell.

6.2 The tram would only take up a very small section of the open space and detailed design and appropriate landscaping would preserve as much of the existing visual amenity and recreation value as possible, including the children’s playground. Some existing trees would be lost but the impact would be minimised, with replacement planting where possible. The tram would operate a significant distance away from residential properties and a safe alignment which is not overly detrimental to the amenity value of the area, can be provided. An additional tramstop is proposed on Eskdale Drive to increase accessibility to the system in the local area.

52

7. The use of Greenbelt for park and ride .

7.1 The local concerns relate to the use of greenbelt for the A52 park and ride site.

7.2 The route alignment and park and ride site in the greenbelt would be designed sympathetically with appropriate landscaping measures and existing footpath links would be maintained. The track could be ballasted preventing its use by any other vehicle. Government planning policy guidance permits park and ride development in greenbelt providing certain conditions are met. This does not in any way diminish the protection this greenbelt land has against residential and commercial development.

7.3 The access arrangements to the park and ride site will have to be carefully assessed to minimise the impact on traffic movements on the A52 and Toton Lane.

53 APPENDIX 6 BEESTON VIA QUEEN’S MEDICAL CENTRE (BQ) COMPARISON OF ROUTE OPTIONS BETWEEN UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD AND BEESTON TOWN CENTRE

Description Via Lower Road, Fletcher Road, Via Queens Road and Station Road. Via Queens Road, Humber Road, Towards Beeston via Broadgate, Humb er Middle Street and Station Road. Middle Street and Station Road. Road, Middle Street and Station Road; This is the proposed route option towards the University via Station Road, Middle Street, Regent Street; High Road and Broadgate. Blue (Core) route Orange route Pink route Red route Operational capability Journey time at least 90 seconds Over 2 minutes longer than the blue Over 90 seconds longer than the blue Over 3 minutes longer than the blue route, quicker than all other options, requiring route, (although with an extra stop), route, (although with an extra stop), (although with an extra stop), requiring an one less vehicle to operate the service. requiring an extra vehicle to operate requiring an extra vehicle to operate the extra vehicle to operate the service. Large Operation would be more reliable than the service. Large risk of unreliable service. Operation less reliable than blue risk of unreliable operation through delays other options as on street running on operation through delays at busy route due to delays at junctions and at University Boulevard junctions with busy roads is limited to stretches of junctions and long stretches of on- stretches of on-street running on Queens Queens Road and Broadgate and stretches Middle Street and Station Road. street running on Queens Road and Road, Middle Street and Station Road. of on-street running on busy stretches of Limited impact on other traffic. Station Road. Less road space for Less road space for other traffic. University Boulevard, Broadgate, Middle other traffic on busy key route. Street and Station Road. Economic performance

§ Benefit-Cost ratio 1.14 0.96 1.00 0.94

§ Economic Benefits (£ million) 147 129 133 128

§ Patronage (£ million p. a.) 5.1 4.8 4.8 4.6

§ Capital cost 130.4 137.4 136.3 137.3

§ Summary Economically this route performs This option is not viable when This option incurs a benefit deficit and This option is not viable when tested significantly better than the other tested against Government criteria. is not robust when tested against against Government criteria. options and is viable when tested Government criteria. (Benefit-cost against Government criteria. ration is rounded to 1.00)

Engineering Impact Acquisition of 16 flats (out of 48) and Significant residential and commercial Widening of Humber Road requires some Significant property acquisition on corner of rehousing on adjacent land for property acquisition at the Queens land from back gardens of houses on High Road/Regent Street. Loss of parking residents of Neville Sadler Court. Road/Station Road junction. Some on- Queens Drive. Acquisition of commercial and loading on Broadgate. Enough parking can be provided to street parking for commercial property and garage at the corner of meet existing parking needs. properties is displaced. Queens Road/Humber Road. Most existing parking could be accommodated in parking bays. Environmental Impact Some adverse effects on the character Significant adverse impact on Queens Adverse impact through loss of trees and Noise impact in a very low noise of Lower Road and Fletcher Road but Road though loss of trees and possible gardens on Queens Road and Humber environment (Humber Road) is likely to be these roads will remain closed to effect on gardens. Road widening on Road. Road widening on segregated more disturbing than a similar impact in a through traffic. Noise impact in a very segregated section will bring traffic section of Queens Road will bring traffic location with higher ambient noise levels. low noise environment is likely to be nuisance closer to houses and flats. nuisance closer to houses and flats. Noise This option is preferred on environmental more disturbing than a similar impact in impact in a very low noise environment grounds. a location with higher ambient noise (Humber Road) is likely to be more levels. This option is the least disturbing than a similar impact in a preferred on environmental grounds. location with higher ambient noise levels.

Note: All patronage, cost and benefit-cost figures quoted are for the Beeston via QMC (BQ) and Chilwell extension via the local options under discussion. Patronage figures are for 2009/10

54

APPENDIX 7 CLIFTON VIA WILFORD Route

Key issues arising out of public consultation.

Impact on Ecology

1. It is recognised that there would be a significant impact on the local environment by the use of the former railway line which has a sufficient number of characteristic species to be designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). Environmental Consultants ERM consider the impacts on the ecology on the former railway line to be ‘major and adverse.’ There is a loss of habitat and impact on wildlife and as with any development which results in the loss of trees, there is potential for adverse impacts on bats. The route passes close to the Wilwell Cutting Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and there are concerns about possible indirect impacts. There are also likely to be impacts on the Iremonger Pond SINC at the northern end of the embankment. Objections have in particular been received from English Nature and the Wildlife Trust. English Nature are particularly concerned about any impact on the SSSI and on local biodiversity. The Wildlife Trust are concerned that there will be irreparable damage to the SINC which represents an important local biodiversity resource in the urban area.

2. The former railway line has no statutorily wildlife designation. ERM have undertaken habitat, botanical and protected species surveys along it and no protected plant or animal species were noted. It is proposed that substantial replanting should take place within the corridor, which could allow some recreation of the habitat and help maintain its present role for wildlife and the local community. It is accepted that such planting will take time to become established and mature to the equivalent state of existing vegetation. Careful design and construction management would be agreed with English Nature and the Wildlife Trust and included as part of the Environmental Statement.

3. On the indirect impact on the SSSI, ERM state “Part of the Wilwell Cutting SSSI is important for its wetland habitat, and English Nature describe the site as being in favourable conservation status. Although it is considered unlikely, as mitigation measures are likely to be effective, the hydrological characteristics of the site may change as a result of NET and therefore the habitats and species present at the site may be affected. At the EIA stage, a hydrological survey will be carried out to monitor the existing hydrology and to recommend measures to prevent impacts occurring”. The route would also only have a small impact on the Local Nature Reserve (LNR) south of Ruddington Lane.

55

4. The option of operating the tram north of Wilford Lane along the edge of the sports fields adjacent to the embankment could enable the retention of part of the SINC and existing wildlife corridor and would have a lesser impact on amenity, but with some loss of sports facility and open space. This could be investigated further at the detailed stage.

5. At the north end of the former railway line, the proposed alignment operates adjacent to Coronation Avenue. An alternative of operating to the north of Iremonger Pond would require a major structure which would have an impact on 2 SINC’s. This is unlikely to be a solution but it will be given further consideration as part of the EIA.

6. The Clifton via Queens Drive (CQD) route is also classified as having a ‘major and adverse’ impact on ecology, as the habitat adjacent to the crossing of the River Trent is also of nature conservation value. Impacts to two SINC’s adjacent to the River Trent and within its floodplain occur, although the magnitude of habitat loss from these designated sites is significantly less than from the former railway line. ERM indicate that the species and communities found by the River Trent are less common than those along the disused railway and that these types of habitats (i.e. riverside) are often more natural and botanically species rich. The former railway line is however more significantly impacted in terms of magnitude of impact.

Noise / Visual Intrusion and Loss of Amenity

7. The other main local concerns on the former railway line cover the potential for noise/vibration and visual intrusion and loss of a local amenity, particularly south of Wilford Lane, where the route has been upgraded to provide a pleasant green walkway. About 65 properties are located within 20 metres of the route. It is accepted that the quiet and secluded character of the immediately adjacent area will change if the tram is introduced. There is however sufficient space to build the tram alignment, to retain a footpath and provide landscaping and noise protection to minimise the impacts. These measures will partially retain the amenity and provide substantial protection to adjacent properties. Appropriate and substantial planting alongside the footpath may help retain the role of the wildlife corridor.

Planning Policy

8. The Nottinghamshire Structure Plan Review has a Policy (5/3) to protect land for the development of new rail facilities. Under section (F) of the Policy it refers to ‘protection against the development of land that would prejudice the retention or appropriate development of the rail network.’ This is further expanded in paragraph 5.36 which states that former rail lines (such as the Wilford route) are considered to be an important resource and should be protected against development which could prejudice their retention as part

56

of the rail network. This policy would need to be balanced against protection provided in the interests of nature conservation.

Alternative Route Options

9. In view of the local concerns, alternative route options to the former railway line have been investigated and two options (plus the core route) were presented in the Clifton consultation brochure. These are shown on Plan 4 and summarised in Appendix 8. The alternatives have significant disadvantages:

• both involve property acquisition at the Ruddington Lane/Wilford Lane junction, and would be more expensive to build. • both routes are slower, requiring an extra vehicle to operate the service, and would be subject to increased reliability risks due to the higher proportion of on-street running. • The former railway line/Ruddington Lane option has a benefit–cost ratio of 1.10, but due to the longer journey times, is substantially weaker in economic terms than the route via the former railway line. It also involves a difficult alignment along Wilford Lane, the removal of the existing traffic calming on Ruddington Lane and it runs through a Conservation Area and an Area of High Archaeological Potential. • The on–street option (Main Road/Ruddington Lane) further involves very difficult operations along the narrow Main Road where there would be visibility problems from traffic emerging from side roads and driveways, and is not recommended on engineering grounds.

Recommendations

10. In strategic terms the development of a tram network is considered to bring long term environmental benefits to the Greater Nottingham area by encouraging the modal change from car to public transport. Utilising the former railway line provides important benefits to the CW route. The 2.5km section (33% of the total route) would allow a fast and direct operation on a segregated section, significantly enhancing the journey time and reliability of the whole route. This will in itself encourage greater modal shift and increased environmental benefits through reduced congestion, providing a benefit to the majority of people in the route corridor.

11. Given the very significant benefits to the CW route as a whole, it is recommended that the route via the former railway line should be pursued. However, in recognition of the former railway lines designation as a SINC and the proximity of the Wilwell Cutting SSSI, work will continue with English Nature and the Wildlife Trust as part of the EIA to mitigate for any negative impacts on habitat and wildlife.

57

APPENDIX 8 CLIFTON VIA WILFORD (CW)

LOCAL ROUTE OPTIONS BETWEEN WILFORD TOLL BRIDGE AND WHERE THE FORMER RAILWAY LINE CROSSES UNDER THE A52 CLIFTON BOULEVARD

Description Via Coronation Avenue and the former Via Coronation Avenue, the former railway Via Main Road and Ruddington Lane railway line. This is the proposed route line, Wilford Lane and Ruddington Lane option. Orange (Core) route Red r oute Pink route Operational capability The route has a significant journey time The journey time is over 2 minutes slower than The journey time is 2 minutes slower than the advantage of 2 minutes over the other options. the orange route and requires an extra vehicle orange route and there is a risk of unreliable Operation would be more reliable than other to operate the service. The route has stretches operation as there is no segregation from other options as the route is fully segregated from of on-street running with other traffic and a traffic. The route would operate on a very difficult other traffic and passing across Wilford Lane difficult crossing of Wilford Lane, which could section along Main Road, which has significant would have little traffic impact. Stops would affect reliability. Would result in a reduction in bends and visibility problems for traffic emerging provide good access to Wilford and Compton NET demand from the local area due to from side roads and driveways. Acres. reduced travel opportunities from Compton The route is not recommended as it involves a Acres. difficult alignment, safety, townscape and land take issues, and no overwhelming advantages over the core route. Economic Performance § Benefit-Cost ratio 1.41 1.10 N/A ) § Economic Benefits (£ million) 136 114 N/A ) But likely to be broadly similar to the red route. § Patronage (£ millions p.a.) 3.9 3.5 N/A ) § Capital cost (£ million) 93.9 102.8 N/A ) § Summary Economically this route performs Using this option would weaken the significantly better than the other options. economic case significantly. Engineering Impact The route would run around Iremonger Pond by The route would run around Iremonger Pond by Some property acquisition would be necessary at using a widened flood bank alongside using a widened flood bank alongside the Wilford Lane/Ruddington Lane junction and Coronation Avenue before rising to join the Coronation Avenue before rising to join the some forecourts and gardens along these roads former railway line. It is proposed to lower the former railway line. It is proposed to lower the would be affected. There would be some impact on embankment approaching Wilford Lane from embankment approaching Wilford Lane from street parking along Main Road. Existing traffic the north to allow a crossing at street level. the north to allow a crossing at street level. calming measures would be removed/reconfigured. South of Wilford Lane the embankment could Some property acquisition would be necessary be removed to provide enough width for the at the Wilford Lane/Ruddington Lane junction tram, a footpath and screen (bunding) planting. and some forecourts and gardens on these roads would be affected. Existing traffic calming measures would be removed / reconfigured. Environmental Impact Significant adverse impact on the former railway Significant adverse impact over a shorter length Some adverse effects on the character of Main line through loss of habitat and impacts on of the former railway line through loss of habitat Road, and direct impacts on the Wilford Village and wildlife, proximity to houses, visual intrusion and and impacts on wildlife, proximity to houses, Wilford House conservation areas and an the reduction in the amenity of the footpath. visual intrusion and the reduction in the amenity archaeological constraints area. Impact on the The route passes close to the Wilwell Cutting of the footpath. The route passes close to the former railway line would be limited to the southern Site of Special Scientific Importance (SSSI) and Wilwell Cutting SSSI and there are concerns section between Ruddington Lane and Wilwell there are concerns about possible indirect about possible indirect impacts. The northern Cutting. The route passes close to the Wilwell impacts. section of Ruddington Lane is in a conservation Cutting SSSI and there are concerns about possible area and an archaeological constraints area. indirect impacts. This is the preferred route on environmental grounds. Note: All patronage, cost and benefit-cost figures quoted are for the Clifton via Wilford (CW) route via the local options under discussion. Patronage figures are for 2009/10

58 APPENDIX 9

NET Route Options Consultation Executive Summary For Nottingham City Council And Nottinghamshire County Council

8th Apr, 2002

Produced for: Nottingham Express Transit Nottingham City Council Nottinghamshire County Council

Produced by: Alan Haylock Research Executive Keydata Group

59

1.0. Synopsis

A consultation exercise was carried out by Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council (promoters of NET), into proposals for tramline extensions, to follow the development of Line 1 out to Hucknall. This consultation process involved asking members of the public and major stakeholders, their views about the proposals.

This research concerns the NET proposals in the context of three extensions- Beeston/ Chilwell, Clifton and West Bridgford.

Consultation brochures were hand delivered to approximately 70,000 homes and businesses in the areas for this consultation, and consultation events were held by NET at local venues to further explain to the public what the proposals entail. NET staff were on hand to answer questions.

The public and major stakeholders had the opportunity to express their views using Freepost feedback cards enclosed in the brochures or through correspondence via post, email or NET’s Internet site.

The returned feedback cards and other correspondence were passed on to Keydata Group, an independent research company, for analysis and this report is based on the findings from the research.

2.0. Objectives:

The objective of this research is to understand the views of the public and major stakeholders’ about the proposals.

Keydata Group Ltd, a company both highly experienced and independent in the context of research for local authorities and major companies carried out the research analysis and reporting. This was to eliminate any bias in the context of the research, and provide independent and comprehensive findings, to a very high quality.

The company has wide experience in consultation research for local authorities, concerning measuring the public’s opinions in both a highly analytical and independent way. It has been used by a number of local authorities and academic institutions, in particular in Nottinghamshire and the City of Nottingham. Previous research has included research into public transport provision in Nottingham.

The company is locally based and therefore able to provide insight in the context of research that is both impartial and beneficial.

60

3.0. Methodological Issues:

Due to the nature of the research (the self-completion nature of the research and cards not being coded along social demographic lines), results should not be looked at in an overly statistical manner. There is however adequate data to look at findings of what concerns people have, and what these concerns relate to in terms of location.

This research is primarily qualitative (looking at opinions/ views in detail), rather than a mainly quantitative exercise where statistics are looked at in detail as in the context of opinion polls.

As well as households and businesses, a number of stakeholders were consulted separately. Stakeholders are specified as those who have a specific interest in the proposals as a group rather than as an individual. Examples of stakeholders include environmental groups, statutory bodies, educational facilities, local interest groups, local authorities, businesses and public facilities.

Responses were checked by Keydata to make sure that relevant details such as the respondent’s postcode were included on the correspondence received, to allow analysis of opinions for different geographic areas, and to make sure the comments were relating to the correct set of NET proposals.

Analysis involved grouping similar comments into categories created in an impartial context, for instance mentions of “trams cutting congestion”. This was done by thoroughly reading the correspondence, then allocating categories to describe different comments in a grouped way. This allowed all of the opinions/ views held by respondents to be properly recorded.

The total number of responses including duplicates from multi member residences was 1189 for the Beeston/ Chilwell exercise, 1013 for the Clifton exercise and 723 for the West Bridgford exercise; this is about 4% of the number of people consulted in each of the areas.

Through analysis of the feedback, a number of comments appeared identical or almost identical. Due to the nature of this research, the likelihood of this occurring by chance is extremely remote. What is most likely, is that some respondents were copying information from elsewhere.

4.1. Conclusions- The Beeston/ Chilwell Extension

In total 1189 responses were analysed. The Consultation exercise has been successful, with many relevant issues and concerns identified. These are listed in detail in the main report.

61

Many positive comments were made about the NET proposals, either with reference to specific routes, or the proposals in general. Most major stakeholders support the proposals in principle, as long as specific concerns such as environmental impacts are addressed.

The QMC Route, with the Lower Road/ Fletcher Road Route option within Beeston, was the most popular route, receiving far more support than all alternative options. Although the Lower Road/ Fletcher Road Route also attracted opposition, particularly in relation to Neville Sadler Court and disruption to a residential area.

Most concerns raised were in the context of negative effects on the environment, traffic congestion and parking provision.

There were strong concerns in the context of the Chilwell extension, mainly relating to congestion and parking issues along the High Road, Chilwell and Cator Lane. Environmental issues were also mainly concerning the loss of greenbelt and green areas westwards from Cator Lane.

4.2. Conclusions- The Clifton Extension

In total 1013 responses were analysed.

The consultation has been successful, with many relevant issues and concerns identified. These are listed in detail in the main report

Most major Stakeholders support the proposals in principle, as long as specific concerns such as the environmental impact are addressed.

The Queens Drive Route attracted more positive responses than the Clifton Wilford Route Option. 489 respondents made positive mentions about the Queens Drive Option, whilst 284 respondents made positive mentions about the Clifton Wilford Option or one of its sub-options.

Most respondents, who support the Queens Drive Option, do not live along its route, with most living in Wilford and Compton Acres. Though the Queens Drive Option received a large number of supportive responses, a large majority of the respondents would live too far from the Clifton Queens Drive route to effectively utilise it. Especially in terms of the activities, which they indicate, it would aid (commuting and shopping).

Most concerns related to the use of the old railway embankment in Wilford/ Compton Acres. There were a large number of comments relating to adverse environmental impacts in this area.

62

Of the Clifton Wilford Route Sub-options, the Old Railway Embankment Option received far more support than other sub-options, and the respondents who made positive mentions about the Clifton Wilford Route/ Old Railway Embankment Option, were mainly located in areas able to easily utilise it. It was seen as the most convenient and direct route between Clifton and the city centre.

4.3. Conclusions- The West Bridgford Extension

In total 723 responses were analysed.

The consultation has been successful, with many concerns and issues identified. These are listed in detail in the main report.

A number of major Stakeholders favoured the proposals in principle, as long as specific concerns such as cyclists’ safety and protection of listed buildings are addressed.

The Gamston Route option attracted more support than the Sharphill Wood Route. Respondents making positive mentions in the context of the Gamston Route, mainly live in areas along its route.

Many concerns related to environmental issues and residential concerns, and related to specific areas (e.g. Davies Road and Musters Road).

5.1. Summary Of The Key Findings Of The Research (Beeston/ Chilwell Extension):

Key Findings In Terms Of The Proposals In General:

• The research process was very successful with a wide range of views/ opinions recorded in an independent context.

• A large number of respondents (491) did not indicate if they were in favour or against the proposals, but made reference to parts of a route.

• Most major stakeholders welcomed the proposals in principle, as long as concerns were properly addressed, mainly in terms of the environmental impacts.

• A significant number of respondents (68) in favour of the tram felt that environmental issues need to be dealt with in a sensitive and informed manner.

• A large number of respondents (474), indicated objections to the NET proposals in general.

63

• The main reason for respondents opposing the proposals in general, were concerns over parking and congestion (53 and 187 respondents).

• Another major reason for opposition was environmental concerns, mainly in the context of the Chilwell Extension.

• Most of those opposed to the proposals in general, indicated that existing public transport in their area was adequate; many perceived that it could not be improved by the introduction of trams (117 respondents).

• Some respondents felt that trams were outdated technology, and a number of respondents felt that alternative technology such as hydrogen cell buses would be preferable (53 respondents).

Key Findings In Terms Of The Two Major Route Options (QMC and Boots Routes):

• Of the QMC and Boots Route options, the QMC Route or its sub-options was the most popular, with far more respondents in favour than for the Boots Route. 348 respondents were in favour of the QMC Route or its sub-options, whilst 101 respondents were in favour of the Boots Route. 47 respondents made negative comments about the QMC route, whilst 20 made negative comments about the Boots Route.

• Highest support for the QMC Route in terms of percentage of respondents in an area was in the Dunkirk, University and Lenton areas.

• Of those in favour of the QMC route it was felt that the route was favourable, due to being accessible to more people, being direct and passing the QMC, Nottingham University and Beeston Town Centre.

• Most of the respondents in favour of the Boots Route Option lived in West Bridgford (12 respondents), Lower Road and Fletcher Road (7 and 3 respondents respectively).

Key Findings In Terms Of The Routes Within Beeston:

• Of the routes within Beeston, the Lower Road/ Fletcher Road Route (Blue Route) was most popular, and more respondents were in favour than against. Here 178 respondents were in favour, whilst 72 were against.

• Support for the Lower Road/ Fletcher Road Route Option was found mainly in areas alongside that route.

• The Lower Road/ Fletcher Road Route Option was seen to be the most direct route, causing least disruption to other traffic.

64

• A number of respondents felt that any route should avoid the town square in Beeston, as they felt it would affect activities and the atmosphere in the town square (15 respondents).

• There was strong opposition among some respondents (44), to the proposed demolition of Neville Sadler Court if the Lower Road Route Option went ahead.

• Most of the opposition in the context of Neville Sadler Court was from residents of Neville Sadler Court and from other residents in the Lower Road/ Fletcher Road area.

• It was also felt that trams along the Lower Road route might disrupt residents living along quiet streets.

• Only a very small proportion of respondents favoured alternatives to the Lower Road/ Fletcher Road Route in Beeston, with the second most popular route option in Beeston being the Broadgate Route (Red Route), with 37 respondents in favour.

• However, the Lower Road/ Fletcher Road Route also attracted the largest number of objections of any route within Beeston.

Key Findings In Terms Of The Chilwell Extension

• Residents felt that if the proposals were to go ahead, more tram stops would be needed, particularly in the High Road, Chilwell area.

• A high level of opposition to the Chilwell Extension was indicated (554 respondents).

• Opposition to the Chilwell Extension was highest along the route in Chilwell. With the main concern being that it would lead to congestion, loading and parking problems on certain roads in Chilwell.

• Another major concern with the Chilwell Extension is that it would have an adverse environmental impact, in particular on greenbelt land and green corridors (100 respondents).

• Major stakeholders such as the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and English Nature, were worried about encroachment of tram lines on green belt land and along green corridors, with concern about effects on wildlife including protected species.

65

• In Chilwell, people are concerned about the proposed routing of tramlines near local schools, due to safety concerns. This is particularly the case in the Eskdale Drive and Cator Lane areas.

• There is also concern about trams running through Sandby Court in Chilwell. Concerns are mainly about disruption to residents and about safety of the elderly residents and their access to local services such as doctors’ surgeries.

5.2. Summary Of The Key Findings Of The Research (Clifton Extension):

Key Findings In Terms Of The Proposals In General:

• The area with the highest number of respondents was Wilford (403) followed by Compton Acres (227) and Clifton (185).

• Through analysis of the feedback, a number of comments (101 respondents) appeared identical or almost identical. It seems likely that these respondents were copying phrases from other sources.

• A high proportion of respondents made positive comments, either about the proposals in general, or about specific routes.

• Most stakeholders welcomed the proposals in principle, as long as concerns were properly addressed, mainly in terms of environmental impact.

• Major Stakeholders highlighted a number of positive aspects of the proposals, in particular the view that the proposals would effectively serve people in the Nottingham conurbation, and provide an integrated transport system.

• A large number of respondents made reference to the importance of routes connecting with places of work and retail outlets (300 and 213 respondents respectively).

• Of those respondents making reference to the route extending through Clifton, the most common positive mention was that it would reduce congestion (11 respondents) and improve the level of public transport (13 respondents).

• Of those in favour, 53 respondents wanted alternative routing, either using Route Option 3 (the Green Lane alternative route within Clifton, or the route extending southwards towards Loughborough or Kegworth.

66

• 19 respondents favoured more tram stops

• The main negative mentions made were that it would not be economically viable (35 respondents), and that existing public transport be improved instead (28 respondents).

• The main reason for opposing the Option 3 (alternative routing in Clifton) was that trees would be lost (9 respondents).

The Clifton Queens Drive Route Option:

• Concerning the Clifton Queens Drive Option, just under half of all respondents supported this option (491 respondents). The areas from which most respondents making positive mentions about this route were located in Wilford (256 respondents) and Compton Acres (136 respondents).

• It was felt that this route (CQD) would provide good connections to industrial estates and retail outlets to the west of the city centre (290 and 202 respondents respectively.

• It was also felt that this route (CQD) would be environmentally less harmful (173 respondents).

• Of the alternative routes, Option 1 (new bridge next to Clifton Bridge) was favoured mainly due to respondents feeling it environmentally had less of an impact (6 respondents) than a new bridge further towards Nottingham.

• 3 respondents wanted more tram stops in the context of the Clifton Queens Drive Route.

• 39 respondents opposed the Clifton Queens Drive Option.

The Clifton Wilford Route Option:

• 284 respondents indicated that they were in favour of the Clifton Wilford Route, or one of its sub-options.

• 14 respondents felt that the Wilford Route should have more stops.

• 446 respondents made negative mentions about the Clifton Wilford Option. Most of these respondents were located in Wilford (247 respondents) Compton Acres (117 respondents) and Silverdale (24 respondents).

67

• The main reasons for opposing this route were the fears that wildlife, the environment and conservation sites could be adversely affected (178, 164 and 125 respondents respectively).

• Major stakeholders in the context of the environment, such as English Nature, felt that the Clifton Wilford option may adversely affect conservation areas, in particular Willwell Cutting and the old railway embankment.

The Clifton Wilford Route Sub-options- Old Railway Embankment Option:

• Of the Wilford Route Sub-options, the most popular was the Old Railway Embankment Option (Orange Route) (197 respondents).

• Most respondents making positive mentions were located in Wilford (58 respondents) Compton Acres (51 respondents) and Clifton (51 respondents).

• The Old Railway Embankment Option was mainly supported due to respondents feeling that it was the most convenient and direct route (37 respondents).

• 28 respondents favoured this route but wanted it modified, with a connection to Ruddington being the most popular alternative suggested.

• 5 respondents felt that there should be more stops on the Old Railway Embankment Route.

• Other sub-options had fewer positive responses, see below.

The Clifton Wilford Route Sub-options- Main Road/ Ruddington Lane Option:

• 23 respondents supported the Main Road/ Ruddington Lane Option, making it the second most popular Clifton Wilford Sub- option.

• The area with the highest number of respondents making positive mentions was Wilford (11 respondents).

• The main reason for supporting this route was that it was environmentally less harmful than other routes, and would serve more people (both 4 respondents).

• The Main Road/ Ruddington Lane Option received negative mentions from 80 respondents, making it the most unpopular Sub-option.

68

• 67 of the 80 respondents making negative mentions lived in Wilford.

• It was mainly opposed on the grounds that it would increase traffic congestion (36 respondents).

The Clifton Wilford Route Sub-options- B679 (Wilford Lane) Option:

• 15 respondents supported the B679 (Wilford Lane) Route Sub option, making it the third most popular Clifton Wilford Sub- option.

• The area with the highest number of respondents making positive mentions was Wilford (6 respondents).

• The B679 (Wilford Lane) was supported, mainly due to the feeling that it would serve local people (2 respondents).

• The B679 (Wilford Lane) Option received negative mentions from 62 respondents, making it the second most unpopular Sub-option.

• Most of these respondents were located in Wilford (44 respondents).

• This route was opposed mainly on the grounds of concerns over congestion (19 respondents).

5.3. Summary Of The Key Findings Of The Research (West Bridgford Extension):

Key Findings In Terms Of The Proposals In General:

• A half of all Major Stakeholders who took part in the consultation exercise, made positive comments. Major stakeholders generally felt that a variety of issues must be addressed to make the NET proposals for West Bridgford a success.

• It was felt that the measures proposed would have to be carefully tailored to help integrate the transport system and reduce traffic congestion.

• The main concerns held by Major Stakeholders were in the context of safety, mainly concerning cyclists and emergency vehicle access.

• It was felt by Major Stakeholders that improving the cycle network alongside the tram proposals would be worthwhile, for instance developing cycle lanes across Trent Bridge.

69

• Of respondents in general, the main positive mention made was that trams would provide a convenient and fast mode of transport (26 respondents).

• 22 respondents indicated support of the proposals, but also felt that trams should have segregated track.

• The main negative mention was that the proposals would be economically unviable (92 respondents).

• The second most common negative mention in the context of the route was that it would mean further work to recently redeveloped areas, in particular Central Avenue (84 respondents).

• 14 respondents felt that more stops were needed in the context of the West Bridgford Extension.

The Gamston Route Option:

• Over half of all respondents (411) made neither positive nor negative mentions in the context of the Gamston Option.

• 193 respondents made positive mentions in the context of the option, whilst 143 made negative mentions.

• The main positive mention in the context of the route option was that it would reduce traffic congestion, mainly along the A52.

• The second most common positive mention was that the option would encourage use of park and ride facilities (32 respondents).

• The main reason for respondents opposing the option was that there would be an increase in congestion (42 respondents).

• Another major reason for respondents being against the proposals (36 respondents) was that trees would have to be removed along Davies Road, for the construction of the tramlines.

• 7 respondents felt that more tram stops were needed for this route option.

• The street which had the highest level of negative mentions was Davies Road (77 respondents).

70

The Sharphill Wood Option:

• Slightly more respondents made negative mention than positive mentions. 183 respondents making positive mentions, and 195 making negative ones.

• Over half of all respondents made neither positive nor negative mentions in the context of the option (402 respondents).

• 57 respondents made both positive mentions and negative mentions.

• The main reason for supporting the route option was that it would serve the local population (32 respondents).

• 22 respondents felt that the route option would have a higher passenger base than the Gamston Option.

• The most common negative mention was an indication of opposition to the possible new developments at Sharphill Wood (50 respondents).

• 45 respondents felt that the proposals would lead to greater congestion along the A52.

• The street where the most positive mentions were made was Musters Road (14 respondents) followed by Davies Road (13 respondents).

• The street where the most negative comments were made was Musters Road (31 respondents).

71

APPENDIX 10 PUBLIC CONSULTATION – SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER RESPONSES

Stakeholder Route Summary of C omments Strategic Rail Authority All No preference for which routes are selected. Interested in ensuring that light rail plans are compatible with the heavy rail network and lead to improved integration. The schemes proposed would be complementary to heavy rail. DPTAC – Disabled All To ensure accessibility for disabled people is built into the project, accessibility will need to be included as criteria aga inst which the Persons Transport project options are assessed. Advisory Committee Sports Counci l All § Will object to the loss of any playing fields to development unless one of five specific exceptions is met – contained in Planning Policy Statement “A sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England”. § Would object to one of the suggested routes (Clifton Lane to Southchurch Drive) if selected, as it appears to run across an area of open space including playing fields. Meadows Partnership All § Feel that the Beeston & Chilwell and Clifton routes only skirt the Meadows and so are disappointed ab out the situation Trust (deferment of decision) of the West Bridgford routes. § Ask that early consideration be given to a route using Arkwright Walk through the Meadows to the Trent Bridge/London Road junction, turning east and along Meadow Lane towards the Riverside Regeneration Area. The route could continue to Colwick Racecourse (park and ride site) and possibly follow the railway alignment to use the Gedling rail branch, serving the planned park and ride car park beyond Gedling. § Feel that their alternative route would be more profitable than the proposed West Bridgford routes and would provide synergy with the Waterside Regeneration Programme, which is due to transform the Trenside area between Trent bridge and Colwick, bringing new housing and urban transformation.

Broxtowe Borough Beeston & § Acknowledge the alarming increase in road traffic congestion throughout the Greater Nottingham conurbation and the resultant Council Chilwell pressure placed on traffic management. § Continue to support the NET extensions in principle. § Are concerned about the nature and extent of the practical issues raised during public consultation and require NET to prepare detailed proposals to overcome or minimise the legitimate concerns. The Queen’s Medical Beeston & § Unequivocal support for the BQ route and wish to actively work to ensure that the route is approved. Centre Chilwell § See the establishment of the route as a major opportunity to improve and enhance – 1. The quality of service to patients - Approximately 1 million patients related journeys take place each year to the hospital. These journeys contribute to the daily congestion of the road network that serves the QMC and all major arteries to and from the City of Nottingham. They put forward a layout for a transport interchange showing how the tram could enter and leave the QMC. A new Diagnostic & Treatment Centre is planned to be built which will give the opportunity to take out of the main hospital a whole range of activity which can be provided on a day case, out-patient ”one stop” (ambulatory care) basis. They propose to build the new centre adjacent to the NET interchange. This would create the opportunity to tailor thousands of patient attendances each year around the availability of reliable high quality public transport rather than using congested roads. 72

2. The recruitment and retention of hospital staff - NET would make available to existing and new staff a high quality, cost effective, safe and reliable public transport option. This will go a long way to facilitate the recruitment and retention of health service workers in an increasingly competitive market. 3. The local environment . - The introduction of NET should see improvements to air quality, which is particularly important, as the QMC site has recently been designated as an Air Quality Management Area due to excess Nitrogen Dioxide levels. The Boots Company Beeston & § Support the principle of the NET system as a sustainable form of transport serving that part of the city. Chilwell BB § Object to the route as its passes through the heart of their complex. If this route is selected they ask that the proposed line be moved to a more suitable location closer to the boundary of their ownership. BQ § If this route were selected they would review routes and timings of their employee bus services, with the objective to both enable staff to commute to/from the site using NET, plus a bus, and to encourage visitors to the site to use the tram. The University of Beeston & § In principle support the idea of a BQ route and can see the benefits for students, staff and the potential positive impact on Nottingham Chilwell commuting and connectivity. § Have concerns about the exact route the tram will take through University Park, especially down Science Road and the visual and environmental impact of the ‘flyover’. They have plans for the development of a plaza area between the Arts Centre and the DH Lawrence Pavilion and therefore knowledge of the route and where the stops may be placed is important to them for incorporation in their plans. § The use of Science Road by the tram, and the potential for that road to be closed as an exit is linked to other traffic issues they have, especially with the North Entrance on Derby Road. Feel that it would be useful to have all the questions of the Science Road route, flyover, access to their car park cleared up. § Appreciate that the route has to be fully surveyed once approval is granted and look forward to co-operating with NET to produce the best results for all. The Highways Agen cy Beeston & § No route preferences. Chilwell § Park and ride at Toton is likely to have major impact on traffic movements there, which will need to be taken account of. § Ask for close liaison with them in taking the proposals forward, especially where NET routes cross trunk roads. The Countryside Beeston & NET will provide better access to central services for those living outside the City limits and will help give those living i n the urban Agency Chilwell areas of the City better access to the Countryside . Nottinghamshire Beeston & § Support in principle the provision of a range of public transport choices in the City. Wildlife Trust Chilwell § No route preference indicated. Beeston via QMC (BQ) § Concerned about loss of land adjacent to Kings Meadow Nature Reserve as it would cause some decrease in the biodiversity of the area as a whole and feel that the route should be realigned here to make use of the existing railway track. § Concerned about protected species at Beeston Canal and University Boulevard (UB). Trees at UB are a valuable conservation and amenity feature and they would object to any proposal, which would result in their felling. Beeston via Boots (BB) § Route has more impact on the Beeston Canal than BQ route as it crosses at a location with more significant conservation 73

issues. § Precise location of crossing needs to be selected carefully to avoid direct impacts on the protected species in that area. Chilwell Extension (CE) § May affect trees along Eskdale Road, which may then affect protected species. § Concerned about the extent to which open countryside will be lost due to the provision of a park and ride site at Bardills Island. Council for the Beeston & § Support the principle of NET as a means of ho pefully reducing road congestion. Protection of Rural Chilwell § Hope that the route chosen would be one causing least damage to valuable Green Belt/wildlife. England (CPRE) § Concerned about the park and ride site at Bardills island as they oppose development on Green Belt sites. Environment Agenc y Beeston & § Prefer to see routes selected which result in the least loss of habitat, and recreational facilities. Chilwell § Choice of routes should seek to avoid disturbing or bisecting areas of wildlife habitat or Green Belt land, and wildlife corridors such as watercourses, hedgerows or disused transport corridors. § Effort should be taken to maintain the integrity of cycle paths, popular walkways and recreational areas such as playgrounds. PEDALS Beeston & § Support the principle of extending NET but state that careful attention to detailed alignment and design is required, in particular Chilwell in relation to cycling infrastructure. Many of the route options impinge on recognised routes. § Feel that the BQ route seems the more viable option. English Heritage Beeston & § No major concerns about the routes and recognise that NET provides a significant contribution to the development of Chilwell sustainable transport in the greater Nottingham area. § The BQ route is within area of the former Lenton Priory. The abbey precinct has been recommended for scheduling as an Ancient Monument. Advise that a desk-based assessment of the archaeological impact of the preferred routes be undertaken. Highfields Park is a registered historical park and garden (Grade II). Need to ensure the proposals do not have any adverse effects upon the park or it’s setting. English Nature Beeston & § Welcome the development of NET and support the development of transport systems, which take full account of sustainable Chilwell development principles in their design and operation. § Favour the BQ route, as there would be no impact on the protected species present in the Beeston Canal. South Notts Bat Group Beeston & Support the development of alternatives to the car for com muters and other travellers but are concerned that valuable urban and Chilwell urban fringe habitats for bats may be affected, directly or indirectly by the construction and maintenance of the line. Better Community Beeston & § Oppose the Lower Road/Fletcher Road option through Beeston. Transport (BCT) Chilwell Alternative route § Believe that a route using disused railway lines, which run behind Highfields/University Boulevard, close to Boots plc (at Padge Bridge) presently terminating at Beeston railway station would serve all 3 main patronage sites (QMC, The University of Nottingham and Boots) and link easily to Beeston centre. § The section from Nottingham Station to the University could follow the proposed alignment or make use of existing lines with spurs to the QMC and the University of Nottingham local residents. § Feel that relocating the route away from University Boulevard will not have much impact on patronage as only one tram stop was planned and the disused railway will take the tram away from residential streets. However, additional opportunities for patronage by incorporating the rail link, as major new industrial units are planned along this route. Land at the Dunkirk end of Highfields has already been allocated to a major enterprise that would welcome a tramway at the rear of the site. § At Beeston Station, Siemens are planning a development for 5000 employees and there are other derelict /vacant industrial 74

sites along this section of the route which might attract development if served by a tramway. Those sites adjacent to Beeston station offer excellent opportunities for integration with buses, taxis, cars and cycles. The residents of Beeston Rylands would also find a tram service located here to be advantageous. Noise concerns Believe that NET’s approach to possible noise problems from trams is incorrect in terms of noise levels actually emitted, particularly after a few years of service. It is misleading to the public; and to the county, city and borough councillors who will vote to on the tram route recommended. Misleading in the way NET seems largely to dismiss, or fail to mention, tram noise as a potential problem to people living beside the various possible routes. Beeston and Chilwell Beeston & § Object to the proposals. Business and Chilwell § Do not believe that all of the route alternatives have been thoroughly assessed and consequently believe that the ‘best’ route for Residents Association any tram proposals running west of the city has not yet been identified. (BCBRA) § Do not believe that the tram is necessarily the best solution to the transport problems faced by the western suburbs of Nottingham. § Believe that the CE is wholly inappropriate as proposed. It serves neither the residents of Chilwell nor makes any significant impact on traffic levels along the A52 or A6005. § Raise a number of questions and suggest a number of alternative options for detailed consideration by NET. Ask that NET examine each issue and make public evidence for the conclusion drawn, so that they can be sure that due consideration has been given to all relevant aspects of the project. BACIT (Beeston and Beeston & § BACIT are a pro -tram group and support, in principle the proposal to build a tram line from Nottingham through Bees ton and Chilwell for Integrated Chilwell Chilwell, to a park and ride site near the A52. Transport) § They state that many local people have expressed concern at the anti-tram literature being distributed and displayed, much of which contains factual errors, half truths and rumours. § They have organised a public meeting for 29 th May 2002 in Beeston to explain why they support the proposals. ART – Alternative Beeston & Object to the introduction of route variations in Beeston (between University Boulevard and Beeston Town Centre). Route Trams Chilwell Broxtowe College Beeston & § Broadly supportive of proposals but concerned about the option to run next to the college campus over their land. Nottingham Chilwell § The college operates on a site with limited room for expansion. It has plans for further growth of activity in Beeston/Chilwell and hence has medium term plans to build further on the Chilwell Campus. § Requests that a tram stop be located as close as practical to the college entrance. Highfields Consultative Beeston & Concer ned about the BQ route in the vicinity of University Boulevard. User Group Chilwell New College Beeston & § Feel that the BQ and CE route would give better access to their staff and students. Nottingham Chilwell § The route would improve accessibility to their facilities to a greater number of people than the BB route. It would also provide better connection to the University of Nottingham. Stagecoach East Beeston & Their bus services operate along the A60 Mansfield Road and therefore will not be affected by the proposals. They state that they Midlands Chilwell are achieving greater integration between bus services and the Super tram in Sheffield with a number of joint ticketing initiatives and would be happy to discuss similar arrangements in Nottingham. Nottingham City Beeston & No specific comments, but do not wish to see the tram lines reduce capacity for access to the City Centre by car, nor to redu ce 75

Centre Retail Chilwell capacity on routes which keep through traffic out of the City. Association College House Juni or Beeston & Concerned about – School Chilwell § health and safety of children on Cator Lane before and after school times. § how much land would be required from the school playing fields at the Cator Lane/High Road junction. Beeston Day Centre Beeston & § Strong preference for the chosen route to run directly down Middle Street as having a transport service pass the centre would Chilwell be a great advantage to them. § Prefer the BQ route as they have close connections with the Queen’s Medical Centre and many of their customers regularly take that route for appointments. Carlton Television Ltd Beeston & Prefer the BQ route and request a tram stop near the Lenton Lane end of Birdcage Walk. Chilwell Beeston and District Beeston & § St rongly support policies, which will encourage more use of public transport and feel that the Park and Ride on the A52 western Civic Society Chilwell approach with express transit to Nottingham would be excellent. § Feel that the suggested route from Bardill’s island to the city would not be an express route after the initial section to Cator Lane. § Feel that an express route from the park and ride would be possible if the route travelled south through Toton sidings and then along the railway station and the Boots factory. § Feel that a though ticketed local shuttle bus service to Attenborough and Beeston stations would be effective without the upheaval of a tram route through a heavily built up area. § Request more tram stops to allow passengers to access to the Beeston and Chilwell area. DEFRA (department Beeston & § Note that the park and ride at Bardills Island and possible extension to Clifton may cross -agricultural land. for Environment, Food Chilwell and § Ask that once the area for proposed development is narrowed down detailed agricultural land classification be independently & Rural Affairs Clifton commissioned to ascertain the actual land quality. Final decision should then be influenced by this definitive information.

The Highways Agency Clifton No route preference s. Agree with the integrated transport principle of providing a tram route to Clifton, but NET would need – (HA) § to agree access details of proposed park and ride sites. § ensure that routes do not conflict with the HA’s A453 Clifton Lane improvement proposals. § ensure close liaison with the HA’s where NET routes cross trunk roads, all such crossings would have to be grade separated. Environment Agency Clifton Please also see the section on Beeston and Chilwell for general comments, which apply here also. § View the CQD route as preferable to the CW route. § Prefer the alternative bridge (to the west of Clifton Boulevard) over the River Trent to the proposed alignment. § Prefer the proposed route along Farnborough Road to the alternative via open space between Clifton and Silverdale. § Prefer the proposed route through Clifton centre to the park and ride site than the route using Green Lane and Clifton Lane. § Strongly recommend the Main Road route through Wilford, as it appears to have the least impact on SINCs. Feel that the other CW routes are likely to have high impact on the former railway line, designated a SINC. Nottinghamshire Clifton Support the concept of a route to Clifton to facilitate a modal shift from use of the private to public transport. Wildlife Trust CW § Object to routes that would run along the Wilford Disused Railway SINC, as they would result in irreparable damage to a 76

significant wildlife resource in the area. Also object to the route proximity to Iremonger Pond SINC, which is notable for b oth it s flora and bird population. § Concerned about all CW routes via land to the west of Wilford Road and the construction of a park and ride facility. The routes and car park are in close proximity to Wilwell Cutting SSSI and may result in significant indirect adverse impacts. Wilwell cutting is also a local nature reserve and is strongly protected by the Nottinghamshire Structure Plan and Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan. § Considered that there may be some merit in the Main Road route if it could be routed along Wilford Lane and hence onto the A453 to Clifton, rather than along the Wilwell cutting area. CDQ § Would have a significantly lower ecological impact than the CW routes if the proposal for bridging the River Trent utilising an extension to the existing A52 Bridge were to be adopted. § Would object to an additional bridging of the River Trent with its concomitant impacts on the Trenside habitats and the implications of development in the floodplain. § Would support the route as far as the existing south-western limits of Clifton, if the existing bridge were to be utilised and minimal land take were to be achieved. English Nature Clifton Wish to see NET deliver sustainable development by reducing road congestion whilst maintaining biodiversity in Nottinghamshir e. An overall objective of NET must be to maintain and where possible, enhance the total stock of natural assets within each Natural Area. NET must wherever possible: § Avoid negative impacts on Biodiversity Action Plan habitat and species. § Mitigate for any negative impact on said habitat and species. § Compensate fully for any biodiversity losses caused by the development All NET route options will impact negatively on at least one SINC. They wish to see that the minimum number and area of SINCs are affected and any losses to the SINC network must be compensated for. CW § Concerned that this option will substantially impact on Wilwell Cutting SSSI and do not wish to see development that would negatively affect the conservation status of a SSSI. § Believe that Wilwell Cutting Local Nature Reserve (LNR) will largely be destroyed by this route and any loss must be compensated for. § The Wilwell Cutting Railway SINC is important for access to green space and they wish to see this resource retained. CW & CQD Both options can be predicted to have a significant adverse effect on biodiversity resources. However, they would prefer to see the CQD option with a new bridge upstream of the A453 as the preferred sub-option (alternative 1 in consultation booklet) and hence via Farnborough Road (alternative 2 in consultation booklet). PEDALS Clifton § Support the principle of extending NET, but state that there must be careful attention to its detailed alignment and design, particularly in relation to cycling infrastructure. § Several of the routes impinge on recognised cycle routes. § Prefer the CW route option, which involves using the former railway line. English Heritage Clifton § Commend the CW route using the former railway line. 77

§ Feel that the CW Main Road route with overhead pol es and supporting poles would have a regrettable urbanizing effect that would rob the area (Wilford) of much of its special character, and harm the settings of a number of listed buildings. Royal Society for the Clifton § Express concerns over route options, which might have an adverse impact on Wilwell Cutting SSSI, Local Nature Reserve, Protection of Birds Wilford Disused Railway SINC and Iremonger pond SINC. (RSPB) § Support the CQD route with the alternative alignment for the new bridge over the River Trent to the West of Clifton Boulevard– (alternative 1 in consultation booklet). It may cost more money to construct but feel that there is little point in making efforts to reduce car traffic and attendant pollution loads by providing a greener rapid transit alternative if constructing NET destroys important local and national habitats. Rushcliffe Group of the Clifton § Believe that the Parkway station has the capability to serve long er distance commuters far better than the proposed park and Nottinghamshire ride site at Mill Hill. Branch of the Council § Feel that trams should concentrate on meeting the needs of local people and easing their journeys within the conurbation. for the Protection of Commuter’s needs are better served by accessing other forms of transport much nearer the M1. Rural England § Believe that a circular route to serve more of Clifton would have the potential to achieve a greater reduction in vehicle movements. § Believe that the CQD route provides a better service than the alternatives, as it provides a link for people from the north of the city to a major employment and retail area. § Would not support a route that the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust opposed. § Believe that a line to Clifton presents a major threat to the Mill Hill ridgeline. It would be irretrievably damaged by the development itself and infrastructure changes needed to support it. Environment - Not Clifton ENT oppose the CW routes and have two principle objections which are - Trams Action Group 1. Environmental Issues – catastrophic impact on wildlife (ENT) § NET’s initial network development report acknowledges that impact on the ecology of the area would be ‘significant and adverse’. One route option runs by Iremonger Pond a SINC. That route continues along the former railway embankment – a nature trail and amenity that is a SINC and passes alongside Wilwell Cutting – a local nature reserve and a SSSI. ENT feel that the construction and mitigation measures proposed by NET will destroy these habitats and local environments. § State that their objection to the CW route is supported by English Nature, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Ramblers Association and the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust and that the preservation of such areas is a stated policy in the City and County Council local plans. 2. Economic Issues – questionable patronage and benefits § NET argues that CW is a conduit between presumed high levels of demand from Clifton to the City. However the route does not link the university site and by passes properties to the north and east of Clifton. Instead the route passes through an area only sparsely served by public transport – there is no demand and antipathy toward the tram is unlikely to alter this in the future. § State that they are told that CW is attractive because it is cheaper and quicker to build, but ask how refined and accurate are the estimates. § If the extension of the tram network proceed it will be the most expensive project carried in Nottinghamshire for decades, involving hundred of millions of public money. They state that decisions taken now should be based on proven value compared to alternatives, on robust unquestionable evidence and total costs, and not be governed by considerations of 78

short -term advantage. § Feel that the CQD route is a better long term solution. Many of the questions raised over the CW would be overcome, it would also serve the retail and business parks, in particular the forthcoming major re-development of the Royal Ordnance site. The environmental consequences are far fewer and public acceptability is not a controversial issue. ENT is not an anti-development group and wants to see Nottingham thrive and progress so that it remains a great place to live and provides ongoing work and recreational facilities for future generations. They recognise the need to reduce traffic congestion around Nottingham. They are keen to see cost effective solutions to transport management and city development in harmony with minimal local impact on protected environments and without impairment of the quality of life of residents, who have a right to continue to enjoy the settled expectations of their locality. Barton in Fabis Parish Clifton Object to the use of Green Belt land for the tram route and a park and ride site. Council St Fran cis’ Church Clifton Support the proposals but have concerns about land that might be required in front of the church and the noise of the tram. Coronation Sports & Clifton Would object to a CW route if it involved using their playing fields i nstead of the former railway line. Social Club South Nottingham Clifton § Ask that the tram route be extended from Southchurch Drive to the roundabout at the bottom of Green Lane and continue along College (Charnwood Clifton Lane. Centre) § Alternatively the tramline sh ould be routed along Farnborough Road to go directly past the college. New College Clifton § Very supportive of the proposed extension and believe that it will enhance access to the city and their facilities for a larg e Nottingham number of students and staff who work and travel through the area. § Believe that the fast times offered by the CW, former railway line route are advantageous. Farnborough Clifton § Support CQD route. Comprehensive § Object to the CW route on the grounds of safety, disruption and noise School The Nottingham Clifton § Support the Clifton line being routed via one of the Wilford options and recognise the benefits its construction would bring to the Emmanuel School development of the new school, given it wide catchment area. § Ask that full consultation take place with local residents and other interested parties (including them), on the detail of the preferred route should it run through Wilford, particularly on the siting of tram stops. The Diocese of Clifton Support the Clift on via Wilford route in respect of the Nottingham Emmanuel School. Southwell DEFRA Clifton & W Note that the extension to the Park and Ride sites in Clifton and Sharphill Wood cross -agricultural land. Bridgford Rushcliffe Borough Clifton & W § Con firm their continued support in principle for extending the tram system into the Borough. Council Bridgford § Note that the West Bridgford routes do not currently meet the essential Government criteria for them to be progressed further at this stage. § Accept that if the routes are not progressed now they could be reassessed as a future phase of the NET network: an extended timescale would provide an opportunity to consider an integrated approach to resolving the transportation problems in the Borough and link any NET proposals to the outcomes of the various multi modal studies. § Urge the County Council to take steps to improve public transport in the Borough. 79

If the CW route goes forward they seek assurances that the impact on local residents will be minimised and that there wil l be opportunity provided to comment on the proposed methods of mitigation and that opportunities for resolving transport problems in the area are maximised, e.g. by integrating bus services and routes with the NET system.

The Highways Agency W Bridgfo rd § Agree with the integrated transport principle of providing a tram route to West Bridgford. § The alternatives will have to be considered by the Government Office’s A52 East of Nottingham Multi Modal Study, which should be completed in 2004. § If there were already a Park and Ride site at Gamston, that alternative would appear preferable from the point of traffic loading on the A52. Feel that the Park and Ride site sited to the northwest of the roundabout would have less traffic implications for the A52 rather than the proposed site to the south-east of the roundabout. The Countryside W Bridgford The Gamston (GT) route would provide a valuable opportunity for re -emphasising the link between town and country by Agency encouraging those living in the City to take advantage of existing routes out into surrounding countryside and by offering those living beyond Gamston to have easier access into the city. Nottinghamshire W Bridgford § Support the concept of improved public transport routes in W est Bridgford to facilitate a modal shift away from use of the private Wildlife Trust car, however have fundamental concerns about the rationale behind the tram proposals. § Both routes assume that permission will be received for park and ride sites on Green Belt land and are clearly designed to anticipate substantial future housing development, which is neither allocated in an adopted Local Plan nor approved Structure Plan. As a Trust they have a policy to strive to protect Green Belt land and to further the conservation of open countryside and therefore cannot support the proposals for park and ride sites in the Green Belt. § Neither of the routes appear to directly impact on any known SINCs but many mature trees would be lost for both routes and this will have implication for the conservation of bats, a protected species. PEDALS W Bridgford § Please also see the Beeston & Chilwell and Clifton sections for general comments, which apply here also. § The proposed line via Arkwright Walk impinges on a recognised and well-used cycle route and Trent Bridge. Bridgford Road and Central Avenue are also well used by cyclists and PEDALS would oppose any significant worsening of cycling conditions from the details of arrangement to accommodate the tram. § With the A52 Multi-Modal Study next year and the Gamston (bus based park and ride) and Sharphill proposals may now never happen and so discussion of possible NET routes to West Bridgford may therefore be regarded as premature. § No routes preference so long as there is careful detailed treatment to minimise the risk to cyclists English Heritage W Bridgford § Feel that a reduced number of traffic lanes would be a more sensitive and cost effective solution to providing space for NET to use Trent Bridge rather than widening the bridge. English N ature W Bridgford § There are no statutorily designated sites affected by either the Sharphill Wood (SH) or GT proposals. § SH route – Area of concern is the possible impact on SINCS from NET and the proposed associated park and ride. § GT route – Protected species could be affected where the route crosses Grantham Canal and near the proposed park and ride site. Lady Bay Community W Bridgford § Oppose the GT route and feel that the proposals are premature given the uncertainty regarding the location o f new housing Association development in Rushcliffe and whether or not Gamston Park and Ride site will receive planning permission. Holme Pierrepont & W Bridgford § Recognise that encouraging use of public transport is desirable but feel that tur bo diesel buses may be more environmentally Gamston Parish friendly than trams. 80

Council § Concerned about the major one -off cost on the environment by the building works involved in the creation of new routes. § Feel that the park and ride sites should be located further out for example between Radcliffe and Bingham and at Cotgrave or near to Tollerton to reduce car travel, congestion and pollution. § Feel that a West Bridgford route should be single track and run through the major population areas and around West Bridgford. A cross Bridgford route would be more beneficial to the locals than the twin track spurs to Gamston and Sharphill. § Feel that bearing in mind the suspension of the Rushcliffe Local Plan and the on going A453 and M1 and planned A52 multi- modal studies the proposed timescale for planning, developing and constructing the tram projects in a manner effectively integrated with other development will be crucial. Nottingham W Bridgford § NRL is a public/private sector p artnership, which covers the Greater Nottingham and includes representation from the City Regeneration Ltd Council, emda and the private sector. (NRL) & Nottingham § NWL is a subsidiary company in partnership with British Waterways charged with the responsibility of regenerating around 250 Waterside Ltd (NWL) acres of land adjoining the Trent and canal. § NRL are positive in their support for an extension of the NET network and express a strong intent to see a southern extension encompass the waterside regeneration area. They suggest an alternative route which would link to a park and ride site at Gamston and feel that the route would help to open up development opportunities to the east of Lady Bay, which, in part could fund the extension. South Nottingham W Bridgford § Very supportive of developing a tra m route from the City Centre to West Bridgford but suggest that is should be directed down College Loughborough Road.

81

APPENDIX 11

PUBLIC CONSULTATION - SUMMARY OF PETITIONS RECEIVED

Petition Description of petition Route Source Number of Date No. signatures received

1 Object to the proposed extension of the NET route through West West Bridgford Councillor Brandon- 750* September Bridgford and Wilford to Clifton. and Clifton via Bravo (Nottinghamshire (*Please also 2001 Wilford County Council) see petition No. 6 on the ENT (Environment Not next page) Trams) Action Group

2 “We, as Chilwell residents, deplore the sketchy and haphazard Chilwell Councillor Sheila Foster 569 October nature of NET’s initial sample consultation which has served only to Extension (Chilwell West Ward, 2001 cause uncertainty, anxiety and fear. Though nothing has yet been Broxtowe Borough decided it appears that only one route through Chilwell is being Council) considered as part of the proposed line to the West of the City. In providing an environmentally friendly mode of transport we are anxious that our green corridors and green belt are not eroded. We demand that NET consider other possible corridors using existing main roads or brown land before finally deciding on the preferred route to pursue.”

3 “We, the undersigned, support the aims of BCT (Better Community Beeston Councillor Stephen Doo 1,514 December Transport) in opposing the current ‘preferred’ tram route through via QMC (Broxtowe Borough 2001 Neville Sadler Court, and by discussion with councillors and NET, Council) promoting a better route to benefit Beeston with the minimum of disruption to the community and the residents within it.” Better Community Transport

4 “The undersigned consider that the Pink route, which directs the tram Clifton Main Road residents 86 February service along Main Road, is totally unacceptable and should be via Wilford 2002 rejected on the following grounds: 1. Wilford Village has one access via Main Road. To obstruct this access further by implementing a tram service along Main Road would cause excessive delays to the tram and other road users 82

thereby increasing congestion and pollution. 2. The character of Wilford Village will be destroyed. 3. There would be a direct impact on safety, as vehicles would be emerging from side roads and driveways into the shared carriageway. 4. The existing carriageway is too narrow to construct a dual tramway track and vehicle carriageway. This means there would be compulsory purchase of gardens and driveways along Main Road. In fact some historic buildings would have to be destroyed. “

5 “”We are residents of Musters R, West Bridgford and wish to inform West Bridgford Musters Road residents 150 March you of our opposition to the Proposed Plans for the Imposition of 2002 Trams as a method of Transport on Musters Rd West Bridgford and request that the plans be dropped.”

6 “We, the undersigned, are totally opposed to the Clifton/Wilford (CW) Clifton Councillor Brandon- 1,350* April 2002 route planned for the Network Extension to the Nottingham Express via Wilford Bravo (Nottinghamshire *This may Transit on Economic and Environmental grounds, nor do we believe County Council) include 750 it addresses the need for the provision of improved Public Transport.” signatories West Bridgford West from the and Wilford residents petition submitted in September 2001 by ENT (No. 1 above)

83

APPENDIX 12

CLIFTON VIA TRENT BRIDGE - ASSESSMENT OF ROUTE OPTION

The route would start at Nottingham Railway Station, before operating along Arkwright Walk, over Trent Bridge and along Loughborough Road, Wilford Lane and Clifton Road before entering Clifton. The route then serves Clifton and a new park and ride site at the terminus adjacent to the A453.

Journey Length Capital Operating Patronage Benefit- Time segregated Cost (£m) Cost (£m (Millions Cost ratio (mins) % per annum) 2009/2010) Clifton via 26½ 22 115.7 2.7 3.1 0.50 Trent Bridge Clifton via 21 63 93.9 2.5 3.9 1.41 Wilford (CW) Clifton via 24¼ 30 119.8 2.6 3.4 0.61 Queens Drive (CQD)

Route Performance is set out below:

Operational capability The route is significantly slower than the Wilford and Queens Drive route options to Clifton. The route has only 22% segregated running and has significant interface with other traffic on major and secondary radial routes. It operates over the congested Trent Bridge area on-street and through a number of complex junctions. There is a high risk of journey time unreliability.

Usage The option provides new journey opportunities between Clifton and County Hall/Trent Bridge and Meadows east areas, but it provides lower patronage than the Wilford and Queens Drive routes due to lengthier end-to-end journey times (compared to the Wilford route) and lower park and ride usage (compared to Queens Drive route). The route in particular is unable to generate similar levels of modal shift traffic from cars.

Costs The capital costs are higher than the Wilford route and include an additional vehicle. Operating costs are higher than the Wilford and Queens Drive routes due to longer journey times.

84

Benefit-cost ratio The benefit-cost ratio falls substantially below the levels required to pass Government funding tests.

Integration The route would provide good potential for integration with other modes, including Nottingham Station, and a bus interchange at Clifton centre and the Clifton park and ride site.

Development and regeneration potential The route would assist in the regeneration of the Meadows east area and provide a link to the Waterside Regeneration Zone.

Engineering impact The option is feasible. The route would pass along the pedestrianised Arkwright Walk and follow the existing highway across Trent Bridge. The bridge and approaches will require widening although the existing appearance would be retained. The route then continues mostly on-street to Clifton. Minimal land take would be required.

Environmental impact The route impacts on Trent Bridge (Grade 2 listed) and the setting of the old Trent Bridge, which is a scheduled ancient monument. The Clifton park and ride site would be in Greenbelt. Otherwise there is a minimal environmental impact as the alignment operates largely on-street.

85