Barton Family Response to NET Phase 2

1
Barton Family Responseto NET Phase 2

• John and Andy Barton
• Wednesday 21st November 2007

2
Plan of Talk

• Our plot of land
• Pros and cons of NET
• Appraisal of the statement of case and proofs of
  evidence
• Issues not previously examined

3
Our Land 58 High Road (Plot 150)
Corner of land to be acquired for NET 2 Left
turns only? Nowhere to turn round.
4
Our Land 58 High Road (Plot 150)

• Compulsory Purchase of Front corner
• Access will be across a loading bay if allowed
• Left turns only and nowhere to turn round safely
• Loss of future commercial development
• Fight for compensation
• We dont trust the compensation process
• In limbo while NET 2 is decided
• Time and expense of getting compensation
• Two planning applications needed with and
  without!

5
Pros and Cons of NET 2

• Transport link to poor and isolated
  neighbourhoods
• Disabled access
• Reduced journey times
• Run on electricity not oil, so more sustainable
  in the short term
• Improved air quality locally

• Reduction in car use will be minimal
• Increased carbon emissions
• Noisy
• Expensive to build and operate
• Long build time with increased congestion in
  construction time
• Houses demolished
• Power cuts?
• Economic recession expected so tram is not
  needed

6
Appraisal of NET Documents1. Congestion

• Important case for tram word count 59
• Statement of case, appendix C, para. 2.1.18
• NET Phase Two would reduce the growth of peak
  hour car journeys to and from all central area
  locations by one third between 2006 and 2021 to
  only 9.
• Also in the busy south and south-west segments
  of the city outside the ring road between the
  A453 and A609, NET Phase Two is expected to
  reduce the increase in peak hour vehicle
  kilometres during the period 2006 to 2021 from
  over 3 to less than 1.
• NET phase 2 will reduce car journey by only 4.5
  in the central area and by 2 in south and
  south-west.
• Congestion is going to get worse but slightly
  less quickly!
• During construction it will be worse.

7
Appraisal of NET Documents2. Climate Change

• Part of case for tram word count 8
• BUT, the EIA (section 9.2) says Significant
  effect not anticipated !
• Appendix C section 4.3
• Annual electricity 7MWh (should be 7000MWh)
• Electricity generation 3000 tonnes CO2
• Car journeys saved 4000 tonnes CO2
• But these numbers are based on an average of day
  and night, week, weekend and holiday.
• The trams run during the day, especially in rush
  hour, consuming the most dirty electricity!

8
Electricity Generation on a Typical Summer Day
(Data from National Grid 2002)
Tram adds to coal burn
6 am
10 pm
9
Electricity Generation on a Typical Winter Day
(Data from National Grid 2002)
Tram adds to coal burn
6 am
10 pm
10
Near-Term Carbon Emissions

• Average grid electricity gives 0.44kg CO2 per kWh
  of electricity OK
• BUT day time marginal electricity is mainly from
  coal-fired generation, e.g. from
  Radcliffe-on-Soar, a 40 year old power station at
  only 35 efficiency!
• Coal-fired generation emits 0.6 to 1.0 kg CO2 per
  kWh of electricity
• 7000 MWh of electricity per year emits at least
  4200 Mt CO2 Thats worse than cars!

11
Long Term Carbon Emissions

• Emissions from electricity generation can be
  reduced but so can emissions from road transport

12
Appraisal of NET Documents3. Noise

• Wheel squeal is worse than general low-frequency
  rumble for some people, especially late at night
  and early in the morning

13
Appraisal of NET Documents4. Financial Case

• Where does the estimate of 1 billion of value
  come from? Numbers are hard to decipher.
• Using a discount rate of 5 and 30 years, the
  Present Value to annual ratio is about 16. So
  NET2 is valued at 62.5 million per year.
• With 13 million journeys per year and 15 minutes
  saved per journey, NET phase 2 saves 3.25 million
  people-hours per year?
• This values peoples time at 19 per hour?

14
Macro-economics Peak OilFigure courtesy of
Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group, and
ASPO, the Association for the study of peak oil
15
Effects of Peak Oil

• With demand from China and India increasing, oil
  price is heading towards 100 per barrel NOW and
  could get much higher

Expect a recession worse than the 70s and early
80s coming your way soon!
16
What Peak Oil Means for NET

• On one hand, a recession means that fewer people
  will travel congestion will not grow so the
  need for the tram is reduced
• On the other hand, we desperately need to reduce
  oil imports, so the tram might be very valuable

17
Other Technical Issues

• Regenerative Braking?
• Do the Bombardier trams have the MITRAC option?
• If not, then NET is throwing away half its
  electricity!
• About 350,000 per year!
• And 2000 tonnes of unnecessary CO2 per year
• Power Cuts?
• Anything could happen in the next 20 years
• Over 1MW of backup generators needed
• Dead Sections of Overhead Line?
• A Battery onboard trams?

18
Alternatives

• A cycle route network, segregated from traffic
  would really reduce congestion and carbon
  emissions. It would help people stay healthy and
  fight obesity. Back-road routes across barriers
  are needed, e.g. across canals, rivers, railway
  lines, major roads and junctions.
• A road/ bus lane / cycle link over the Trent? For
  some commuters, this would save several miles
  each day and cut congestion at the bridges.

19
Conclusions

• As a family, we are opposed to the tram
• Time, expense and stress of fighting for
  compensation
• The good and bad points about NET Ph. 2
• We dont think the tram is a really bad proposal,
  just not the right one for the area
• You need to think about
• Wider economics
• Energy sources
• Carbon emissions
• Regenerative braking
• Power Cuts
• Alternatives