Wednesday, 25 June 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 30

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 30


June 25  2014

Day 30 of the Enquiry saw the completion of the cross examination of Mr Neil Chadwick on his business case for the NGT scheme, and in the afternoon Professor Jeremy Purseglove was examined on the potential ecological impacts of its implementation.

The links to the audio recordings of each session are given below.

[Due to having gotten a little behind as well as having to prepare questions for today’s Enquiry, I shall post tonight’s blog in a temporary form and add commentary shortly, it being that one of the core aims of this blog is to log an accessible archive of links to the Mixcloud site where all the Enquiry audios are hosted.]

Now updated below the links.

I should also say that I am indebted to all those who have been so helpful in pressing the necessary buttons on the recording device when I am not there and without whom the collection would be far from complete.  I would name them, but I feel that they would probably be embarrassed at the spotlight, so I shall just say that they know who they are and their reliability is greatly appreciated.  Should it have been left to me alone it would be a patchy and sporadic record which would fail to give a complete picture of the proceedings.  We have lost one or two minor fragments through technical issues but nothing amounting to any consequence.  I see the success of this informal project so far as being indicative of the unified and co-operative nature of the objectors and their determination to stop this attempted hijacking of well loved parts of Leeds by parties who see them as no more than development opportunities.

In the first morning session of  day 30 the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry: June 25  2014 Mr Bill McKinnon cross examines Mr Neil Chadwick on his business case model for the NGT trolleybus scheme.

In the late morning session of  day 30 the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry: June 25  2014 Neil Cameron QC  re-examines Mr Neil Chadwick on his business case model for the NGT trolleybus scheme.

In the early afternoon session of  day 30 the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry: June 25  2014 Mr David Graham for First West Yorkshire cross examines Professor Jeremy Purseglove on the potential impact of the NGT trolleybus scheme on the local ecology along the proposed route.

In the late afternoon session of  day 30 the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry: June 25  2014 Mr Chris Foren for the A660 Joint Council cross examines Professor Jeremy Purseglove on the potential impact of the NGT trolleybus scheme on the local ecology along the proposed route and is followed by Ms Claire Randall, an independent private objector on the subject of mature and old trees.


Having become rather behind in my commentaries as a result of the gruelling schedule in this second month of the enquiry, I shall take advantage once more of Professor Christopher Todd's excellent comments which were circulated amongst objectors.  Many thanks for his research and incisive observations.


First, some news updates on the fate of trolleybuses elsewhere (the only trolleybuses in Australasia. [And I believe the only right hand driver t-busses in the world. CC]
There has now been final confirmation – despite union protests – of the closing of the Wellington trolleybus system.
The latest on hydrogen fuel
And, particularly interesting, I think, a press release of two days ago from Volvo on their electric hybrid bus, which through the use of flash charging reduces the use of the onboard diesel charger to almost nil. This is more than a halfway house to the fully electric battery bus.
Now, to Day 30 of the Enquiry.
It was interesting to hear Neil Chadwick continue to quote expected advances in the use of renewal energy in the production of ‘green’ electricity in order to justify the trolleybus, while still refusing to consider advances in bus technology for better alternatives to NGT. It makes one feel that all these expert ‘witnesses’ put up by NGT should have their work checked by someone who is truly independent, without any vested interest in the success of the scheme.
On the subject of electricity, it was also interesting to see how Neil Chadwick’s inability to give a straight yes or no to a question does not always serve him well. When, in the context of the price of electricity Bill McKinnon asked him about hydroelectricity, he just had to mention other factors (such as avoiding fossil fuel or having to import energy) which in fact reinforce the idea that trolleybuses might be a good choice where hydroelectricity is available but not elsewhere.

At the very end of his session, when being questioned by the inspector, Neil Chadwick repeated that he could say ‘with confidence’ that the A660 ‘is the busiest public transport corridor in Leeds’, but seemed to reflect the ambiguity that has long hung over much of the discussion of the A660, by also saying that the corridor ‘is made up of a number of individual routes’, i.e., all roads between Kirkstall and Meanwood? (see my Statement Case, p.10). I do hope First Bus quizzes him on this and also about the claim made in January 2014 by Steer Davies Gleave that The most congested routes in Leeds are the A61(N) Scott Hall Road and the A660 Otley Road. Both show that congestion adds more than 100% to journey times in the morning and evening peak periods.’ (NGT Strategic Fit, p.59).(See my Proof of Evidence, pp.10-11, 26-7), which is contradicted – certainly as far as the morning is concerned – by over a fortnight’s recording of TomTom reports last January and February, and makes no allowance for the demographic changes since 2008.

Perhaps rather too sanguine about new trees, Jeremy Purseglove seemed on the whole fairly civilised, as Christopher Foren proved yesterday when quoting from his book on rivers and wetlands, but as Bill McKinnon showed this morning, the ecology reports are just as full of errors and omissions as those provided by other NGT witnesses.
On the question of schedule 1 birds I have seen peregrines attacking pigeons in Cumberland Road and the Ridge (though not recently). They were seen at the Civic Hall and the City Centre in 2010
and also near Headingley station

For a picture of a peregrine falcon on the roof of a house in Headingley, see
Sightings of them seem quite common in Leeds , though, admittedly, we don’t know where they breed. Ditto for migrating bird such as bramblings seen on Woodhouse Moor (

Mr Graham was accused of wanting to ‘ambush’ Professor Purseglove over his methodology, but certainly NGT has nothing to say when we hear that they intend to introduce new evidence on heritage impact. I now understand why I have seen so many theodolites out around Headingley Lane and Hyde Park Corner lately. Is NGT only prepared to do its work properly after having had a rough time at the inquiry? Or are they trying to produce something out of a hat?


Many thanks to Professor Todd for the use of his comments and the links which he has researched. 

One short comment from myself about my cross examination of Professor Purseglove.  He said right at the end that although the ecology might show signs of recovery as soon as two to three years, it would be 'not as good as if it wasn't cut'.  His claim that the ecology would in the main recover by fifteen years from the replanting may superficially be true, but from the landscape and amenity points of view, on which Mr Walker will be examined, clearly the recovery would not be complete until the new plantings had been there for over a century, as that is the age (or more) of many of the fine trees  which NGT propose to take down.

As I write (in early July 2014) the revised Heritage document which Chris mentions (over three hundred pages in length) has just been delivered.  Besides my curiosity about the cost of this document, I am of the understanding that there may well be formal complaints about its submission.  Mr Whitehead has become increasingly stringent in his willingness to accept late entered documents in recent weeks.  Most of these have amounted to short pieces no more than a few pages long which have often been simply supporting documents.  The submission of a document of the length of this new one must surely be brought into question as it is a major piece of work which clearly should have been completed and entered into the enquiry process by the 30th January this year.

One imagines this could be another black mark against NGT, following the exposure of the false allegations of non-co-operation made against First West Yorkshire, the failure of Mr Hanson to show when he was not following WebTAG guidance or Mr Chadwick's statement that significant parts of their case were judgements that had been made without recourse to formal supporting evidence, such as the belief that people's general preference for a shiny new bus over an old one demonstrated that they would therefore prefer trolleybuses.

If NGT have not done the work prior to submitting their case, they should not be allowed to revise that case during the process of the enquiry.  If this is accepted then I can see that the whole process of submitting documents could be in need of review.

Tuesday, 24 June 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 29

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 29

June 24 2014

Day 29 saw the completion by Professor Peter Bonsall of his marathon  cross examination of Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the NGT business case.  In the sessions following cross examinations were made by representatives of The Federation of Small Businesses, Weetwood Residents (affiliated to the North West Leeds Transport Forum, and West Park Resident’s Association) as well as private objector Mr Malcolm Bell.

Here are the links for audio recordings of the day’s sessions, and commentary follows below.

In the first morning session of day 29 of the Trolleybus Public Enquiry, June 24 2014, Professor Peter Bonsall continues with his cross examination of Mr Neil Chadwick on the business case for NGT.

In the late morning session of day 29 of the Trolleybus Public Enquiry, June 24 2014, Professor Peter Bonsall concludes his cross examination of Mr Neil Chadwick on the business case for NGT.

In the early afternoon session of day 29 of the Trolleybus Public Enquiry June 24 2014, Chris Longley of the Federation of Small Businesses cross examines Mr Neil Chadwick on the impact of the implementation of the NGT scheme on small businesses along the route.

In the late afternoon session of day 29 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, June 24, 2014, several objectors cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick on the business case for the NGT trolleybus.

As I am rather pressed for time this evening I shall pass you over to Chris Todd whose comments I have availed myself of previously.


In his evidence Neil Chadwick was rather coy about his role in the Edinburgh tram fiasco, but see the attached upbeat comments he made in The Scotsman on October 20, 2001 . His firm was at the centre, when it came to selling the project.

[This is frightening ~ C]

Like Claire, I do wish Mr Chadwick would use the conditional “would” rather than the future “will” to describe what should happen after the inquiry. By using the future tense, he suggesting perhaps unwittingly that there can be no doubt that NGT will get a favorable decision from the minister.

After a rather unreal discussion of train passengers wanting to move to NGT, simply because a trolleybus was perceived as superior to a train – an assertion apparently made by Mott MacDonald, and from which Mr Chadwick was anxious to dissociate himself – he repeatedly stressed that “a whole raft of things of things will change” once the minister has (sic) approved the scheme and the promoter then makes an application for conditional approval. If various important matters had not yet been tested properly, this will be done so then, but, apparently, this is fine and everything is generally in order since the DFT approved programme entry. If such important work still remains to be done, and there are further changes to be brought it, one wonders just how much the scheme will finally resemble what was in theory the subject of public consultation, let alone a public inquiry.

It is now clear that they are counting on an annual surplus to cover the cost of the scheme (maintenance and renewal, etc.). So the local tax payer will be just an vulnerable there, as in the construction of the scheme itself. Mr Chadwick said this was what happened in Manchester . Does any one know what happens in Sheffield and Nottingham where the tram schemes are both running at a loss?

Towards the end of the exhaustive questioning by Peter Bonsall, Neil Chadwick remarked that there was much more discussion of detail here than he had seen in other inquiries. It makes one wonder what they have been getting away with elsewhere!

In yesterday’s Yorkshire Post, there was a article and a video interview with councillor Richard Lewis on the new Park and Ride at Elland Road , and the one planned for the Aire valley

Apparently, the Elland Road site “had a slow start to life, with just 30 or so of its spaces filled at one stage”. No mention, of course, of why these schemes might fail (unofficial park and ride in our streets, or the over-abundance of city-centre parking spaces, etc.). I checked the TomTom this evening, and there seems to be just as much congestion on the roads to the motorways as ever.

Why do our local media all too often sound like mere outlets for council propaganda. Still nothing on the inquiry since April 29. The Yorkshire Post article simply ends “Two more park-and-rides will be constructed at Lawnswood and Stourton if Leeds 's trolleybus system wins approval.”

Prof Chris Todd


Am I alone in thinking about all the failed banks which have been bailed out by governments when I read the article about SDG and Mott MacDonald and think about the nightmare that they were responsible for inflicting on Edinburgh?  How can these companies continue to be used when they have manifestly failed?  And yet they come back in another attempt to suck our cities dry of funds while destroying them.  Is this mere incompetence, both on the part of these consultancies, and the city councils who so mistakenly have followed their Pied Piper tune, or are they deliberately taking gullible cities for a ride on their disastrous plans?  

The roads and transport lobbies will do anything to persuade us we need them ~ remember that both Councillors Lewis have admitted that this is '90% a roads scheme' ~ so the lie about this being a public transport scheme is transparent.

They have in the past suckered their marks through their beguiling spin, but now that they are being closely examined the sham and shambolic nature of their plans is being exposed and we do not have to buy their snake oil.  CC

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 28

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 28

June 20 2014

Day 28 of the Trolleybus Public Enquiry saw Professor Bonsall continue with his extremely detailed cross examination of Mr Neil Chadwick on his business case for the trolleybus scheme.

Links to audio recordings are given here, and my commentary follows below.

In the first morning session of day 27 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.

In the late morning session of day 27 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.

Afternoon Session
In the afternoon session of day 28 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, firstly a private objector Mr Haigh puts questions to Mr Chadwick, and then Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.

Following the announcement at the beginning of today’s proceedings by Mr Whitehead, the Inspector, that a satisfactory amendment had been made to the email which he had required the Applicant to prepare in order to rectify misunderstandings which may have arisen at the DfT from their inappropriate correspondence, Professor Bonsall resumed his cross examination of Mr Chadwick.

The morning’s questioning proceeded slowly at first since Mr Chadwick, in my view at least, was rather evasive and denied that the methodologies which the Professor was seeking to apply were necessary in the cases examined.

However Peter Bonsall is nothing if not persistent, and he developed his case slowly but deliberately.  He would not let the question of walking times, waiting times, crowding and standing on trolleybuses go away and despite Mr Chadwick’s attempts at avoidance eventually cornered him with the facts, which he had to admit, that due to the limited number of proposed stops and the distances between them, the walking times to these for most people would be increased.  This must be regarded as a significant factor, which would impact most on the elderly, disabled, shoppers carrying heavy bags and so forth.  There was an extremely embarrassing silence of some thirty seconds in his reply to this which in the context seemed a very long time and was followed by prevarication and an attempt to wriggle out from answering the question.

On the question of whether the waits at stops would be longer, he argued that since it was predicted that First would reduce services from their present more frequent service than what is intended for the trolleybus, then the waits for NGT would be shorter.  Anyone who has followed the Enquiry from the beginning will know that the matter of consultation with the bus company, or rather lack of it, has meant that their projections of First’s competitive response is entirely without any basis in evidence.

There appeared to be a similar lack of engagement about people’s responses to the prospect of standing.  I almost couldn’t believe that there was an ‘NGT 3’ option mentioned which only included 40 seats.  I had to play that back on the recording twice before I could believe he had really said that.

Neil Cameron QC protested that his learned friend Gregory Jones QC was making too many interruptions on this cross examination. And indeed it is true that Mr Jones did make a fair number of interjections on this thread.  However, when challenged on this by the Inspector, he made it clear that on the basis that Mr Chadwick had been making assertions that Mr Jones had said things which he absolutely had not, and other prevarications, then he would find it necessary to extend his own cross examination by at least half a day in order to deal with all of this when his own cross examination comes up later.

NGT’s claims as to the expected increase in ‘active modes’ of transport and other claims that the impact of NGT would be ‘strongly beneficial’ were examined, and the Inspector found it necessary to ask why this was considered to be the case.  He asked ‘how do you weigh or balance’ the pro and con factors ‘against one another’ and was given the incredible answer ‘it’s not a formulaic process’, ‘explicitly it is based on our judgement and our experience, and I’m applying this not just here but in many other places’, ‘all these qualitative assessments are fundamentally our judgement on how to interpret the data that is in front of us.’  ‘Every one of these textual descriptions is our judgement.’  To which the Inspector simply replied with a subdued ‘Thankyou’.

Just read those quotes from the last sentence again.  They can be found from about 85 minutes into the first morning session recording

Has he not just hammered a six inch nail into NGT’s coffin?  Can it really be acceptable for the promoter to actually say that they have assessed that their scheme will be ‘strongly beneficial’ in their own judgement and that that is sufficient evidence for which the Inspector to base his own judgement on? This is astonishing.  After all the technical work we have gone over in the last two months, this is no more than a subjective opinion and one which favours its author.  Thus they must surely be dismissed or at least greatly downgraded in value.

This was followed shortly by the exposure of an immense clanger on the part of NGT, the examination by Professor Bonsall of a point which a number of other objectors had also spotted in their Statements of Case.

In Document A08E – 4 page 15, it was stated in table 3.6 that new housing at Kirkstall Forge was in close proximity to St Chad’s NGT stop and that the resulting change in accessibility is ‘significantly beneficial’, to which Mr Chadwick admitted that this was ‘clearly rubbish’. It transpired that this had been put in by consultants Mott MacDonald and had been taken out from documents after September of 2013.  He attempted to minimise its significance on the basis that it had been removed, but the point would not go away about how it got into the report in the first place, and it was left to the Inspector to point out that this sort of thing ‘doesn’t help the confidence of the objectors’ when things like this are put in ‘if that’s wrong are there a lot of other things wrong?’

All this occurred within the morning’s first session.

I should briefly mention the admirably insightful and well focused examination from Mr Haigh, a private objector who was only available for a short time today and so was fitted into part of the afternoon session.  He asked questions around the projection and modelling of the various proposed routes, and the matter was raised that the original three line NGT (including St James’s and Seacroft) had had a projected annual number of journeys of some 6 million, but when the third leg was removed and their estimates were revised, a total of approximately 11 million annual journeys accrued.  The detailed modelling of this was not examined, but one has to ask if this is a case of one of their subjective assessments, as it is hard to understand how a reduction in service of approximately 30% could lead to an increased projection of passenger journeys of about 45%?

An objector who has been unable to attend the Enquiry in person but has been listening to the recordings rang me last night and referred to the NGT case as ‘a shambles’.  Not my word, it is one which an observer has made but one with which I find it hard to disagree.  One may disagree, and one is entitled to an independent opinion, but we must base our opinions on the evidence, and I would suggest that this has not been a good week for NGT in the light of much of it.  Professor Bonsall may not succeed with every shot he takes, but so many of them are so serious, of which I include those I have mentioned above and on previous days, that one has to wonder what the Inspector is making of it all.

Monday, 23 June 2014

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 27

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 27

June 19  2014

The whole of day 27 was taken up with the examination by Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies Peter Bonsall of Mr Neil Chadwick who supervised the business case for the NGT scheme.

Links to audio recordings of all the sessions are given here and my commentary follows below.

In the first morning session of day 27 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.

In the mid morning session of day 27 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.

In the late morning session of day 27 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.

In the early afternoon session of day 27 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.

In the late afternoon session of day 27 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry Professor Peter Bonsall continues to cross examine Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the business case which underlies the NGT proposals.


I have to confess to getting a little behind with the blogging on the Public Enquiry with its somewhat gruelling schedule, so today’s commentary may be a little shorter than usual as I endeavour to catch up on it.   One of the primary purposes of this blog is to put the links for each day up online in an ordered sequence, in order that they may be more easily found and followed, so here they are for day 27, and if I get the time I will update and expand this particular entry.

There are however some subjects which have been coming up that I believe are important to mention and which readers can examine in more detail with the recordings. 

The first of these is the matter of the email correspondence which were sent from the Applicant to a Mr Charlie Sunderland at the Department for Transport.  This was raised previously and was seen both to be inaccurate, in that it suggested the Enquiry was dealing with matters that it was not, and also inappropriate in that the Applicant should not be engaging in correspondence with the DfT with regard to anything in respect of their case and the Enquiry.

This came up the other day and Mr Whitehead, the Inspector, instructed the counsel for the Applicant to construct an email to be sent to the DfT which would exit and close down the correspondence making it clear that it should not have been engaged in and that the subject matter suggested was not correctly referenced.

This was the first matter raised today when the reply email was mentioned by the Inspector who wished to ensure that the email made it clear that the procedures of the DfT were not being challenged in the Enquiry.  An ancillary point came up when Neil Cameron QC for the Applicant read out the text of the proposed reply which included the wording about the procedures used in ‘approving’ the scheme and Gregory Jones QC pointed out that he would be happier with the word ‘considering’ so that there was no assumption that approval was taken for granted.

[I am reminded that on day 25 Mr Chadwick at least twice said ‘As we move to conditional approval’, an embedded assumption of the kind I have pointed out previously as being used in Neuro Linguistic Programming.  This assumption is not correct.  There is no guarantee that conditional approval will be granted and Mr Chadwick should not suggest such a thing.  It is of some concern that this hubris seems to leak out on all sides even to the point of inappropriate correspondence to the DfT.]

I cannot speak for what impression the Inspector may have got of this, but to a layperson it rather looked as though the Applicant had got themselves into a bit of a tangle with this unwarranted correspondence to the DfT.

The Enquiry was then able to move on to the continuing cross examination of Mr Chadwick by Professor Bonsall.  One of the primary topics that he went through in great deal today was the importance of availability of seats and how many passengers would be expected to stand. 

It has been a matter of great concern to many of the objectors that the trolleybus would have such a high proportion of standing passengers.  Exact figures have not been given as the actual detailed design of the trolleybuses has not been specified yet, which is not helpful, but it is admitted that it would be in the region of about 60% during rush hour when full capacity would be expected to be reached.

A correction to wording in the documents was also accepted which would be that ‘in all time periods some passenger will [would] have to stand’.  This may be an improvement on the original wording that ‘all passengers would have to stand’ but is still not satisfactory.

Mr Chadwick was reluctant to acknowledge the significance of the fact that the importance of crowding was less in his model than that exemplified in the WebTAG guidance.

At some length he argued in principle that the ‘quality factors’ inherent in a trolleybus outweighed the disadvantage of having to stand.  As a layperson bus user this is not the way I would see it.  For me, getting a seat, especially if I am carrying the week’s groceries, is of overriding importance.

As early as twenty five minutes into the day’s proceedings it became apparent that Mr Chadwick did not know the detail of how the weighting of all these factors had been worked out, and since he is ‘the last man standing’ as Mr Jones put it, it is entirely unsatisfactory that he simply did not know how this had been worked out and he had to ask for time to get a note from his associates on this matter and answer it later.

To a layperson such as myself the Professor Bonsall’s examination may at times have seemed somewhat rarefied and abstruse, but it is at times like this that he clearly demonstrates the value of all his background preparation.  This may be the longest cross examination of the Enquiry so far, even longer than Mr Jones’s questioning of Mr Farrington in the first week, but the Inspector clearly would not have allowed him to go on at such length if he had not recognised that he was uncovering important material.  And here it is.  Mr Chadwick did not know how this had been worked out, and could not cite any documents even though he is the main proponent of the business case.

We saw this developed further in a later session when the comparison was made with other countries such as Ireland and Australia on how much people were willing to pay for a guaranteed seat.  The NGT assumption was no more than a half of the lowest value used in other countries, devaluing the importance of seating, which would thus improve their business case.  If people are not willing to pay for the 90% chance of getting a seat, then the only 40% chance of getting a seat is of less importance than it would be if they were.  A good chance of getting a seat was rated as of high importance in WebTAG, about four times more important than real time information displays, in terms of impact of ticket prices.  Of course this would be the case, the practical benefits of getting a seat being of primary importance to the elderly, shoppers, mothers with children and most other passengers.

Mr Chadwick may appear on the surface to resiliently deny all these factors which are put to him by the Professor, but as I have pointed out before, mere contradiction does not constitute a successful argument of refutation.  I am reminded of the ‘Argument’ sketch from Monty Python ~ something to the effect that an argument is a logically connected series of propositions (based on empirical or a priori data one would hope) intended to successfully refute the initial proposition, not ‘the mere gainsaying’ of it.  At which point we find we are obliged to engage in ‘the full half hour’ rather than merely a five minute taster.  And Professor Bonsall is not shy of a lot more than a half hour debate.

I shall leave today’s commentary there and hope that my readers are sufficiently interested to dip in to the recordings and consider whether I have made a fair assessment of those portions on which I have commented, or whether as my friends in the skyscraper city ghetto hold, I am merely biased.  I am certainly predisposed to argue against the trolleybus, of that I make no secret, but like Michael Palin in the Argument sketch, I would suggest that I am basing my argument on the facts elicited during examination, and not merely gainsaying the propositions I wish to disagree with, as unfortunately Mr Chadwick appears to have been doing.