Leeds Trolleybus Public
Enquiry
Day 43
Thursday 4 Sept 2014
Links to the audio recordings for
Day 43 are shown here and commentary follows below.
In the first morning session of
Day 43 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thurs 4th Sept 2014 Neil Cameron
QC, counsel for the Applicant NGT cross examines Mr Chris Cheek, expert witness
for First West Yorkshire from the TAS Consultancy on his evidence, dealing with matters around the
viability of the proposed NGT trolleybus scheme.
In the late morning session of
Day 43 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thurs 4th Sept 2014 Neil Cameron
QC for NGT concludes his examination of Mr Chris Cheek, expert witness for
First West Yorkshire, focussing in this section largely on operation matters
comparing buses with the proposed NGT trolleybus scheme. This is followed by a short section of
questions from the Inspector.
In the early afternoon session of
Day 43 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thursday 4th
September 2014, Gregory Jones QC re-examines Mr Chris Cheek, expert witness for
First West Yorkshire on his overview of the NGT trolleybus scheme.
In the late afternoon session of
Day 43 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, Thursday 4th
September 2014, Gregory Jones QC examines Mr Paul Turner, First’s regional head
of commercial on operational matters comparing NGT trolleybus to the existing
bus services, some of which have run continuously since the 1950s
If the previous day was a
fascinating in depth look at the problems with trolleybus, today’s examinations
began with an immensely complicated examination which I frankly found very
difficult to understand. I will
acknowledge that Neil Cameron QC for NGT did seem to make some headway against
Mr Chris Cheek’s case, but I rather had the feeling that this was not a
substantial as it may have appeared.
For example it may well be that a
trolleybus has certain advantages such as less vibration from its drive train
than a diesel bus, or that if it has priority at traffic lights then it will be
more reliable, but these are isolated factors which are only part of the big
picture that the NGT witnesses keep telling us that we should look at ‘in the
round’.
Or is it not the pot calling the
kettle black for NGT to find and criticise Mr Cheek’s decision not to include
quality of bus stops in his model because he didn’t think it was significant
enough, when the level of assumptions taken by them are vastly greater in
extent, not only on this kind of small detail, but on the very basis of claimed
public demand for a trolleybus, such as the extremely detailed analysis of the
Stated Preference (SP) tests we have seen.
The SP research and its
methodology was strikingly absent from Mr Cameron’s cross examination. Yesterday Mr Cheek had aimed an extended and
withering blast onto this when examined by Mr Jones, and it would seem to be a
cornerstone of the case against NGT, but unless my mind wandered off for a
nanosecond or two, I don’t recall Mr Cameron making any attempt to retrieve
it. If he didn’t, isn’t it obvious
why? That he would rather move on as
fast as possible from the subject and hope the Inspector forgets about it as he
nitpicks over minor flaws and legalistic technicalities.
Other problems such as potential
for congestion from articulated trolleybuses, the massive and uneconomic cost
which would be required for the infrastructure, and not least the problems with
passenger preferences for seats, were entirely overlooked and ignored. This latter especially could be a serious problem for NGT if it
went ahead, as when it came to thinking about which bus stop to go to, conventional
or trolleybus, that will be a major determinator for many if they realise that would
not be able to get a seat on NGT and does not seem to have been either acknowledged or addressed.
It was not surprising to hear Mr
Cameron attack First’s motivations and attempt to tarnish their image. Mr Paul Turner, local head of Commercial for
First did something to defend their reputation when he later came into the
witness box and stated that First had been realigning their policy away from
being strictly shareholder profit driven, and backed up the rationale behind
this in explaining that profitable routes such as the A660 allowed the company
to maintain the less profitable. If
revenue from a route like the A660 were reduced due to passengers being poached
by NGT, and their services consequently cut, then the less profitable routes
would suffer as a result. Simple
economics. And this harks back to Mr
Cheek’s point about the likelihood of the 28 and 97 services being reduced as
these would be the most vulnerable to loss of passengers. Many people, myself included, will take a 28 or 97 from the city
to Headingley as if it were a 1 or a 6
and barely notice the difference. But
if the trolleybus took 60% of the passenger traffic from the A660, then the
passengers who do actually travel on to Adel or Guiseley would probably not be
sufficient to justify the service at current levels and thus it would become
less frequent. And so commercial and
community benefits coincide.
There was a lot of detail I
simply don’t have time to go into, but I will list some of them, questions by
Inspector on how hybrid buses work, which was some welcome information, the
proposed First New bus for Leeds, and faster ticketing methods.
The general feeling amongst objectors was that
Mr Turner was solid in his knowledge of his evidence and was successful in retrieving
some of the ground that may have been perceived to have been lost in one or two
places by Mr Cheek due to the sophistry involved in the examination against him. But I only have time for a short blog today,
and it was hard fought all day on both sides.
I can only recommend a close listening to one of the most difficult days
I have heard so far if you want to be able to make more detailed judgements on
what went on. In summary, Mr Cameron seemed
to avoid the difficult stuff, and stick to distracting us with less important material of immense
and confusing detail that might give the impression of turning the field against
First, but which in reality was secondary to those major battles that NGT are
tacitly admitting they have lost by the simple action of not coming back to fight
over them, but rather leaving them well alone.
No comments:
Post a Comment