Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 25
June 17 2014
Day 25 of the Public Enquiry saw
the completion of the examination of Mr Paul Hanson on the modelling of traffic
flow and demand for the proposed scheme, and when this was completed, Mr Neil
Chadwick came on and was taken through his evidence on the business case by
Neil Cameron QC
Links to the audio recordings of
all sessions are given here, and my commentary follows below that.
In the first morning session of
day 25 of the Public Enquiry the examination of Mr Paul Hanson with regards to
his modelling of traffic and demand for the NGT trolleybus scheme is continued
by Dr John Dickinson of the Weetwood Residents' Association and completed by Mr
Nigel Sleeman, a private objector.
In the late morning session of
day 25 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 17 2014, Neil Cameron QC
re-examines Mr Paul Hanson on the subject of traffic and demand modelling which
he carried out for the applicant, NGT/ Metro.
In the early afternoon session of
day 25 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 17 2014, Neil Cameron QC takes Mr
Neil Chadwick, responsible for the business case of the NGT trolleybus scheme,
through his statement of case and proofs of evidence.
In the late afternoon session of
Day 25 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 17 2014, Neil Cameron continues to
take Mr Neil Chadwick through his Statement of Case concerning the business
case for the NGT trolleybus.
The cross examination of Mr
Hanson which was completed today continued with a large number of technical
questions, some of which I don’t really understand. However I will draw attention to some of those which I did.
An absurdity which Dr Dickinson
speedily drew attention to was the assumption that some residents of Weetwood
and West Park were expected in the modelling to choose to travel to Bodington
Park and Ride, which amounts to a journey of a mile or so out away from the
city in order to be able to use the trolleybus, when there would be a stop
either at West Park or Far Headingley that they could walk to. There is a three mile catchment area for
these Park and Rides, but to include residents who would be travelling
backwards did seem to be over egging the pudding in terms of adding projected
demand. This on top of the fact that
there is a 50% uncertainty about that projected demand which has already been
stated. I would feel that adding a
questionable extra demand might be a way of bolstering the uncertainties. It sounds like flimsy ground for the
modelling to a layperson.
Related to this the issue of
Stourton Park and Ride was also referred to, in that it has been stated that
this is expected to be used by drivers coming off the M1, but ‘behavioural’
issues were stated to affect this. One
is reminded of the fact that it has been said elsewhere that the longer the car
journey, the less likely that a driver is to use a Park and Ride. This would clearly affect motorists coming
off the M1 and may be part of the ‘behaviour’ referred to here.
One might be surprised to find
that after all the detailed examination of Mr Hanson and his model that has
taken place over the last few days, a private objector could still find points
which had not yet been raised.
For instance, Mr Nigel Sleeman
raised the issue of modelling around the University front which would be
‘pedestrian dominated’ ~ a term which some of us still find problematic, as is
the use of the area itself. Mr Hanson
admitted that his model was not of a sufficient resolution to look at the
detail of how local access would affect the running of the trolleybus.
Modelling on other routes has not
been addressed by Mr Hanson and he stated that the choice of the overall
strategy to focus on the A660, (and the merits of this case) had been taken by
Mr Haskins predate his involvement. He
stated, fairly enough it has to be accepted, that he did not know why this was so.
He was not aware of any other
modelling work that had been done, on for example the Meanwood Road, or Mr
Farrington’s ‘wish list’ choice of
looking at modelling which would go towards improving the Outer Ring
Road. ‘Tidal flow’ models had also
never been looked at to his knowledge ~ that is where a lane is given to the
dominant stream of traffic depending on whether it is morning or afternoon rush
hours.
There does appear to have been a
remarkable focussing on the A660 right from the early stages. On has to ask whether the decision to go
with the present scheme was predicated on focussing on what could be done on
one route, rather than of need to better manage traffic citywide. As many know, the Kirkstall Road which has
had a great deal of widening and development, is still as much of a nightmare
as ever, and I haven’t even seen at first hand what it is like beyond the
Kirkstall Viaduct where it narrows considerably.
Mr Hanson accepted he had not
been asked to look at or model any of these other options such as the tidal
flow which was called an ‘intelligent’ model by Mr Sleeman. He was not required to answer Mr Sleeman’s
joking final point that the model that had been applied was thus
‘unintelligent’!
In response to a question from
the Inspector Mr Hanson stated there was a limit in the model of how far people
would walk for public transport of one and half kilometres (a little over a
mile), but that this was a top limit and that the average might be 400 metres,
just over a quarter of that. He
suggested that people might walk longer for a better service, but I would
suggest that that would be highly variable, dependent on time of year, time of
day, weather and so forth.
The morning was completed with
the re-examination of Mr Hanson by Neil Cameron QC for the Applicant and he
took the opportunity to argue that the shortcomings in his modelling and its
assumptions which had been brought to light in recent days was not
significant. The reader can come to
their own conclusions in the light of listening to the examinations and his
responses.
The early afternoon session began
with an interesting discussion raised by the fact that the Applicant had made
what appeared to be inappropriate correspondence with a Mr Charlie Sunderland
in the Department for Transport, and which suggested that the Enquiry was
addressing issues about DfT procedures which it was not, and was at no time in
its jurisdiction. The detail of this
can be heard in the beginning quarter of an hour of the early afternoon
session. It would appear to have been a
black mark against the Applicant, who clearly should not be engaging in any
correspondence with the DfT which relates to the NGT scheme or the Public
Enquiry, and it was made clear by the Inspector that anything of this kind
should in future be channelled through him.
The afternoon was then taken up
after this with the introduction of Mr Neil Chadwick who is responsible for the
NGT business case and he was taken through this by Mr Cameron. I have to confess that a large amount of
this causes my eyes to glaze over as endless document references are referred
to. I am relieved that not only do we
have the specialist knowledge of Professor Peter Bonsall to dissect all this,
but that he will be followed by the acute examination of Mr Jones, both of whom
have demonstrated themselves adept at winkling out shortcomings and making them
accessible to the layperson.
A problem which I have been
finding more and more of late, and which compounds the difficulties in
understanding this complex field is that the witnesses have taken to speaking
with quieter and quieter voices.
It may be the case that
individuals vary in the volume of their speech, but with few exceptions, and
particularly of late, the witnesses have either spoken very quietly, or have
failed to properly speak into the microphone provided.
There are several things about
this. Clearly it is not satisfactory
that the witnesses should not be well heard, although the Inspector is not best
placed to experience this problem, since he is, along with Mr Cameron, the
closest person to the witness chair.
There have over the Enquiry been
a fair number of requests for the witnesses to speak up, some from those who
are hard of hearing, but this has not been confined to those individuals. I am myself concerned that what they say
should be picked up by my audio recorder, not just for myself, but for the
concerned listening public and indeed posterity.
One has to question whether the
witnesses wish for their voices to be heard and one might even ask if it is
their intention to obfuscate the recordings and make them more difficult and
obscure for the listener.
It has been mentioned to me by
more than one objector that it is a well known psychological and behavioural
fact that people who don’t believe what they are saying, or at least don’t have
full confidence in it speak more quietly than when speaking about matters that
they do.
In addition, I have noticed that
even those witnesses who do speak well at first have tended to decline in
volume as their cross examinations have proceeded. Mr Farrington and Mr Henkel have probably been the most notable
examples of this phenomenon, but it also applied to Mr Haskins and Mr
Smith. This latter did speak well at
first, but was something of a motor mouth, possibly indicating over compensation,
and his 14 minute reply to Mrs Deborah Fahey’s first question was
unconscionable, seeking as it appeared to me at least, to baffle a novice with
overly technical detail and failing to really address the true meaning of the
question. We do not all have the skill
developed through long years of study and practical experience that has been
developed by the likes of Mr Jones and the Professor in spotting prevarication
and misleading responses.
But I digress.
Even the clearly spoken Mr Smith
declined in audibility towards the end of his time as witness. One might suggest that the reduction in
volume of speakers might be more unconscious and less intended than the
previous examples cited, in that one has almost seen their metaphorical
shoulders drooping even when only reviewing a recording since in their hearts
they have known that shortcomings and even inaccuracies in their statements
have been brought to light.
Some will believe that what I say
her is controversial, even biased as my friends of the skyscraper city would
say, so I will as ever refer you to the recordings, which do not lie, although
on occasions when the witnesses mumble away from the microphone, they may not
entirely reveal all of the truth.
As something of a student of
human non verbal communication and behaviour there is a lot which can be
inferred from watching the witnesses, and I would urge anyone who can to come
and experience these cross examinations since there is a lot more which can be
gleaned from the multi sensory ambience of the Enquiry chamber than from the
mere words that are uttered.
Those who believe the trolleybus
should go forward are entitled to their opinions, but they should remember that
the purpose of the Enquiry is to ‘test to destruction’ the NGT scheme ~ if it
survives and is not destroyed, then it will be allowed to proceed, so to
complain about objectors opposing it is to miss the point. NGT has to justify it beyond all reasonable
doubts, not merely say ‘We think this would be a good idea so let us go forward
and anyone who disagrees is wrong’.
There seems still to be much reasonable doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment