Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry
Day 42
Wed 3 September 2014
On Day 42 of the Public Enquiry we got deep under the
bonnet of the NGT scheme. Mr Chris
Cheek, a specialist consultant for First Bus was on the stand all day, first
with the completion of his examination by Gregory Jones QC for First Bus and in
the afternoon by Neil Cameron QC for the Applicant NGT.
Audio recordings of all the day’s
sessions are linked here and commentary follows below.
In the first morning session of Day 42 of the Leeds
Trolleybus Public Enquiry Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Gregory Jones continues
to examine Mr Chris Cheek, expert witness for First West Yorkshire on the
viability of the NGT trolleybus proposals.
In the late morning session of Day 42 of the Leeds
Trolleybus Public Enquiry Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Gregory Jones concludes
his examination of Mr Chris Cheek,
expert witness for First West Yorkshire on the viability of the NGT trolleybus
proposals.
In the early afternoon session of Day 42 of the Leeds
Trolleybus Public Enquiry Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Neil Cameron QC
commences his examination of Mr Chris Cheek, expert witness for First West
Yorkshire on the viability of the NGT trolleybus proposals.
In the late afternoon session of Day 42 of the Leeds
Trolleybus Public Enquiry Wednesday 3rd September 2014 Neil Cameron QC
continues to examine Mr Chris Cheek, expert witness for First West Yorkshire on
the viability of the NGT trolleybus proposals.
This was a fascinating and extremely in depth analysis
which we were shown today.
I’ve made copious notes on the cross examinations which I
shall have to seriously condense if I am to prevent this from getting too long!
In short, for the first half of the day Mr Cheek
continued to take the opportunity to cast serious doubts upon the NGT
proposals.
He detailed a series of shortcomings demonstrated for
trolleybuses in general shown in the Price Waterhouse report on the Wellington
trolleybus system, which is now to be replaced.
High cost of supply of right hand drive vehicles, high
maintenance costs of both vehicles and overhead cables were shown to be
problematic. Where such systems had an
abundant hydro electric supply, as in Canada, or where there is an existing
system, he acknowledged that there could be value in retaining them. But with the continuous advances in hybrid
and battery bus technology, it would be risky and inflexible to introduce a
trolley system in Leeds. Also because
it would be the only system in the whole of the UK, there would be a strong
probability of difficulties with maintenance supplies and low volume
costs. The installation of a
‘micro-fleet’ of trolleybuses was a serious weakness.
The potential for nightmare congestion in the event of
breakdown or accident was identified by Mr Cheek with respect to articulated
trolleybuses and said that the industry view on articulated buses had changed
considerably in the last decade and that most operators would be unlikely to
renew a fleet of ‘bendy buses’ since problems had been identified, chief
amongst which were preference among passengers for having a seat as opposed to
standing. They might be suitable on
long wide roads, but the narrow old world streets of North Leeds were not
suitable. Hence he also identified that
the scheme was poor value for money due to the fact that so much needed to be
spent on infrastructure to make it function.
Simply put, as a layperson it is clear to me that Metro
is attempting to shoehorn NGT into a shoe which is too small. I am reminded of the fairy tale of
Cinderella when the Prince came with the glass slipper and her sisters tried to
squeeze their own large feet into it, and if I recall correctly some of the
more gruesome versions of the tale have the sisters cutting off their toes or
their heels in order to be able to get their feet into it. This is an apt metaphor when you think that
Leeds City Council would sacrifice some of the finest and most mature heritage
in order to fit in this inappropriate system.
The only difference being, that we do not want to cut off any part of
our community in order to be able to shoehorn the trolleybus into our streets,
but would have it imposed without consent, fitting the established community to the newcomer, not adapting that to the established conditions.
The assault on the NGT proposals continued with a lengthy
analysis of the Stated Preference (SP) test which the Promoter used to justify
their choice for a trolleybus. Mr Cheek
was scathing about their methodology.
Regular listeners will recall that Professor Bonsall made a very
detailed and lengthy examination of Mr Chadwick over this when examining the
business case. Mr Cheek drew attention
to the unrealistic, and I would say, biased, nature of the test methodology in
showing a bus which went out of service in 1990 (which would have been in
service 1970-1990) against a brand spanking new bus. Apparently it had been agreed that this survey should have been
redone, but it was not, because, as Mr Chadwick said, it was considered a
disproportionate expenditure.
In view
of this, Mr Cheek suggested that in respect of the fact that £10million had
already been spent, and that potentially £250million might be, a few thousand or
even tens of thousands of pounds would have been money well spent if it
clarified the likely preferences and demand from the travelling customers upon
whom the success of the project relies.
This was a lengthy examination, but it was vital to
clearly demonstrate the atrocious methodology in order to fully rid us of any
belief in the assumptions of the SP test or the notion that they could provide
a valid model, and fully hammer the nails into its coffin lid. Mr Cheek went so far as
to say that the assumption of these bus comparisons was ‘Not a credible
assumption. Not a remotely credible
assumption.’ The gap shown in the
survey would simply not exist. ‘It is
completely false and the idea that that gap will remain in force for 30 years….
Words fail me.’
Having listened to quite some few hours of examination on
the subject of this SP test, which if I recall correctly, even by their own
criteria did not prove a clear preference for trolleybuses, it seems fairly
clear to me that the basis on which this test was made is a total fantasy. I have some experience of the scientific
method from my degree, and it is obvious to anyone with scientific training,
and indeed any sensible layperson of average intelligence, that the kind of
comparisons that were used are bordering on the scientifically fraudulent, or, to be kind, at
least incompetent.
The onslaught continued with Mr Cheek stating that NGT
had exaggerated their assumptions and thereby produced unreliable and
speculative data which could not be supported by actual evidence, again
bringing the methodology into question.
A particularly sharp accusation he made was that Metro
wanted to regain control of public transport and that the TWAO was their means
to gain this legal control, so that a trolleybus system had been necessary
since now that the tram had been dropped, it was the only legal way to do
so. I know for a fact that Dave
Haskins, Project Director of NGT said about two years ago, that Metro was ‘up
for it’, when it came to regaining complete control of public transport in West
Yorkshire. So, the trolleybus has been chosen not
because it is the best solution, but because it gives the political
power to the local authority to get into the public transport game, at least in
Mr Cheek’s view, and I am inclined to believe him. Why else would such a problematic and expensive system be chosen?
We have seen, again and again, that the Applicant failed
to make proper consultations with local residents who would be affected (eg,
Thursday 17th July late afternoon session)
http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-35-july-17-2014-late-afternoon-session/
or that, as I believe I
clearly demonstrated in my own cross examination of Mr Thomas Walker earlier
that afternoon, the photomontages have been purposely doctored to suggest more
positive connotations to the trolleybus.
I would myself, as a qualified Art Therapist with a training in the
scientific method, would suggest that this amounts to falsifying evidence, and
we are perilously close that that scientific sin with the deeply flawed SP
test.
Again and again, Mr Cheek highlighted the extremely risky
nature of the proposals.
When it came to cross examination by Neil Cameron QC it
would seem that he worked very hard to demonstrate that the demographics not
only could work, but that they supported the scheme. There were problems with the data in that First has been
reluctant to disclose its passenger data on the basis that it would be
commercially sensitive, and so the results of their own forecasts could not be
properly substantiated, but I have to admit, that while I am confident with the
standards required for good scientific method, this advanced statistical
section left me with my eyes glazing over as a fog descended on my brain. As Disraeli so famously said ‘There are
lies, damned lies and statistics’.
It may be that some of the statistics claimed by NGT on
demographics are sound, but even if the available population which might use
the trolleybus is correctly estimated, all the other problems remain. And those demographics must be questioned as
Mr Cheek did with the claims that users of Burley Park station would walk
(mostly uphill) to NGT stops rather than use the train as they have previously
done.
Simply for Mr Cameron to rely on the fact that the scheme
has reached the point that it has and argue that all the requirements set by
the DfT are thus likely to have been met is not really sound in my own view,
but rather a legalistic view which seeks to avoid taking account of the many
practical realities (of which I have not exhausted the list, so I would urge
listeners to catch his two morning sessions) and just force it through on
formalities.
A brief attempt at scraping the barrel occurred when the
objection to the visual pollution of the overhead wires came up. When asked of his qualifications to make
this judgement, Mr Cheek replied ‘I know what I like’. And so do most people. But Mr Cameron asked if he had any
qualifications to make this judgement, which I found somewhere between amusing
and laughable. Simply put, most people
don’t like the prospect of overhead cables.
It is an acknowledged downside of trolleybuses, and yet his judgement
that they were unsightly visual pollution was called into question. Well, I myself am qualified in the subject
of visual perception and aesthetics, and I can say confidently that the
intrusion of overhead cables is unaesthetic for various reasons such as
impeding open views of trees, sky and local architecture. That it creates a feeling of confinement and
even probably claustrophobia in some sensitive people. That frankly it is obvious and that anyone
who calls such a view into question should have themselves questioned as to why
they believe so. I am reminded of Mr
Haskins, who apparently likes standing on buses, likes maps with North pointing
to five o’clock, and who apparently prefers cloudy winter skies and bare trees
to blue skies and trees in full summer leaf.
The obligatory attempt to cast aspersions on the
motivations behind First’s objection of course had to be endured. The end to a long exchange was simply that
in Mr Cheek’s view it is ‘Not a good scheme’.
If you can find the time to listen I can highly
recommend an absorbing few hours. The
difficult bit on demographics was in the early afternoon session mostly, and if
anyone wants to comment on this I should be interested. However, in the light of all the clearly
demonstrated, and frankly, obvious, downsides and risks to the trolleybus
scheme, I would bear Mr Disraeli’s opinion in mind and treat that argument with
a generous measure of caution.
