Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 31

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 31

June 26  2014

Day 31 of the Enquiry was short, the first morning session only, due to issues with availability of witnesses following the completion of the cross examination of Professor Jeremy Purseglove by Mr Bill McKinnon on the case for ecological impact.  I understand that the Inspector Mr Whitehead took the opportunity in the afternoon to visit some of the locations discussed here and on the previous day.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-31-june-26-2014-only-session/

[New commentary added 13 July 2014]

 

The short session today exposed a fair few failings in the preparation by NGT and Professor Purseglove.

It is true that after Mr McKinnon had completed his examination, when Mr Walton for the Applicant asked him if these errata had or would have changed his view on the ecological impact on Woodhouse Moor, Professor Purseglove insisted that it wouldn’t, but the real failings of his report were in its many errors and omissions.

He was shown to be unclear about which part of the Moor was which, and when the subject of Cinder Moor was mentioned he asked Mr McKinnon ‘Remind me where Cinder Moor is’, to which he received the response ‘You tell me’.  It is not acceptable for a witness to be making a statement when he doesn’t even know what is being referred to.  Mr Walton, Counsel for the Applicant said ‘This isn’t a quiz’ but surely Objectors are entitled to find out if a witness actually knows what he is talking about.

This was clearly an error in the Professor’s Summary Proof, and he was forced to admit it.  He had believed that Cinder Moor was to be grassed over.

The proposed widening of Cliff Road was not mentioned in his evidence, nor the concomitant loss of several mature trees in that area.

The accuracy of the Professor’s report and technical appendix were rightly brought into question.

When Low moor was discussed, he said it was not an improvement, but a slight loss of ‘not important’ ‘amenity’ type grassland.  However, similar grassland at Bodington was mentioned in a technical appendix and Mr McKinnon sought to find out why one was mentioned and the other not.

In addition Woodhouse Moor around Cliff Road was incorrectly labelled and it was admitted that the band of the ‘corridor’ should have been widened on the map.  This arose with the demonstration that Professor Purseglove’s assistant clearly used old data for the preparation of the maps and evidence since there were otherwise unaccounted differences between his submission and other NGT material.  When asked if his assistant had actually visited the site, there appeared to be some vagueness on his part when he said that he was ‘certain’ that she had, and he maintained this when pressed by Mr McKinnon, but I found it worrying that he would not say that he ‘knew’ she had, and however certain he felt he was, this still sounded like a matter of belief rather than knowledge, an assumption that she would have, that she must have because it was her duty, but not a matter of knowledge because she had told him so or that he had seen her go there.  Either way her data was incomplete.

After a week or so of listening to Mr Chadwick mumbuwl frough ’is teef it was a great relief to have a witness who actually spoke well and was clearly comprehensible.  However, in view of this cross examination it became evident that his evidence was not so clear, but was shot through with inaccuracies ~ which might be dismissed by the Applicant as minor technical details, but we must ask how many minor technical errors we are expected to put up with?

For instance, on Woodhouse Moor, Mr Sean Flesher of Parks had insisted that Monument Moor was not accessible to wheelchair users, so the NGT changes would be an improvement in this respect.  The Inspector, after having examined the site, reported back that he believed it was accessible.  Thus Mr Flesher was in error.

Writing as I am during the two week break from proceedings, I, and other objectors, have received a huge new document of some 380 pages or so which is the resubmitted Heritage Statement.  You may recall that the original Heritage Statement was cross examined when Mr Philip Ward was up as a witness some weeks ago.  This new document, printed in colour, is thought by some to have cost several hundred pounds per copy.  The costs of all the work required to compile it is unknown, but must be sizeable.

Apparently so many shortcomings were demonstrated in the original document that NGT felt they had to resubmit it in a revised form, while they insist that they do not acknowledge criticisms of the original, but have re-entered it purely for clarity’s sake.

As one of the Objectors who examined Mr Ward I am simply not able to accept this new submission, which I would have to read in order to be able to re-examine him on, which I and others should be entitled to do if this is recognised as a core document.

Some £25 million or so has already been expended on the preparation for this application, over several years.  The final statements of case had to be entered by January 30^th this year, and summaries of these by April 1^st.

Mr Whitehead, the Inspector, has expressed concern over the late submission of documents to the evidence on numerous occasions, but so far these have mostly been short papers of no more than a few pages in length clarifying points of policy, history and the like.  Witnesses have been given these to look at shortly before having to answer questions relating to them, but it must be emphasised that nothing on the scale of this new Heritage Statement has been attempted by either side.  And rightly so I would suggest.

If the Applicant has failed to do the necessary work in advance, then they should not be allowed extra time to rework their case, especially after they have already been examined on it.  Reports have been doing the rounds that over recent weeks NGT surveyors have been all over Headingley and its environs making new measurements.  I know people who have seen them.  It is preposterous that after several years of preparing their case, NGT have had, at the last minute, to make measurements and surveys which should have been completed at the very latest before January 30^th this year when they submitted their detailed case, and which one would hope had been made long before.

Counsel for First West Yorkshire have already made it clear that they could well make a formal complaint about the submission of this revised Heritage document, and that costs for the extra time required to examine it might be sought.

So, while it may be true that Monument Moor, Low Moor and the like are not of huge ecological value, the real value of Mr McKinnon’s cross examination lies in its exposure of the incomplete nature of the work behind Professor Purseglove’s evidence.  Such a finding is congruent with the shortcomings in the evidence from NGT in many other fields, the most striking being of course demonstrated by the need they felt to entirely revise and resubmit the Heritage Statement. 

I will here pass over the false allegations which were made against First Bus as to their being unco-operative with Metro in consultation, which was demonstrated to be false.  (I have repeatedly asked for those who might contest this to point me to the day and time in recordings where I may be demonstrated to have misunderstood the evidence, being only a layperson, but as yet, no-one has contacted me for purposes of correction.  If I have genuinely misunderstood and thus misrepresented this, I will happily apologise and correct my erratum, not wishing to make false and libellous assertions here in my blog.)  However the cumulative weight of inaccurate, false or simply absent evidence (one thinks of Mr Hanson’s absent models) is a matter of great concern, and late submissions seeking to correct these should be seen as little more than an admission that they were indeed so.

We await the Inspector’s view on the resubmission, but it is hard to imagine that he would be happy with it.  How many re-examinations would be required if this were to be allowed?  In view of all that has been heard since the end of April, doubtless there is much that we would all like to resubmit and make clearer in our statements and evidence, but there has to be some limitation and demarcation, and entering a replacement document, and one of such size, at this stage when the Enquiry is already about half way through is simply not acceptable.

The most important aspect of this to me is that it demonstrates that NGT feel they have less to lose by risking the displeasure of the Inspector than they have already lost through the inaccuracies and shortcomings in their original case on Heritage, which is a significant part of the problems with the proposed route, but by no means the only one.

If the Applicant has not been able to collate its evidence adequately after so long and so much expense, we must ask whether it can be relied on with its business case, when the claims of Mr Chadwick, for example, about the wonderful prospects of the Edinburgh tram made in 2001 have been demonstrated to have been so entirely fantastic and fictitious.

It is often said that when one is in a hole it is best to stop digging.  In the view of many objectors, NGT is engaging an entire gang of navvies with picks and shovels and instructing them to dig for all they are worth.

I should like to apologise for the poor sound quality on the audio of Mr McKinnon cross examining Professor Purseglove.  An unknown source of interference, which appears to be some sort of radio frequency signal has been getting into the recordings, and this morning is the worst example we have experienced.   Having reviewed our equipment over the two week break we hope that this problem will be eliminated by the measures we have now taken.

The Enquiry will resume on Tuesday July 15th at 10am and for the remainder of that week.  The following week will begin on Monday 21st July and sit until Thursday 24th, when the summer holiday break of five weeks will commence.

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.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-29-june-24-2014-first-morning-session/

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.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-29-june-24-2014-late-morning-session/

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.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-29-june-24-2014-early-afternoon-session/

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.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-29-june-24-2014-late-afternoon-session/

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.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/163-200m-spin-off-from-city-s-tram-network-1-924805

[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

(http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/local-stories/park-and-ride-is-set-to-double-up-in-leeds-1-6689975)

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.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-28-june-20-2014-first-morning-session/

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.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-28-june-20-2014-late-morning-session/

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.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-28-june-20-2014-afternoon-session/

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

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-28-june-20-2014-first-morning-session/

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.

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 23

June 12  2014

Day 23 of the Enquiry was taken up with the cross examination by Emeritus Professor Peter Bonsall of Mr Paul Hanson who is responsible for the modelling of traffic and demand used by NGT in their application for a Transport and Works Act Order to implement the works that would be necessary for their trolleybus scheme.

This is possibly the most detailed and technical day of the Enquiry so far and is probably quite hard listening for the layperson. However at least a short listen to some of it will help to give a flavour of the overall discussion of the issues since on the following day 24 Gregory Jones QC for First West Yorkshire develops much of what is gone into here in such a way as to be more accessible to the uninitiated.

Links to the audio recordings of the four sessions are given here, and my commentary follows.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-23-june-12-2014-early-morning-session/

In the first morning session of day 23 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 12 2014, Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies Peter Bonsall resumes his cross examination of Mr Paul Hanson on the modelling of projected demand for the proposed trolleybus.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-23-june-12-2014-late-morning-session/

In the late morning session of day 23 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 12 2014, Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies Peter Bonsall continues his cross examination of Mr Paul Hanson on the modelling of  traffic and projected demand for the proposed trolleybus.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-23-june-12-2014-early-afternoon-session/

In the early afternoon session of day 23 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 12 2014, Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies Peter Bonsall continues his cross examination of Mr Paul Hanson on the modelling of  traffic and projected demand for the proposed trolleybus.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-23-june-12-2014-late-afternoon-session/

In the late afternoon session of day 23 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, June 12 2014, Emeritus Professor of Transport Studies Peter Bonsall concludes his cross examination of Mr Paul Hanson on the modelling of  traffic and projected demand for the proposed trolleybus.

As I have said, this was an immensely technical day and one which I found quite hard to follow.  This is one reason why I delayed in posting a blog about it, but in the light of Mr Jones’s cross examination of the same witness on the following day I felt I had a slightly better insight into what Professor Bonsall’s questioning had been establishing.

Both examinations make much reference to WebTAG.  This is the government approved Transport Analysis Guidance which should be applied to all transport projects. 

https://www.gov.uk/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag

‘This overview provides general introductory information on the role of transport modelling and appraisal, and how the transport appraisal process supports the development of investment decisions to support a business case.’

It is my understanding that Professor Bonsall established that there were a number of instances in the modelling, and the assumptions on which it was based which do not conform to this guidance.  I believe the examples I gave in the blog for day 22 on the public transport usage around Kirkstall Lane and Headingley Hill is one of these.

At the time I understood such an individual example as being flawed, and that the methodology was being severely criticised. What I didn’t properly understand was that this was a lot more than a picking apart of a few bad examples which had been used in the traffic and demand modelling, but was actually a critique of the general methodology being used, which has been inconsistent.  So this is actually a far bigger problem than it might at first appear to be.

It is not insignificant that the Inspector, who has lately been at times impatient with objectors who have had lengthy cross examinations, was willing to let  Professor Bonsall to go through his entire sheaf of questions, a process which took nearly a day and a half with very little impatience or pushing from him.

The Professor is one of the very few people who actually have sufficient knowledge and practical experience (at one point he remarked to Mr Hanson about how he had once been in his position so clearly has done this kind of thing from more than a simply academic angle) to be able to make a meaningful appraisal of what has been done in the modelling.

Again and again we heard Mr Hanson saying that further work could have been done on the models used, but that this hadn’t been thought necessary.  I shall leave some of my thoughts on this for my comments on Mr Jones’s cross examination on the following day which helped me in a greater understanding of the implications of the Professor’s examination.

However I will remark again on the long silences and defensive tone of Mr Hanson.  You can’t see his wide eyed and baffled expression, but you can hear the delays and his tone of voice.  If you doubt what I say I would suggest you listen to some of the day’s proceedings and draw your own conclusions.  I’m fully amenable to discussion about any of the points I have raised over the course of the Enquiry, since as a layperson some of the technical material rather stretches the limits of my understanding, especially on this day 23, and if I have misunderstood anything that has been said I should be happy for readers to draw my attention to the point in any recording where my assessment has been demonstrably incorrect.

I am still getting page referrals from my friends at skyscraper city, but if they are discussing what I have written they are not posting it to my comments, so I don’t know what they think as I haven’t time to go searching for them.  The appropriate place to reply to me would be on the comments thread below each post, but I have had none so far, and objectors often say that they are glad of my recordings and blog so I shall continue and not worry about what people are saying behind my back but are too cowardly to discuss openly with me.

Since my commentary on day 23 is a little shorter than usual, and I am leaving my thoughts on Mr Jones’s following examination for my next posting, I will just take the opportunity to mention some other facts which have come my way from my contacts.

I hear that Metro, who have acquired the row of shops at Hyde Park Corner (along with the adjacent no2 Victoria Road and the old garage/ filling station which is now a small business) have just raised the rents on these by some 20% ~ well over inflation.

The monetary benefit to Metro must surely be small, so there will clearly be other motivations than merely that.   The first and most obvious is to let the tenants know who is boss, and to potentially discourage them.  I used to be a regular customer at one of these businesses, but the proprietor moved on as Metro were such a bad landlord and did everything to discourage the tenants.  This is not the first time over inflation rent increases have been imposed I understand. These shops are a boon to small businesses who are able to trade on a street with good footfall in low rent premises, so their penalisation by Metro seems to me to be both spiteful to the tenants and discouraging to the local economy.

But when this is combined with the other news I have been hearing, one may come to additional conclusions.

This other news is that in various locations all along the route for a while now employees of NGT/ Metro have been observed to be making measurements, marking trees that they wish to take down and generally doing things to pursue their end of implementing the trolleybus scheme.

I shouldn’t need to remind anyone, least of all NGT and Metro, that the purpose of the Public Enquiry is to ascertain whether the case presented is sufficient to justify and warrant a Transport and Works Order to carry out the scheme ~ based on the evidence they have accrued and consultations that have taken place over the last few years.

If the necessary surveys and measurements for the design plans have not yet been made then it would rather suggest to me that the promoters have been negligent of their tasks in preparing their case.  It is not right to be catching up on work that should have been done and completed before the Enquiry began.  If on the other hand they have done the necessary surveys, the additional fine tuning or revisions they are carrying out now implies an assumption that the Works Order will be granted and that the Enquiry is a mere formality.

It is not.  Councillors on the Exec Board and their associates in Metro may assert to us all they like about the necessity of this scheme, but that is by no means proven, and I think that the Inspector would probably take a dim view of any party that considered it was before the completion of the Enquiry.

Further possibilities suggest themselves.  Mrs Fahey of the Whitfields in Hunslet whom you will remember I interviewed on video has told me that people from NGT have been down her way making measurements again.  One would assume after the assertions of Jason Smith that this was the best route, considered over alternatives, a proper and full survey of the location had already been made, so one must ask why it is necessary to go back and make further measurements.

One somewhat speculative possibility is that ‘alternate routes’ are being considered, since apparently the recent surveyors mentioned these words to residents who asked why they were doing this.  This is only speculation at present, but either they had not done the original survey adequately, or there is some other reason.  If an alternate route is being considered, this would surely be out of the scope of the Enquiry as it has already been submitted as the ‘best choice’.  Perhaps they are trying to cover their options since it has become apparent there is some resistance.  Mrs Fahey’s questioning of Mr Smith would be the prime demonstration of this, our video being too recently published to have had an impact yet.  My own understanding from her being that she had had the impression that NGT had not expected resistance from residents in the area, so finding that there was might engender some backtracking from them.

To try to push ahead or even significantly alter their plans whilst we are in a period of abeyance for the enquiry is not only inappropriate but also demonstrates an unattractive degree of hubris on the part of the promoters.  We all know how much the leaders of the Labour group insist this must go through despite disagreement even within the ranks of their own party.

In my own experience hubris is often a mask for a lack of confidence, and overcompensation for it.  If it were such a foregone conclusion Metro would not need to bully tenants at Hyde Park Corner with unreasonable rent increases.  If they had done sufficient survey and analysis of the route details through Hunslet, or anywhere they purpose to go, they would not need to be making revisions at this late stage.

So we should all be concerned when an expert in this field of the stature of Professor Bonsall demonstrates that the traffic modelling has failed to meet the WebTAG standards, and it should set off alarm bells with all of us.

In every different subject that has been examined there have been shown to be serious shortcomings, whether it be consultation, assessments of heritage impacts or even the original decision to go for a trolleybus system back in about 2006, when the actual process that led to this appears to be vague, obscure and lacking in transparency.  And we should not forget the false allegations made by Metro against First of being unco-operative, which it is my understanding from both being there and listening again to the recordings, that Mr Jones established had been made.  I do not wish to be held up for libel, so I request that if my understanding is mistaken, please write to me in a comment detailing the session and time, and I shall revise what I say accordingly.  I have said this repeatedly, but no-one has come forward to rebut what I have asserted, so currently it stands.

Mr Jones’s cross examination on the following day 24 explores the shortcomings of the assumptions, methodology and implications of the modelling in some further detail and while it is probably more accessible to the layperson, nonetheless builds on what Professor Bonsall establishes here, and each reinforce the other.