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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
‘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.
