Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 12

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 12

May 19  2014

An extra afternoon sitting of the Enquiry was arranged for today for two reasons.  Firstly the timetable has been slipping behind and I believe the Inspector wanted to regain some time where possible, and at the same time, Mr Bill McKinnon of The Friends of Woodhouse Moor and the North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association, who was timetabled to cross examine Mr Jason Smith, Highways Engineer on technical design features and engineering standards, was only available in a narrow window, and so these two factors converged.

The links to the audios of this afternoon’s two session are below, and as usual my commentary and thoughts on today’s proceedings follow.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-12-may-19-2014-late-afternoon-session/

In the first part of the extra afternoon sitting which took place on day 12 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 19 2014, Bill McKinnon of The Friends of Woodhouse Moor and North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association cross examines Jason Smith, Highways Engineer on many details of the Highways work associate with the NGT trolleybus scheme.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-enquiry-day-12-may-19-2014-late-afternoon-session/

In the late afternoon session of day 12 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, Bill McKinnon, of The Friends of Woodhouse Moor and North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association continues his cross examination of Jason Smith, Highways Engineer, concentrating on issues including the regulations concerning trolleybuses and areas which may be 'pedestrian dominated' rather than actually pedestrianised.

The trolleybus enquiry continues to wade through mountains of data.  At present the stream is on the technical nature of the road changes that would be made if the NGT scheme were to be implemented and why they have been designed in the particular way that they have.  While on the one hand I would definitely urge readers to dip into the archive of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry audios we have accumulated, at the same time I feel there is often a danger of getting lost in amidst all that detail.

The Inspector has found many occasions to chide objectors in their questioning style, and for going on at too much length but while this may be deserved one must remember that most of the objectors are laypeople who are coming at both the technicalities of the engineering and participation at a Public Enquiry as a new experience.

On the other hand I am beginning to feel that our current witness, Jason Smith, is going on at too much length and often failing to get to the point after very long peregrinations.  Indeed it was the case that on several occasions the Inspector appeared to slightly lose patience with him and ask him come to the point.  A good example of this was when the condition of Woodhouse Lane in front of the Parkinson Building was debated and Bill McKinnon was able to winkle out the fact that the area would only be described as ‘pedestrian dominated’ which was to be distinguished from actually being ‘pedestrianised’ because the Inspector enquired of Mr Smith, in effect: ‘Well is it pedestrianised or isn’t it?’  It seemed to me that there were elements  of sophistry and evasion being employed in the way these conditions were being described.

The first and most obvious effect of this is that the cross examinations are going on much longer than expected.  Mr McKinnon originally gave his estimate for how long he would need as two hours or so, but after a full afternoon he is perhaps half way through what he has prepared.  He cannot be held entirely to blame for the drawn out nature of the proceedings, and the extreme length of some of Mr Smith’s replies must surely need to be curbed.  The absurd fourteen minutes and thirty five seconds which he took to answer a simple question from Mrs Fahey the other day comes to mind as an example of such a thing.

Also Mr Smith seems to have almost over rehearsed his replies, running on with his explanations, not allowing pause for the questioner to make a response.  The Inspector has rightly come down on questioners who have interrupted the witnesses and has imposed a good discipline on this, but I think it is one that Mr Smith in particular has exploited and taken advantage of unfairly.  It is a psychological war of attrition, and a cunning way to make the questioner look bad when it is the witness who is actually wasting time.  I wouldn’t be surprised to hear murmurings of ‘Get on with it’ from the audience, at least in private, before long if this kind of thing is repeated too often.

While I am mentioning psychological war, I would like to take the opportunity to mention another more subtle technique that some of the NGT witnesses appear to be schooled in. You may notice sometimes if you listen critically, that virtually all statements made by NGT are couched in the future tense.  ‘This will happen.’  ‘There will be such and such tree loss.’ ‘The NGT land will run on Woodhouse Moor.’

All these type of assertions are presented as statements of fact as if they are certain to happen.  Presenting something as certain to happen when it is not, and repeating it, is a kind of attempted perceptual control that is an application of Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming is a technique of restructuring thought according to the way reality is presented in linguistic terms and has been understood and used by the purveyors of propaganda for many years.

This is what is being done when the NGT people speak about this in definite terms.  They are attempting to infiltrate into your unconscious the assumption of inevitability. Often the ‘worm’ assumption is hidden behind more attention grabbing stuff, such as the actual data about the roads and documents etc., that we are supposed to be paying attention to anyway.  So the definite future is ignored at a conscious level, but recognised at the unconscious level.  It happens again and again, and yet is not challenged by the conscious mind, so it embeds as an accepted assumption. 

People say things like ‘the Council are going to do it anyway, you won’t be able to stop it’.  And while it is certainly the case that the Council want to make the trolleybus happen, I believe there are enough committed people who are determined that it will not happen, and that they have such a wide variety of justifications, that there may be a fascinating battle of wills going on, but the implementation of the trolleybus is by no means certain at all.

Couching all their terms in the definite future is not only a sly way to twist people’s perceptions, but also monstrous hubris that stands on its own regardless.

They have massively over egged the pudding and are presenting a damaging proposal as if it were the future saviour of Leeds.  This is why they seek to get us lost in their endless detail and forget that there is a city and communities at stake here.  If people and trees and the history Leeds didn’t matter, then this would probably be a great cattle truck.  But the communities and heritage and environment do matter and that is what the infra-structure should be for, to support all that functionally, not dominate and take over so that it destroys them. 

For the people in Metro their plans are more important than the people who would be trampled in their way. 

If the trolleybus went ahead, the Council would doubtless declare that the operation was a success, but when you looked closer you would find that the patient had died on the operating table.

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry ~ What We Are Fighting For

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry 

~

 What We Are Fighting For

I'd like to take the opportunity to post a picture which my friend, and co-objector to the Follybus, Chris Foren, Chair of the A660 Joint Council, just sent me of Headingley Meadows, directly behind St Columba's Church on Headingley Lane.

This beautiful piece of land has never been built on in recorded history, although it is possible that there is mediaeval or Anglo-Saxon archaeoogy lying beneath the ground.

The lady who leases this land has told me that she purposely leaves it unfenced on the side where the photographer is standing, and where there is a small road going up to Headingley Castle (now private flats), so that it is publicly accessible for anyone to walk on and enjoy.  Beyond the trees in the distance are two fenced off fields where she grazes her horses which you can see from the top deck of buses as you go by on Headingly Hill.

Leeds City Council with their NGT project want to drive a two lane road with poles and overhead cables through all this (and more) so that trolleybuses can have a short cut with a Headingley bypass.  

Headingley has very little green space but the Council want to destroy what little it has, all of which is publicly visible, and part of which is open to the public.  The Council say that they would create a 'pocket park' for public use out of part of this land if they put the trolleybus through it.  While attempting to destroy this land, they perversely claim to be adding to green space by creating a park area which would have a trolleybus running past it one way or the other every three minutes, and which would be a fraction of the existing publicly accessible space.

At every turn the Council and their NGT planners are attempting to degrade our environments and persuade us it is an improvement.

For an inner city area, could you get much better than this?

You can reach this field, which will soon be blossoming with wild flowers, by walking up the small side road next to the telephone exchange by the Original Oak and opposite St Michael's Church.  It is unfenced and open to the public.

 

If Leeds City Council and NGT cared as much about the environment and public access to green space as the lady who keeps these beautiful fields, they would not be trying to destroy most of it, while claiming to be giving the fraction of it which would remain to the public.

Behind the cameraman there are nearly two dozen majestic Victorian planted trees most of which would be sacrificed to the trolleybus route.  And they talk about creating a public park out of a postage stamp remnant which would have a forty-five foot long trolleybus rolling past every three minutes.  If what was being proposed wasn’t so serious it would be laughable that they think we can be hoodwinked by this sham.

Contact your local Councillor and tell them that you will withold your vote from them next week in the local elections if they do not pledge to resist this insane trolleybus scheme, or write to Cllr Keith Wakefield (Leader of the Council) telling him he should resign for attempting such crimes against the environment and people of Leeds.

keith.wakefield@leeds.gov.uk

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 11

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 11

May 16  2014

Day 11 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry began with about a quarter of an hour’s discussion between the Inspector, Mr Whitehead, Mr Jones for First West Yorkshire, the bus company and Mr Cameron for NGT, the Applicant for the Transport Works Order, about the planning of the time for objectors to cross examine Mr Jason Smith, Highways Engineer and designer of much of the detail on the proposed trolleybus route.

The summaries of each of the three sessions are with the links to the audio recordings of today’s Enquiry.  Much important ground was covered today, but perhaps there will be different assessments of what it all really meant.  To be frank, there was some of this which I felt to be profoundly disquieting, and my commentary on this follows below the links.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-11-may-16-2014-first-morning-session/

In the first morning session of day 11 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 16 2014, Mr Jason Smith, Highways Engineer is questioned by Deborah Fahey from the Whitfield Avenue area of Hunslet, a pedestrian precinct which NGT plan to penetrate with a trolleybus route section.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-11-may-16-2014-late-morning-session/

In the late morning session of day 11 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 16 2014, Chris Foren, Chair of the A660 Joint Council, cross examines highways engineer Jason Smith for NGT on detailed aspects of road design, with especial emphasis on safety for bicycle users.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-11-may-16-2014-afternoon-session/

In the final session of day 11 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 16 2014, Gregory Jones QC returns to cross examine Mr Jason Smith Highways Engineer Designer for NGT, the Applicant for the Transport Works Order, covering much ground, and exploring the limitations of the NGT system in comparison to conventional buses.

After the gentlemen had discussed the order of proceedings and they had been decided upon, the first objector to question Mr Smith was a young lady from the Whitfield Avenue area of Hunslet, Deborah Fahey, who was clearly new to this kind of thing.  Since I was not actually present at the time I am especially grateful to my colleagues who have been managing the recordings for me to process and upload, so that I was able to at least listen to what was said.

The radical disconnect began with Ms Fahey’s first question, or I should say rather with Mr Smith’s reply.  The question was ‘Why are you putting a trolleybus route through our community which is a pedestrianised precinct?’  To which the entirely bland reply was that there had been a choice of four different routes and they had chosen this one for the least disruption.  Not for the residents of Whitfield Avenue I would venture.  The other three potential routes don’t pass through the middle of pedestrianised communities.   Mr Smith carried on for fifteen minutes detailing all the technical reasons why Whitfield Avenue had been chosen, while, presumably Ms Fahey sat feeling she was disconnected from this world of technical jargon.   

What it seemed Ms Fahey was asking was 'Why are you doing this to us?'  The human impact is not something that can be measured but is clearly immense.  Simply put, the residents of Whitfield Avenue are in the way and the Council are saying, 'Tough'.

If you would believe Mr Smith or any of the NGT promoters, Hunslet would be improved by the presence of trolleybuses passing through every few minutes.  With six minutes between trolleybuses in each direction, there would be a forty five foot articulated trolleybus passing through this pedestrian precinct once every three minutes.

If it is possible for blood to boil and run cold at the same time then that is what was happening in my veins when I listened to all this.  As a fellow objector who had witnessed this live said to me later, ‘They wouldn’t dare try to get away with something like this in north Leeds.’

I have seen photographs of this area at the Plans Panel Review days in the Council Chamber.  Whitfield Avenue is not an enriched environment which benefits from character or heritage.  But I’ll bet there is a strong sense of community.  And the people promoting this scheme pretend that they will enrich the environment there by planting a few box grown trees here or there and giving the place some new paving or a lick of paint.  In the meantime their personal space would be penetrated by trolleybuses once every few minutes.

Leeds City Council and NGT are attempting to hold this community in a condition of being totally subject to their domination and influence.  They wish to usurp the community space in an area which has few benefits or local resources other than that space itself.

The litany of callous disregard for the natural rights of this community was crowned with Mr Smith’s reply to Ms Fahey’s question about how would joyriders be prevented from using the dedicated trolleybus road through the Whitfield Avenue area, especially during the night hours when the trolleybuses would not be running.  He simply replied that there would be signs and prohibitions and that if people broke those restrictions that would be a matter for the police.  Ms Fahey responded that of course she thought that everyone would of course be a law abiding citizen.   

You don’t develop communities by creating opportunities for the more undesirable elements in society but by strengthening and developing those features which are most positive.

This is frankly the worst kind of social engineering.  Grandiose schemes are planned which attempt to impose thraldom on those citizens who are least prepared to know how to defend themselves.  Ms Fahey’s courage in coming forward and speaking for her community is to be admired and respected.  She was clearly emotional and holding down anger but she maintained her cool remarkably well.  The outcome of this encounter was, to me at least, to demonstrate that the planners have no concern for people or their communities and believe that they have the power and right to impose what they wish on people who are already at the lower end of opportunity.  To them, people are no more than means to ends, a tool to be exploited who has no value except what can be taken from them through that exploitation.   

All people have value simply as human beings.  It is not the case that some people deserve natural rights more than others, or that some have the right to take them away as is being attempted here under the guise of ‘utilitarianism’, the moral excuse for justifying oppression of the powerless by the powerful.

A society which treats people as expendable in this way has become morally bankrupt.

A point made later in the day by Mr Jones in his cross examination of Mr Smith curiously gave an insight to the way this works.  He elicited from Mr Smith the fact that he had not been involved in the decision making process of whether to go for a trolleybus system or something else.  So he was saying that he was ‘just following orders’.

The verdict of the Nuremberg trials included the statement that ‘just following orders’ was no excuse to abandon conscience, that everyone should take moral responsibility for their behaviour.   

What has been detailed about what would be inflicted is in my mind a clear human rights abuse.  I had a letter published in the YEP last year in which I raised the question of human rights over the draconian attempt to inflict this on the population without our consent.  For my trouble I was likened to the Taliban by Cllr Richard Lewis, one of the driving forces behind the attempt to coerce Leeds into taking on the wasteful and damaging trolleybus.

And just before I finish I will draw attention to a fact which a friend mentioned to me today.  With respect to my blog last night giving my views on the attempt of Metro to create a biased system which they could control and take advantage of, when Dave Haskins gave the talk at Leeds University on 18.10.12, he said that the trolleybus is part of an attempt to re-regulate buses in West Yorkshire, and that “the politicians are up for it.” 

In my eyes this is truly a little scary.  Under the guise of better regulation they are actually attempting to build a corporate domination with their own brand (they keep talking about distinctive branding), which would be achieved by tilting the playing field to their advantage while still allowing a disadvantaged competitor to limp along in order to provide the illusion of a free and competitive open market.

Scratch the surface and there are endless hidden agendas being attempted with the trolleybus.  But one simple fact remains with me from today ~ that Leeds City Council cares not about a community which it intends to eviscerate, and that this is disgusting and inhuman.

The Enquiry resumes on Monday 19th May at 2pm for a session in which Mr Bill McKinnon of the Friends of Woodhouse Moor and North Hyde Park Neighbourhood Association will cross examine Mr Smith.

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 10

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 10

May 15  2014

On Day 10 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry the cross examination of Mr Jason Smith Highways Engineer, witness for the Applicant, NGT continued from a large number of objectors and ranged over the subjects of impact on local communities, optimisation of traffic through road management, concerns over drainage at the proposed Belle Isle park and ride, and the impact on the site of the former Leeds Girls’ High School site on Headingley Lane amongst other things.

Links for the audio recordings of today’s proceedings are below and my commentary and thoughts on some of the matters dealt with today and in the Enquiry generally follow at the bottom.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-10-may-15-2014-first-morning-session/

On the tenth day of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 15 2014, the cross examination of highways engineer Jason Smith is continued by Chris Longley of the Federation of Small Businesses, who is followed by Cllr Barry Anderson (C. Adel) and Helen Pickering of the Drummonds and Churchwoods Residents Association.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-10-may-15-2014-late-morning-session/

In the late morning session of day 10 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, May 15 2014, the cross examination of Jason Smith, highways engineer, continues with Helen Pickering of the Drummonds and Churchwoods Residents Association, who is followed by Michael Broadbent, formerly of the West Yorkshire Police, with former responsibility for traffic management. The questions include impacts on residents, local traffic flow and parking issues.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-10-may-15-2014-early-afternoon-session/

In the early afternoon session of day 10 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, May 15 2014, the cross examination of Mr Jason Smith, Highways Engineer, is continued by a number of objectors and groups: Ian Broadbent for Headingley Castle Residents
Doug Kemp for NW Leeds Transport Forum.   Martin Fitzsimons from Belle Isle. Martyn Thomas for Weetwood Residents Assoc.  Stuart Natkus Chartered Town Planner for Barton Wilmot representing Morley House Trust and others.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-10-may-15-2014-late-afternoon-session/

In the late afternoon session of day 10 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 15 2014, the cross examination of Mr Jason Smith, Highways Engineer, is continued by Stuart Natkus for Morley House Trust on behalf of Leeds Girls High School and other objectors, who is followed by Doug Kemp for the West Park Residents' Association.

A question that has arisen more than once from the minds of not only the objectors, but also apparently of the Inspector, is whether much of the proposed roads optimisation could not be implemented without the NGT and thereby achieve improvements with minimal impacts on the communities along the routes.  I have been staggered by the calibre of the objectors who have asked questions.  A gentleman who worked on the Sheffield Supertram and now says it was a mistake; a Professor of Transport Studies; various civil and mechanical engineers; a former senior member of the West Yorkshire Police who had responsibility for traffic management; a town planner on behalf of one of the oldest educational institutions in the city;  besides which there have been numerous private objectors and residents’ groups.

It is very easy to get lost in the detail.  Certainly there have been a lot of genuine questions asked about almost every junction, at least north of the river and many from the south side as well, and many fairly acceptable answers given in reply.  But we need to try and stand back for an overview.

Mr Smith has made a couple of statements which have, at least in my own mind, stepped outside of his role as an engineer.  For instance, a point I neglected to mention from yesterday was his answer to why trolleybuses would not stop at the same bus stops that First Buses do, or at least some of them.  Several reasons were given.  The first was that too many people would congregate at these locations and thereby cause problems.  The second was that the turning of long articulated buses into lay-bys would be problematic, perhaps leaving the rear end sticking out into the adjacent lane or similar problems with a vehicle that might have difficulty lining up parallel to the kerb.  The third reason was the most interesting.  The ‘Unique Branding Aspect’ of NGT as a distinct brand was cited as a reason for not sharing stops.  Through ‘branding’ they hope to make people see the trolleybus as entirely different to regular buses.  This is clearly not an engineering reason and not the kind of thing one expects to hear from a highways engineer.  I was reminded of this desire to create a system that was entirely distinct from traditional buses today when Mr Smith stated that one of the principle objectives of much of the highways work which he proposes should be engaged in was to ‘protect the punctuality of NGT’ since so much investment would have been put into it.

I am staggered to see the Council and NGT being so blatant about what they are attempting to implement.  The Council or at least a previous version of Metro controlled the buses before deregulation in 1986.  Bus routes have since been run by operators who bid for the contracts on the available routes.  This present system has both upsides and downsides.  The down would be that loss making but socially beneficial routes don’t tend to survive, while the up would be that some busy routes have successful and plentiful bus services, such as the A66o.  At present there is at least an internally consistent system run in line with market forces and no one gets special privileges.

Perhaps not the favourite system of everyone, but in the main one which is fair in its own terms.  The introduction of an at least partially dedicated infrastructure for a system which would overlap with the present roads, traffic and public transport would be entirely uncompetitive, providing from the start, institutionally and by design, a built in advantage to the vehicles which would ply this route.  And this system would be managed by the transport authority rather than one of the competing bus companies.  A lot of suspicion has been directed at the possibility of privatisation later in order to regain capital to pay off Leeds City debt of almost £2 billion although this possibility has been played down.

But more presently we should beware of the two tier system of self appropriated priority and privilege which the Council is promoting.  Under the guise of improving the transport system they are attempting to introduce something that smacks deeply of Big Statism.  The paucity of consultation that occurred, not least with First Bus, demonstrates the lack of interest from the Council and Metro to really know what people think, and their intention to simply go ahead with it regardless.

That is why the ‘NGT Unique Branding’ is such a crucial part of the whole plan.  It requires the inculcation of a particular mindset that sees this newcomer as a flashy addition to life in Leeds.  This is no more than advertising, a hidden attempt at persuasion.

What is not made clear through the glossy images is that they are hoping that buses will decline.  This is a hostile competitive business practice by a body which controls the playing field and is attempting to marginalize the existing main player.  No wonder First West Yorkshire are putting an immense expenditure into the legal team with which they are challenging the NGT proposals.  Not only have First employed Gregory Jones QC, a top London barrister, but he has brought with him a team which varies in size from one day to the next, but involves at least six legally trained specialists who research and help prepare the material for him to take the opposition apart with.

Much speculation went into considering whether First would stay out of the fray and bid for the trolleybus contract if it happened, but the opposite has happened.  Perhaps they play a long game and that is a position they would consider if it came to it, but in the present game, they are pitched tooth and nail against the trolleybus.  And I believe this is more than mere commercial competitiveness.  I believe that if the privileged and prioritised Council owned trolleybus system went ahead it would be only the thin end of the wedge and that while they tried to extend the trolleybus network they would consider it a green light for further encroachments into the free market and intrusions into communities and their environments.

This would not be a climate in which the kind of business in which First engages would be likely to thrive, so one might suggest that the trolleybus contract could be a poisoned chalice for First with the tight control that would be imposed on them by the Transport Authority.

Whether this is speculation or not, it is certainly the case that the intrusion into people’s lives and most particularly the attempted appropriation of their legally held property through compulsory purchase is something which must be considered a human rights infringement and another example of the hegemony of Statism.

No less the destruction of community held assets such as primarily the four hundred mature trees, but also other environmental and heritage features locally throughout the string of conservation areas from the University to the ring road. 

So while picking over of the technical aspects of the scheme, and  particularly the roads optimisation, we should not forget that the whole is more than the sum of the parts, and I don’t just mean in terms of the road system, but also the strategic way in which Leeds City Council is attempting to position itself with this corporate style.  The importance of the branding is the smoking gun that this is more than mere transport, it is a combination of social engineering, propaganda and big business.  As someone said last week ‘This is a solution looking for a problem.’  Mr Haskins may have said ‘There is no shoe horn’, but this whole exercise is one giant attempt at a shoehorn.  One can only hope that the Inspector recognises that in so many ways this is an opportunistic and predatory attempt to exploit a particular situation for the benefit of the corporation that has been created, rather than for the benefit of the community and our environment.

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 9

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 9

May 14  2014

On Day 9 Mr Gordon Robertson, Signals Engineer and witness for the Applicant NGT concluded his time as a witness facing cross examination from several objectors and was followed by Mr Jason Smith who began by giving an engineering perspective on the work that would be required to implement the proposed trolleybus system.

Audio recordings of all sessions today are linked below.  The early afternoon session broke for five minutes after Mr Robertson completed and the next witness came on. 

I should express my gratitude to the several colleagues who have been assisting with the recording of the Public Enquiry and without whom only a fraction would be covered.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-9-may-14-2014-first-morning-session/

In the first session of day 9 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry May 14, 2014, Professor Bonsall continues to cross examine Gordon Robertson, Signals Engineer for NGT planning and Mr Malcolm Bell, private objector and mechanical engineer follows, including questions on flow and how this would all affect emergency services.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-9-may-14-2014-late-morning-session/

In the late morning session of day 9 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry, May 14 2014, the cross examination of Mr Gordon Robertson, Signals Engineer, continues with questions from Dr John Dickinson for Weetwood Residents' Association, Cllr Barry Anderson (C., Adel) and Douglas Kemp, Chair of West Park Residents' Association, focussing on effects on pedestrians, and flows at new junctions among other technical road issues.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-9-may-14-2014-early-afternoon-session-part-1/

The first part of the early afternoon session of day 9 at the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, May 14 2014. The final part of Mr Gordon Robertson's cross examination.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-9-may-14-2014-early-afternoon-session-part-2/

The second part of the early afternoon session of day 9 at the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, May 14 2014. Mr Jason Smith begins his time as a witness by explaining engineering requirements and is questioned by Mr Neil Cameron QC on these matters.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-9-may-14-2014-late-afternoon-session/

In the final afternoon session of day 9 of the Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry, May 14 2014. Mr Jason Smith continues to be questioned on engineering requirements by Mr Neil Cameron QC on these matters. Following this, Chris Longley of the Federation of Small Businesses and who has experience of the Sheffield Supertram begins his cross examination with questions on serious engineering detail.

The amount of technical detail which has been covered in the last couple of days is immense and has somewhat boggled me at times.

The detail has seemed to focus largely on how junctions can be optimised, and how the traffic signalling works, timings and so forth.

An interpretation that one of my co objectors drew from some of this was that the works that could be done to improve traffic flows without introducing the trolleybus have been held back in favour of a grandiose ‘prestige’ system.  It has been suggested that these improvements should be made without a trolleybus, I am not sure whether this would include all the road widenings and tree losses or simply junction and lights improvements, but either way there is the point that little seems to have been done with the present system to truly optimise it.

Mr Robertson came across well and in an engaging manner which softened the objectors to him in a way that could not be said of his predecessors, and we did feel that he was a competent technical witness in the main, although we perhaps bumped into the limits on his vision when he said in response to Malcolm Bell’s searching questioning about whether a truly intelligent and adaptive computer mastering system for the traffic light management could be introduced, that he thought we had not only one of the best systems he had ever seen, a credible statement, but that he believed it could not be improved upon.  Such a statement of overconfidence was quite uncharacteristic of what we had seen of Mr Robertson.  I wouldn’t suggest that he might purposely mislead the Enquiry, but professional pride in one’s skills and achievements can blind one to the possibility that others might be able to improve on your work.

I myself had a short question about buses from Shaw Lane and how they might be affected by trolleybuses coming out of Alma Road, the answer to which I did feel was on the speculative side but delivered with more assurance than I felt it deserved.  But perhaps I am just a layperson who doesn’t understand.

I inadvertently incurred the displeasure of the Inspector when, for the last question of the morning session, I appended an enquiry as to what Mr Robertson thought of the cost to the local environment and community with loss of trees and so forth and whether it was worth it, for which I was sternly rebuked by the Inspector.  Had I known I would bring his ire down upon my head I would have spared my breath.  Not that I was expecting him to say anything major, rather it was an attempt to see him as a whole person who was not simply a technician. 

Technical skill is a marvellous and useful thing, but to only see the world through that left brain view is to limit what we are capable of.  It is a reflection on the values of our culture that we have lost touch with the other aspects of life so that even though the heritage and environmental issues are being strongly argued it may well, though not absolutely certainly, be decided on brute facts, or rather claims, of being able to move so many people per hour at such and such a speed.  So a heritage environment that has survived largely intact could be eviscerated for entirely utilitarian reasons.  Imagine if someone tried to do this to Venice.  It would be laughed out of the room.  Okay, Headingley is not Venice, but along with a few other villages and suburbs of old Leeds such as Chapel Allerton it is a remnant of a rich historical past which should not be wilfully thrown away. 

There is a radical disconnect between the functionality of the machines and systems which should be serving us and our need for the continuity and preservation of our communities and their environments.  In a rational world the latter of these would take priority and the former would serve it, so that the systems serve the people.  But this natural order is reversed and the communities and environments become entirely subject to the control and domination of outside influences exercised through the imposing of mechanic systems onto people’s lives.  I’m reminded of Chaplin’s ‘Modern Times’, people being driven through the cogs and wheels of a machine.

Until we are able to create systems which when implemented serve the local population rather than making the people serve those systems, then we will have neither freedom nor functionality.

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 8

Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry Day 8

 May 13   2014

Day 8 of the Leeds Trolleybus Enquiry saw a new witness take the stand, Mr Gordon Robertson, Traffic Signals Engineer for the NGT project.

Audio recordings of all of today’s sessions can be found at the following links

Early morning

Mr Gordon Robertson, who is responsible for traffic management in the NGT proposals, explains how this is expected to work. Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) are examined by Mr Walton for the Applicant.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-8-may-13-2014-first-morning-session/

Late morning

Gregory Jones QC cross examines Gordon Robertson of NGT on the traffic modelling for the trolleybus scheme.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-8-may-13-2014-late-morning-session/

Early Afternoon

Gregory Jones QC cross examines Gordon Robertson of NGT on the matter of traffic flows, and Chris Longley of the Federation of Small Businesses follows with a short series of technical questions.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-8-may-13-2014-early-afternoon-session/

Late Afternoon

Emeritus Professor Peter Bonsall cross examines Mr Gordon Robertson, Traffic Signals Engineer for Leeds City Council and subjects the detail of the altered junctions and traffic modelling to close scrutiny.

http://www.mixcloud.com/CosmicClaire/leeds-trolleybus-public-enquiry-day-8-may-13-2014-late-afternoon-session/

Today’s evidence saw the Enquiry move from the strategic planning levels of the last two weeks onto the serious detail of the proposed new road junctions and traffic flow modelling.  Much of this was of quite technical nature and deserves to be listened to rather than have me try to explain it blow by blow.

However, certain facts stand out from the massive detail, such as that the Inspector asked why the new layouts had not been tried before, (without the trolleybus obviously).  It is really telling to hear such a question asked by ‘the only person in the room who really matters’ as one of the objectors described Mr Whitehead the other day.  Clearly if traffic flow could be optimised by making these kinds of changes at junctions and so forth then it would be sensible to see how much improvement they could effect without the massive extra involvement of the trolleybus and its dedicated lanes.

Standing back to try and gain some overview one can’t help feeling that this is an immense jigsaw made of parts which are only partially connected to each other.  When in the examination from Professor Bonsall it emerged that the city traffic control system had a stock of ‘archived’ traffic programs it did not sound to me like a state of the art smart system which responded in real time to vehicle numbers on the ground but one which had stock responses to standard scenarios, such as rugby matches at Headingley and so on.  So perhaps this is where the Inspector’s question originates, the amount of research that has, or has not, gone into optimising the flow in the present configuration.

Gregory Jones QC attacked this question from a number of angles including whether ‘bunching’ otherwise known as ‘platooning’ of buses would be likely to occur.

Those readers familiar with the concepts of mathematical Chaos Theory will know that small changes in dynamic systems can have large outcomes.  Whilst Mr Robertson certainly came across a great deal better than his two predecessors, one can’t help having reservations about the limits of what his profession can achieve, especially transferring his skills in mathematical modelling to an entirely new situation.  Indeed at one point he said that certain aspects of the new system could not be precisely modelled in advance and would need to be adjusted after it was up and  running. 

We must be cautious about the claims made for the trolleybus system and remember that at this stage it is all entirely speculative and if a decision were to be taken it would be a gamble with the whole future of Leeds.  Its cost competes with, and seems to outrank, other, what are normally considered as essential, services such as care of the elderly and education.

If it was unsuccessful, we could scrap the trolleybuses (the first time in Leeds a century ago they lasted for all of 17 years from 1911 to 1928) but we would be left with the massive debt, the evisceration of a series of Conservation areas, and we would still have the same problems as we have now, except the widened roads and Headingley bypass would encourage more road users to fill up the empty space.

At a conceptual level this is all not coming at it from a level of intelligent and integrated design.  The whole scheme is predicated on the value judgement that communities and environments are expendable.  Perhaps the time has come when this sort of assumption has to be challenged.