On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:02:47 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

[snip]



You must be looking at a different page to the URL given above.
Pictures of the retail outlets affected *ARE* on this page and the
row of icons at the bottom of the page includes a link to provide any
feedback.

I couldn't see a picture that provided a view of the fronts of the building
between Northfield Ave and Chapel Road.

Pictures 1,2,6.7 and 8 together show the threatened parade between Northfield
Ave and Chapel Rd, as best as the photographer could during daylight hours at
this time of year without risking life and limb by standing in the middle of a
relentlessly busy main road.


The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are
'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some
of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe
this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed
application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such
applications and then miss a few through such a crusade.

It doesn't "have" to be you, apart from the fact that you are the one here
arguing for their retention in the face of a much needed improvement.


With regard to listed buildings, even statutory listing would be no gurarantee
of safety from destruction, particularly as the local planning authority
Ealing Concil supports the tram scheme and therefore the building destruction
in this case.

As for the web page I don't know what more I really can do to satisfy
your obsession of criticism you have on our beliefs that it is
totally wrong to destroy a vibrant collection of retail outlets that
serves the local community well, just for the sake of pushing a
tramway through the neighbourhood. It is not proven to me that the
same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less
destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme.

There is one very simple reason why a tram will fare better than your
proposal. People don't like buses, they do however like trams and trains.


I'm not sure I can be bothered to take time out to dignify this with a
refutation. People certainly did like the previous generations of trolleybuses
in this country, and the modern ones on other countries. People don't like
buses because of the noise, vibration, fumes and jerky motion, all of which
trolleybuses are free from. And perhaps you should ask some of the hapless
human sardines in the London tube and overground rail commuter area whether
they really like the trains they're forced to use.

If you bothered to actually look you will see there are several refgerences on
my web site that approaches the issue you raise head on. For example at
http://www.tfwl.org.uk/foe.html we write:
"From evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Sheffield's Supertram
it was noted that the original projected ridership was 20+ million annually -
Actual ridership has never exceeded around the 12 million mark. As a result
the tramway got into severe financial difficulties Given a free choice, many
Sheffield travellers chose to travel by bus rather than tram.

To make something of the Manchester experience the original scheme linked two
suburban electric railways by a small amount of street track in the city
centre. It was cheap to build as it re-cycled railway assets. The scheme
doubled the previous railway ridership, attracting many motorists

However the subsequent small extension to Eccles was all new build involving a
lot of street track. The extension cost about as much in real terms as the
whole original scheme and added only a few percent to total system ridership.
It suffers from bus competition as they offer a quicker way into central
Manchester than the tramway extension

Therefore given a free choice, many travellers chose to travel by bus rather
than using the tramway extension. The original scheme is rightly judged as
very successful since it used re-cycled railway alignments and little new
build or street track whereas the new extension, which was all new build as
street track, gave extremely poor value for money and must be judged as
unsuccessful.

One can hardly argue therefore of the 'superior' attractiveness of the tram
compared with the bus!"

You appear to be someone who is proposing a solution because of a personal
preference rather than because it would truly be of benefit to the
community.

True. My personal preference for trolleys in this corridor is because it's the
only sensible solution here, with the potential to benefit the wider community
through expansion to form a network of electrified routes; while a street
tramway would only benefit (if at all) travellers just along Uxbridge Road,
leaving the rest of West London with noxious and umcomfortable diesel buses,
primitive stop facilities, no real-time service information and curtailed and
slower and less reliable service performance. It's you who clearly supports
the tram scheme in the face of the realities of this corridor and the needs of
wider West London, because of your personal preference for trams.

I have, however, given you one concession by adding text that gives
information on how you can provide your feedback.

However, that is not where the discussion started, this is. Why do you want
to move it?


I only responded to an issue that you raised about the aparent lack of ability
to respond to statements made on the web site.

To move onto other points that have been raised in a subsequent posts which
challange the demolition that is proposed in the locality. it is quite clear
from TfL info sheet C16 that you are unaware of what is actually proposed by
TfL.. The whole of this group of buildings including the 2 storey houses or
former houses behind the shopfronts ARE to be demolished. This whole site is
to be completely cleared not only for the road widening but also to serve as a
construction compound. Iit is also quite possible that the whole site east of
Chapel Road will also be acquired and demolished, but this can not be
determined from the published TfL information.

As for the "architecural eyesore" of this group of buildings, I have already
made my views clear on this. Real architectural merit requires fitness for
purpose, not just visual prettiness or elaboration. Forget about the precious
aesthetes, these well-maintained parades are not an eyesore, they present a
lively, varied, cheerful and vibrant street scene. In addition, the red
building behind the Coral shopfront at least is IMHO of real architectural
merit in your narrow sense.

In addition to 'employment for a small number of people' these premises
provide a variety of services for a large number of people who will be
deprived of a local retail outlet. Perhaps this is where the true extra
number of passengers for the tram will come from, not from modal shift but
from those least able to afford it who would have travel further afield to
obtain services that were previously nearby.

If I have not covered an issue to the detail you desire, no doubt you will
respond in due course.

David Bradley