"David Bradley" wrote...


OK then let's take on board what you are saying here and let you into
a
preview of a page that will shortly be put up on www.tfwl.org.uk. You
are
invited to make suggested changes to ensure that a middle ground
stance is
taken provided it is honest and accurate.

Well, you've certainly put a lot of work into this. I've got to give
you that, at least.

In my case, the more I get to grips
with the detail of the sheme the more I became concerned about the
sense and
sensability of building a tramway along the Uxbidge Road corridor.
Therefore
everything is slanted towards a trolleybus solution.

I don't believe those are the only two options.

For example, the streetmaps show some branch lines coming off the
Paddington railway line in West London. The Greenford line is still in
use, but the line to Ruislip might as well be closed down, and AIUI the
Hayes (or was it West Drayton?) to Uxbridge line was closed and removed
ages ago. (I'm sure the trainspotters here can give us the full details
if we need them)

Why not convert a couple of those into a tram scheme? Say the Greenford
line (because we know there's a demand for travel in that corridor) and
the old Hayes/Uxbridge line (because TfL apparently wants a transit
going to Uxbridge). Add on-street running to join the two the northern
ends together in a loop and to cover places where the Uxbridge route has
been built over, but the bulk of the lines will remain off-road. This
way, it'll be building on TfL's solid, practical experience of running a
mostly off-road tram network in Croydon. The links to Crossrail at the
southern ends will be more useful to central London commuters than TfL's
pointless proposal for a Shepherd's Bush terminus. And the fact that
it's mostly a new rapid-transit route will grab people's attention more
than just adding overhead wires to existing bus routes. (And while
we're at it, what about sending some Crossrail trains up the old line to
Ruislip?)

No. I'm not seriously proposing this scheme. Just showing that a
couple of minutes thinking outside the box can produce other new ideas
at least as viable as TfL's trams vs. your trolleybuses. Just because
there are flaws in TfL's scheme, it doesn't automatically make
trolleybuses the best of all possible options.

Solving congestion may be a rather tall order. If anyone claims that
any form
of WLT scheme (tram, trolleybus or whatever) is going to 'solve
congestion
across West London', they are to quote (a polite version of) the
phrase:
'talking through their hat'.

I don't think anyone's trying 'to solve congestion across all of West
London.' Just reducing it along one main road is a much more realistic
target.

What is needed is a whole
package of measures which will improve both the actuality and
perception of
public transport in this area and thus reduce the use of cars as much
as
possible.

We need to 'improve both the actuality and perception of public
transport' in all areas. There's nothing special about West London.

WLT as a tram scheme does not give any greater benefits along the
Uxbridge Road than a trolleybus scheme would but costs very much more.

Warning. Now you're starting to use vague weasel-words. *A* tram
scheme may or may not be better than *a* trolleybus scheme. It depends
on the details of the schemes.

Also the very nature of the WLT tram scheme
proposed is likely to worsen flows by buses which are not simply along
the
Uxbridge Road (by creating a greater requirement to change - which is
universally unpopular and thus often causes modal shift the wrong
way).

The advantages of trolleybuses is that they are non-polluting on
street.

Ah, now, do you see what you did there? You were talking about an
advantage of trolleybuses over TfL's tram scheme, then in the next
paragraph you continued talking about "advantages of trolleybuses" but
actually, you've changed to their advantage over diesel buses. It gives
the misleading impression that trams ARE polluting on street.

The ability to steer trolleybuses across (both) the carriageway(s) and
the
design of the vehicles means that they can be better integrated into
the
overall bus provision along the corridor.

Better integrated than diesel buses? Really? Oh, wait, no. You've
sneakily switched reference points without telling us again and now
you're comparing trolley buses to trams once more. Naughty David. You
should be ashamed of yourself.

There is no need to curtail services
as will be done in the proposed tram solution.

Sadly, long routes will probaly be split and curtailed anyway. It
always happens. The tram would just've been a convenient excuse, but
they'll find some other reason to curtail them if they look hard enough.

This will therefore be
beneficial in the general area around the Uxbridge Road. The lesser
capital
costs will allow funding to be available to improve these services
further
(including possibly electrifying many of them into trolleybus routes).

You're rather niave if you think that TfL will automatically ringfence
the saved money purely for the general area around the Uxbridge Road.
They'll probably either spend it across all of London, or just line
their pockets with it. I wouldn't dare say which one it'll be.

As the design of WLT as a tramway does not integrate bus stops with
trams stops

I would hope that whatever mode of WLT is chosen, it wouldn't integrate
its stops with bus stops. Keeping them separate would help establish it
in the public's imagination as something new and different. This will
help stimulate their curiosity more than just the same old bus routes
calling at the same old bus stops but with added overhead cables.


and even a 25 metre double artic would describe the same swept path.
There is
no experience whatsoever of 40 metre trams in UK streets, so we have
no
knowledge of how they will fare even with their fixed path.

How much experience of 25 metre double artic trolleybuses is there in UK
streets? If experience matters for one, it should matter for both.

Even in that rarest of all situations that the overhead were damaged,
trolleybuses could still operate using auxiliary power

Is there any technical reason why trams can't be designed with auxiliary
power for emergencies? I know TfL's specific tram scheme doesn't, but
you do seem to be making the falacy of assuming that just because one
particular trolleybus scheme is better than one possible tram scheme,
therefore it must also be better than all possible tram schemes and all
other possible schemes as well.

The MORI survey (the one where the one line 'support for the scheme'
headline
is usually quoted) does not indicate that 'everyone' is in favour of
the
scheme - very far from it.

Well, it would be VERY suspicious if a survey said 100% of people
supported anything.

Conversely many of those who 'supported' the scheme
stated themselves that they had only limited knowledge of it. As more
of the
precise details are released, it is likely that even more people will
oppose
the scheme and not because they are all NIMBY drivers of gas guzzling
4 X 4
cars as is often disingenuously argued by pro-tram supporters but
because they
can see that the tram is not the optimum mode for this particular
corridor

Yes, but you're making that falacy again. You're assuming that just
beacuse TfL's tram is not the optimum mode and your trolleybus isn't
TfL's tram, therefore your trolleybus must be the optimum mode. It
doesn't work like that. The world isn't all black and white. There are
middle grounds and other options, but you aren't even interested in
exploring them because of your trolleybus fixation.


It's make you mind up time.


Make our minds up? We haven't even begun to discover all the options
yet...