David, did you see my post? I'm repeating it here for you, just in case
you missed it.



wrote...

"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...

--