On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:27:14 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Well that really won't do will it? So if you could kindly provide a listing
of the questions I have missed, I will address each and every one.

As you probably expected, I really can't be bothered.

Additionally, if it cannot be shown that *any* scheme involving
trolleybuses does any more to reduce congestion than *the same* scheme
but using bendybuses, and if congestion reduction is principal
objective, and if the costs of trolleybuses over bendybuses are large
(wires, substations, etc), then it's perfectly legitimate to drop any
further consideration of using trolleybuses.

There is nothing the same about using bendybuses vs. trolleybuses.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. All other aspects of a
solution for Uxbridge Road (dedicated lanes, demolition and road
widening, improved stop information, congestion charging, whatever)
would be the same, regardless of which of the two types of vehicle was
used.

There are
pros and cons to using both vehicles but on balance there are more advantages
in favour of trolleybuses on the *right* routes. Considering a very narrow
objective of congestion reduction then this can equally be achieved by
congestion charging along the Uxbridge Road corridor.

So you're saying that my conclusion fails because congestion reduction
is not (or should not be) the principal objective.

Nevertheless, scepticism has been expressed in this group that your
proposal will do any more to relieve congestion than the same proposal
but using diesel bendybuses - so if you feel you need an "alternative"
proposal to attack, fire away.

Congestion problems are only part of the equation for better quality of life
in this area of London. Where investment is put into any area then it needs
to have an identified return on the expenditure.

I shall leave it an open question as to whether replacing bendies with
trolleybuses provides better value than using the money in a way that
reduces congestion.