On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:26:07 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Fox"
wrote:


"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
groups.com...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram relate
to
'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be closed to all other
traffic, which will be diverted on to a parallel residential street -
naturally residents on those streets don't like the idea.

Naturally.

I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram
scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum
or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been shown to
solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is because of their
layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is a bus is a bus, no
matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road corridor as
being totally unsuitable for a tramway. TfL's stance is that passenger
numbers will grow considerably over the next decade and that a high capacity,
quality service is therefore required to meet this demand. It is a matter of
pure conjecture that a high proportion of private transport will evaporate
away with the provision of a tramway since it doesn't supply a service for the
travel objectives of many private motorists; a switch to PT would for many
mean a bus / tram / bus journey. At interchange points the distance between
stops will be considerable as there is no integration between the two modes
of public transport.

Electrically powered transport is certainly environmentally friendly where it
matters, at street level, and pollution output from power generation sources
has certainly been cleaned up considerably over the last decade or so. Until
now in the UK, what has separated the image of tram travel over that of a bus
is the provision of quality, information rich and secure areas for intended
passengers to wait. Then there is the ease of boarding and a swift journey
because of exclusive use of road space or a private right of way. There is
absolutely no reason way buses can use these concepts to give the "right"
image and certainly a trolleybus route can be built to these standards for a
fraction of the cost of a tramway.

Jo Public doesn't really care if the public transport vehicle has steel wheels
or rubber tyres, just as long as it provides him with a travel experience
which approximates to the use of a car or improves upon that mode of travel
with either/or/and faster journey times at a perceived fair price.

While there are many factors affecting choice of mode by passengers, no
evidence has ever been produced that steel wheels on rails intrinsically
attract normal members of the public as passengers whereas there is
considerable evidence across the world (such as in Arnhem, Lyon and
Salzburg) that the quietness and environmental credentials of electric
traction do attract greater patronage.

Electric traction does of course also line up with government aspirations
in terms of both air quality and carbon dioxide emissions. High quality
trolleyways could therefore represent an even greater step forward in quality
and patronage than diesel buses.

This is my response to your statement that trams have been shown to solve
transport problems in ways that buses can't. Perhaps you may now care to
elaborate on this generalised statement?


David Bradley