On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:09:18 -0000, wrote:

David Bradley said:

On 12 Nov 2005 18:19:07 -0800, wrote:

David Bradley wrote:

www.tfwl.org.uk - a site that has quickly established itself to
have exceptional credibility and well thought out responses

With whom has it "quickly established itself to have exceptional
credibility and well thought out responses"? Where is the evidence
to support this assertion?

uk.transport.london is not the entire world and its readership does
not appear to be populated with professionals from the transport
industry. It is to that group of people that I ascribe my comments.
Exactly what evidence do you wish me to produce? Do you have
anything to suggest that might be an improvement for public transport
users or are you just there to whinge and moan?



You still haven't answered Kev's question: "Where is the evidence to
support this assertion?"



I ask simply what kind of evidence do you want, I have enough to fill hundreds
of lines in this thread. If I give one example, or more, you will find
reasons why that is not good enough; if I respond with everything, what useful
purpose will that serve?

Fortunately I get a considerable amount of email feedback on my website that
is constructively helpful and acknowledgments that it has proved invaluable in
the work that the writer is engaged in. As a direct result of the web site I
have had invitations to speak at conferences and requests to attend forums and
committee meetings of those that are the "shakers and movers" of transport
policy.

No my Lady, it is you that is out in the cold. But then you won't be rreading
his because I have been excluded from your inbox. Nothing like not wanting to
hear the truth is there?

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:09:18 -0000, wrote:

Nothing like not wanting to hear the truth is there?

The follow on question that always comes to mind when someone raises that
particular issue is, "Is the speaker/writer portraying the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth" or merely the portion of it that suits
their agenda?

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:35:12 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Unlike pro tram supporters and the green element, we do not duck and dive from
any issues raised;

On the contrary, that's exactly what you've been doing.

Simply not true, I repeated return here to pick up on any points raised.

Whilst often not addressing many of the points raised directly, if at
all.

Let me spell it out again for you what I have said previously. Sticking a
couple of poles on the top of a bus and stringing up overhead wires obviously
won't make one ioata of difference to the congestion problems along the
Uxbridge Road assuming that was all that was done. Our proposals go much
deeply than that but clearly you are not interested in the detail.

You have not been so kind as to furnish us with any of the "deeper"
detail.

Your website spends many pages and thousands of words rubbishing the
tram scheme (or just trams in general), but says very little about
this detailed scheme you say you are proposing instead. In fact,
almost all that can be inferred is that it involves trolleybuses, and
doesn't involve any demolition to increase capacity at the key
bottlenecks.

You've also made some vague mention in this group about wiring up many
different routes in west London for trolleybuses, but again with
little or no detail.

You almost give the impression that you're making up this proposal as
you go along.

You can't consider one aspect in isolation and then rubbish the entire concept.

We can only consider the aspects that you tell us about.

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.

Clearly you have a solution that you feel WILL work, so stop hiding
behind a bush and come out and tell us all what that is.

If you want your proposal to be taken seriously then it is up to YOU
to convince the audience of its merits. This involves more than just
inviting the audience to come up with a better idea.

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.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:50:44 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:09:18 -0000, wrote:

Nothing like not wanting to hear the truth is there?

The follow on question that always comes to mind when someone raises that
particular issue is, "Is the speaker/writer portraying the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth" or merely the portion of it that suits
their agenda?


Tell me, is this newsgroup about issues relating to transport in London or is
it a maser class in English? My comment relates to a difference of opinion on
what are the best options for the congestion problems along the Uxbridge Road
corridor. I go to considerable lengths to explain why I believe that in this
particular case [only] a tramway solution does not, and can not, meet that
objective.

It seems to me that we have a number of local government officials who wish to
leave behind a legacy prestige project of their term in office, that the vast
number of people living in the area simply don't want and worse still for some
it will be the loss of their livelihood, home and or business. At the same
time there continues to be a need for public transport provision in the area
which needs to sensibly co-exist with other demands on the limited amount of
road space available.

The current provision of public transport facilities locally hardly encourages
a modal change for those where it would be practical to do so. With no tramway
built, but perhaps a new generation of buses being introduced to meet emission
directives, then there isn't going to be any kind of step change which the
population is crying out for. Now you can continue to wax lyrically about
others that have sensibly suggestions to make, that in a small way works
towards improving things generally or you can present your own case of what
should be done.

You may not like what I have to say but any agenda I might have regarding
trolleybus *systems* does have a proven track record of making things better.
Where is the lie in that?

David Bradley


David Bradley

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:09:33 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

www.tfwl.org.uk - a site that has quickly established itself to
have exceptional credibility and well thought out responses

You still haven't answered Kev's question: "Where is the evidence to
support this assertion?"

I ask simply what kind of evidence do you want,

You must have some way of knowing that your website is considered to
"have exceptional credibility and well thought out responses". Simply
tell us how you know.

I have enough to fill hundreds of lines in this thread. If I give one
example, or more, you will find reasons why that is not good enough;

If the examples are satisfactory, then if anyone finds reasons why
they are not good enough, said reasons would be unconvincing, and
would be disregarded by readers - and of course, this being an open
group, you (and others) would have the opportunity to refute them.

As a direct result of the web site I
have had invitations to speak at conferences and requests to attend forums and
committee meetings of those that are the "shakers and movers" of transport
policy.

Care to give any examples?

You would do well to note that general statements such as these may be
considered dubious unless backed up with names and facts. For example,
on your web site, you state that "the opinion of the country's largest
group of professional transport planners is that the best option for
most places is trolleybuses". I constructively suggest that you add
the name of this group to that sentence, and possibly a direct quote
from a spokesman or report, as this would add great weight to its
credibility.

In message , asdf
writes
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.
How about a Monorail like Wuppertal and get all the busses of that road,
free flow of people on PT and freed up road space. May not be the
answer, but try thinking outside the box.
--
Clive

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:19:50 +0000, asdf wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:35:12 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Unlike pro tram supporters and the green element, we do not duck and dive from
any issues raised;

On the contrary, that's exactly what you've been doing.

Simply not true, I repeated return here to pick up on any points raised.

Whilst often not addressing many of the points raised directly, if at
all.


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.

Let me spell it out again for you what I have said previously. Sticking a
couple of poles on the top of a bus and stringing up overhead wires obviously
won't make one iota of difference to the congestion problems along the
Uxbridge Road assuming that was all that was done. Our proposals go much
deeply than that but clearly you are not interested in the detail.

You have not been so kind as to furnish us with any of the "deeper"
detail.


True but this will be provided on the www.tfwl.org.uk web site sometime in the
next six weeks, i.e. before Christmas.

Your website spends many pages and thousands of words rubbishing the
tram scheme (or just trams in general), but says very little about
this detailed scheme you say you are proposing instead. In fact,
almost all that can be inferred is that it involves trolleybuses, and
doesn't involve any demolition to increase capacity at the key
bottlenecks.


My position is quite clear. Trams for the Uxbridge Road corridor will be a
disaster on any level you consider. However I have never said that they are
not suitable elsewhere, in fact I support the CRT proposal and some other
schemes around the UK which sadly seem to have bit the dust.

As I said above the information is coming but it all takes time to convert the
available material into a web page. A churn the pages as out as quickly as I
can but anyone who has every produced a web site will know, it is no 5 minute
job.

You've also made some vague mention in this group about wiring up many
different routes in west London for trolleybuses, but again with
little or no detail.

I did, but I have a primary objective with the Uxbridge Road scheme and
therefore information given is more directed to that locality. However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route. So I have prepared a map that identifies these routes which I put
forward as the trolleybus network for London. This map can be seen as a
hyperlink from http://www.tfwl.org.uk/data.html. I will add much more
information and detail on these routes to the web site in due course.

You almost give the impression that you're making up this proposal as
you go along.

You are so wrong there; you expect everything to be presented on a plate here
and now. Even TfL with their huge resources have yet to produced the details
on every aspect of WLT.

You can't consider one aspect in isolation and then rubbish the entire concept.

We can only consider the aspects that you tell us about.


My statement has been taken out of context and I will therefore not respond on
that one.

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. 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.

Clearly you have a solution that you feel WILL work, so stop hiding
behind a bush and come out and tell us all what that is.

If you want your proposal to be taken seriously then it is up to YOU
to convince the audience of its merits. This involves more than just
inviting the audience to come up with a better idea.

I don't have a problem there providing your objection to trolleybuses can
actually be identified otherwise I am just wasting valuable time in a scatter
gun approach.

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. Throwing money at quick fix
solutions solves nothing in the long term.

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:

However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route.

A rule, eh? As 'asdf' has mentioned, 'on your web site, you state that
"the opinion of the country's largest group of professional transport
planners is that the best option for most places is trolleybuses" '.
Did "the country's largest group of professional transport planners"
devise this rule? And, in any case, will you please tell us more about
this group?

On 13 Nov 2005 11:55:03 -0800, wrote:

David Bradley wrote:

However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route.

A rule, eh? As 'asdf' has mentioned, 'on your web site, you state that
"the opinion of the country's largest group of professional transport
planners is that the best option for most places is trolleybuses" '.
Did "the country's largest group of professional transport planners"
devise this rule? And, in any case, will you please tell us more about
this group?

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

I am afraid that not everyone responds as immediately as you would wish and
you will just have to wait until I get the appropriate clearance "to publish".
However as a jesture of goodwill I am prepared to remove that paragraph for
the time being.

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

Another dodgy answer. You claimed that the opinion came from "the
country's largest group of professional transport planners". "Group" -
singular. Such a group must have a name, so why not tell us?

And you haven't told us where the "10 minute frequency" "rule" came
from. Such a clear-cut rule must be documented and attributable, so...?