|
About West London Tram
asdf said:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:35:12 +0000, David Bradley wrote: 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. Yes. I've said it before, but it still bears repeating. David's whole chain of reasoning seems to be based on: a) TfL's tram scheme is flawed. b) His trolleybus scheme isn't TfL's tram scheme. c) Therefore, his trolleybus scheme can't be flawed. He then spends all his arguing points (a) and (b), even though we all agree with him about those. But, he does nothing at all to convince us about point (c), which is the part that's bothering us. |
About West London Tram
wrote in message
... asdf said: David's whole chain of reasoning seems to be based on: a) TfL's tram scheme is flawed. b) His trolleybus scheme isn't TfL's tram scheme. c) Therefore, his trolleybus scheme can't be flawed. He then spends all his arguing points (a) and (b), even though we all agree with him about those. But, he does nothing at all to convince us about point (c), which is the part that's bothering us. I thought David's chain of reasoning was a) I like trolleybuses b) Therefore everyone else should pay for one on every street -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
About West London Tram
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:05:41 -0000, wrote:
David Bradley said: I thought that the time had actually come to draw in line in the sand over the exchanges made at uk.transport.london and the only reason I kept it going for so long is that Internet searches on the West London Tram would reveal discussions going on in this backwater. Charming. However it seem no matter how much I dot the eyes or cross the tees it never seems to be enough to satisfy some people that are sceptical that a trolleybus solution can deliver any real benefits. And what does that suggest about your trolleybus solution? Maybe the situation is more complex than your claims that "All trolleybuses are good" would suggest? Logically it suggests either that the argument is flawed or that there are large numbers of people who have tightly closed minds or both. The first option is not the only logical possibility even if it were expressed correctly. The 'quotation' is of course not really one at all. No such phrase has ever been used. This is an inversion of the argument put forward by some of the pro-tram fraternity who often do espouse the view that 'all trams are good'. Arguments based on any premise that one mode is always superior in all circumstances (whichever mode it is) do not hold up against any form of professional scrutiny. Unfortunately much debate is by enthusiasts with fairly narrow interests (they just 'like trams') who have no real grasp of wider social and economic issues. which do not interest them. I thought it would be reasonably easy to respond to the issues raised by you but found myself very quickly bogged down trying to provide bullet point replies. All I could manage was several paragraphs before getting a headache Yes, well, the real world is more complicated than your "Trolleybuses are always good" mantra. I'm sorry if that gives you a headache, but it can't be helped. No further comment required - answered above. If there is going to be street based public transport along the Uxbridge Road Ah, that is a very big "if". Why should we restrict ourselves to only considering "street based public transport along the Uxbridge Road"? Instead, we could use our imaginations and creativity to come up with approaches that are totally different. There is no logical reason why we should restrict ourselves to only considering "street based public transport along the Uxbridge Road'. It is TfL who are restricting consideration to just one form of such public transport, a street based tram. We are suggesting consideration of what we consider to be another and more viable option, that of trolleybuses. There is no reason why others should not come up with other options. All options could be debated objectively on a benefit/cost basis. We are not afraid of any such comparisons with the proposed Trolleybus option. It is TfL that has deliberately stifled all debate and is proceeding with one option only irrespective. If we say a trolleybus option is better than a tram, then we have arrived at that conclusion by considerable research into TfL's tram scheme. Take care you don't fall into what boffins call "the Fallacy of Induction". Just because *a* trolleybus scheme is better than *a* tram scheme, you can't always assume that all trolleybus schemes are better than all tram schemes. This appears to have degenerated into a semantics argument between the definite and indefinite article. This true specific position in this case needs to be made clear without diverting into arguments regarding the general principles of logic. TfL are proposing only a single version of a street running tram scheme. The only allowed variation is for tweaks to some minor details but it is effectively 'the one and only' tram option. We are proposing an unguided trolleybus option which as far as we are aware is also 'the'one and only' unguided trolleybus option (we are not aware of any others. Now of course logically there could be options of different versions of both tram and trolleybus schemes. There could be (in theory) but there actually are not (in practice). There is nothing to stop others coming up with such variants but we would reiterate that it is TfL which is adopting the stance of 'this (particular tram scheme) is the only option'. We would welcome objective debate and the GLA committee which represented such a forum for debate would not endorse the TfL tram option as a proven 'best case' but suggested further research and discussion. This has perhaps not unsurprisingly been totally ignored by the Mayor and TfL. Your response was "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." Taking this text alone I assume you intended to throw the baby out with the bathwater by not even trying to have an integrated public transport system. Not at all. I just have a different perception of "integrated" than you. After all, you don't expect buses to stop at the platforms in railway stations, do you? They stop on the street outside. And in, for example, Euston station, the mainline trains don't share the same platforms as the tube trains. (Heck, even the Northern Line branches don't stop at the same platforms as each other.) Does this mean they aren't "integrated" in your book? Integration really is a complex subject that cannot be oversimplified without making some very strange (and completely erroneous) conclusions. The different Northern Line platforms at Euston are historical. They were built by two different private companies at different times (and with two different structure gauges and electrification systems). Whilst the station is integrated in the sense that you can get from one set of platforms to the other, it represents a later 'best of a bad job' scheme and it is not a very convenient piece of integration between the two branches for the passenger. The (deliberately planned) cross platform interchange at the same location between the Northern Bank Branch platforms and the Victoria Line is much better integration. To come back to WLT, people do not consistently use a mode (or modes) of transport out of 'curiosity'. This is really an absurd statement totally contradicted by all research. One of the main factors that does make people decide whether to use a mode or modes is convenience. People do not like having long walks at interchanges (hence the cross platform interchange already referred to at Euston). This is even more true if they have to make the walk in the outside and subject to the vagaries of the UK climate. Changing is always confirmed in any research to be one of the great disincentives to use of any mode or combinations of modes. (On main line railways when considering the marketing of services, actual waiting time at an intechange was always multiplied by three and then added to the train running time in any claculations of overall jourrney time to try and compensate for this factor and this assumed a railway station that probably had at least a roof if not a waiting room). Twice a day along the Uxbridge Road (at changeover time) in the TfL plan, you won't really know where to go even if you are not changing. At night do you walk to the bus stop for the first night bus or the tram stop for the last day tram and of course vice versa in the morning? So irrespective of how you define integration, the actual manner of changing tram to bus and vice versa involving a considerable walk in the open will certainly not encourage use of the tram. It will discourage it and represent negative modal shift (but this is not (un)surprisingly allowed for in the TfL calculations of modal shift). Having experienced the joint tram and bus stops (in many cases in lanes segregated from other traffic) in many European cities (including Turin and Milan recently) there can be no doubt that these represent better integration (and therefore less unattractiveness to passengers) than is being proposed by TfL along the Uxbridge Road. Away from the attractiveness and modal shift implications, there are traffic flow implications as well. At some places where carriageway width is at a premium, the combination of 40 metre centre tram islands at one location with kerbside bus stops at a different location slightly further along the road could easily cause the traffic to stop and clog back. Whilst numerical calcuations have been done by consultants for TflL of envisaged overall traffic flows post tram and these have been made public, we are not aware of any traffic flow simulations in respect of the scheme for specific sections of the Uxbridge Road (certainly there do not appear to be any in the public domain). David Bradley |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
Because I MUST have permission first to use this information. It is one thing for people working withinr such organisations to express an opiniont privately but quite another for those same statements to be published. It isn't this lot, then?: http://www.tbus.org.uk/introduction.htm |
About West London Tram
wrote:
David Bradley wrote: Because I MUST have permission first to use this information. It is one thing for people working withinr such organisations to express an opiniont privately but quite another for those same statements to be published. It isn't this lot, then?: http://www.tbus.org.uk/introduction.htm If one scrolls to the bottom of http://www.tbus.org.uk/home.htm a familiar name is listed second from top. |
About West London Tram
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. |
About West London Tram
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:52:08 +0000, asdf wrote:
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. London Buses Ltd in its publication "Cleaner Air for London - London Buses leads the Way" estimated that the cost of health care which results from diesel bus air pollution equates to an equivalent of €0.20 per km. A different report prepared at the Roma Tre University in Rome suggested the cost as being as high as €1.20 per km. Using either figure helps justify the investment in new trolleybus systems because it indicates that installing the electrical infrastructure would result in significant financial benefits in reduced health care costs. Certainly this is how the new Rome trolleybus system came about. No on-road transport scheme is going to reduce congestion, and any road based public transport vehicle is going to have to spend a large part of its revenue earning service stationary in traffic queues, in addition to the time spent at stops picking up and setting down passengers, even with cash fare payment on entry eliminated. In these circumstances trolleybuses win hands down in respect of the ride quality, improved external environmental impact locally, low energy consumption, identifiable operator commitment, level boarding with 100% level low floors, less maintenance costs and a longer life. Trolleybuses also have a proven model shift appeal. In contrast diesel bendibuses are noisy, vibrating, fume-belching and fuel-wasting monstrosities. They also have an image problem that is hard to shake off for modal shift. The only hope of impacting at all on road traffic congestion in this area is to improve the off-road public transport network (heavy rail, light rail and if appropriate busways [preferably electric], and improve utilization of the existing rail network. By all means tinker with congestion issues like restricting certain vehicles on particular days and introducing benefits for high occupancy vehicles [cars with 2 or more passengers] and anything else you may car to think about but unless the Uxbridge Road becomes completely pedestrianised, then any extra capacity will be quickly absorbed. However, this thread is not about the merits of one type of bus against another; it is more about the folly of building a tramway along the Uxbridge Road corridor which, far from improving congestion problems, will actually make things a lot worse and certainly change the character of the area into an urban jungle. David Bradley |
About West London Tram
David Bradley wrote:
London Buses Ltd in its publication "Cleaner Air for London - London Buses leads the Way" estimated that the cost of health care which results from diesel bus air pollution equates to an equivalent of €0.20 per km. A different report prepared at the Roma Tre University in Rome suggested the cost as being as high as €1.20 per km. Using either figure helps justify the investment in new trolleybus systems because it indicates that installing the electrical infrastructure would result in significant financial benefits in reduced health care costs. Certainly this is how the new Rome trolleybus system came about. How? By coming up with a figure that is six times that of a comparable city? Or is it the case that they aren't comparable cities? No on-road transport scheme is going to reduce congestion, and any road based public transport vehicle is going to have to spend a large part of its revenue earning service stationary in traffic queues, in addition to the time spent at stops picking up and setting down passengers, even with cash fare payment on entry eliminated. In these circumstances trolleybuses win hands down in respect of the ride quality, improved external environmental impact locally, low energy consumption, identifiable operator commitment, level boarding with 100% level low floors, less maintenance costs and a longer life. Trolleybuses also have a proven model shift appeal. Not in Britain, they don't. And I see that you are running away with the argument again, jumping form the issue of emissions to a set of wider issues. However, now that you have raised them: Ride quality difference is questionable; unless you have jumped back to emissions, "external environmental impact" is less for a bus, as there is no overhead wiring; energy consumption is open to varios arguments; "identifiable operatyor commitment" can be provided in a number of ways, including guided busways (NB: I am not advocating a guided busway); buses can provide level boarding, and the need for 100% level floors is question (Supplementary question: Where are trolleybuses in service that have 100% level floors?); maintenance costs and vehicle life are, once again, part of a wider cost/benefit argument. Also, vehicle longevity might, nowadays, be seen as something likely to put passengers off in the future. We live in an age of shiny new things, and having vehicles replaced more frequently helps keep a modern image (but obviously costs money). In contrast diesel bendibuses are noisy, vibrating, fume-belching and fuel-wasting monstrosities. They also have an image problem that is hard to shake off for modal shift. Most people would view a trolleybus as a bus. The only hope of impacting at all on road traffic congestion in this area is to improve the off-road public transport network (heavy rail, light rail and if appropriate busways [preferably electric], and improve utilization of the existing rail network. By all means tinker with congestion issues like restricting certain vehicles on particular days and introducing benefits for high occupancy vehicles [cars with 2 or more passengers] and anything else you may car to think about but unless the Uxbridge Road becomes completely pedestrianised, then any extra capacity will be quickly absorbed. Proof positive that David is absolutely barking. However, this thread is not about the merits of one type of bus against another; it is more about the folly of building a tramway along the Uxbridge Road corridor which, far from improving congestion problems, will actually make things a lot worse and certainly change the character of the area into an urban jungle. For someone who is primarily arguing agains the tramway, you have put an awful lot of emphasis on trolleybuses. |
About West London Tram
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk