About West London Tram
 

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:34:06 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:09:27 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 00:58:36 -0000, "Marratxi"
wrote:


"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...

HUGE SNIP

Indeed, memory suggests that in parts of the US (Philadelphia
spring to mind) they are sometimes called "trackless trolleys"
where "trolley" is a common synonym for "streetcar" or "tram" (for
those of us brought up that side of the atlantic in the last 40
years, we all remember Mr. Rogers' Trolley).
Robin

When, as a kid in the 1940s and 50s, I visited my grandmothers in
Bradford the trolleybuses were always referred to as tracklesses.
Baz


This thread has prompted me to produce a web site on the 'issues'.
Please have a look at www.tfwl.co.uk

I note you still haven't told us which "unique shopping outlets and
generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings" are
kikely to be demolished.


I have now by putting up a page at http://www.tfwl.org.uk/lido1.html

So why put your response in a place where no one can react? You site doesn't
even include photos of the building you claim will be affected to allow
people to make their own judgement.

Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by English
Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be demolished so listed?
If not will you be making a listing application?


You must be looking at a different page to the URL given above. Pictures of
the retail outlets affected *ARE* on this page and the row of icons at the
bottom of the page includes a link to provide any feedback.

The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed',
although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage
buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why
does it have to be me to make a listed application? I could spend my lifetime
dealing with such applications and then miss a few through such a crusade.

As for the web page I don't know what more I really can do to satisfy your
obsession of criticism you have on our beliefs that it is totally wrong to
destroy a vibrant collection of retail outlets that serves the local community
well, just for the sake of pushing a tramway through the neighbourhood. It is
not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not be
equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme.

I have, however, given you one concession by adding text that gives
information on how you can provide your feedback.

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

David Bradley wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 10:34:06 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:09:27 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

David Bradley wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 00:58:36 -0000, "Marratxi"
wrote:


"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...

HUGE SNIP

Indeed, memory suggests that in parts of the US (Philadelphia
spring to mind) they are sometimes called "trackless trolleys"
where "trolley" is a common synonym for "streetcar" or "tram"
(for those of us brought up that side of the atlantic in the
last 40
years, we all remember Mr. Rogers' Trolley).
Robin

When, as a kid in the 1940s and 50s, I visited my grandmothers in
Bradford the trolleybuses were always referred to as tracklesses.
Baz


This thread has prompted me to produce a web site on the 'issues'.
Please have a look at www.tfwl.co.uk

I note you still haven't told us which "unique shopping outlets and
generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings" are
kikely to be demolished.


I have now by putting up a page at http://www.tfwl.org.uk/lido1.html

So why put your response in a place where no one can react? You site
doesn't even include photos of the building you claim will be
affected to allow people to make their own judgement.

Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by
English Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be
demolished so listed?
If not will you be making a listing application?


You must be looking at a different page to the URL given above.
Pictures of the retail outlets affected *ARE* on this page and the
row of icons at the bottom of the page includes a link to provide any
feedback.

I couldn't see a picture that provided a view of the fronts of the building
between Northfield Ave and Chapel Road.


The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are
'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some
of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe
this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed
application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such
applications and then miss a few through such a crusade.

It doesn't "have" to be you, apart from the fact that you are the one here
arguing for their retention in the face of a much needed improvement.

As for the web page I don't know what more I really can do to satisfy
your obsession of criticism you have on our beliefs that it is
totally wrong to destroy a vibrant collection of retail outlets that
serves the local community well, just for the sake of pushing a
tramway through the neighbourhood. It is not proven to me that the
same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less
destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme.

There is one very simple reason why a tram will fare better than your
proposal. People don't like buses, they do however like trams and trains.

You appear to be someone who is proposing a solution because of a personal
preference rather than because it would truly be of benefit to the
community.


I have, however, given you one concession by adding text that gives
information on how you can provide your feedback.

However, that is not where the discussion started, this is. Why do you want
to move it?

About West London Tram
 

David Bradley wrote:

The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are
'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some
of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe
this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed
application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such
applications and then miss a few through such a crusade.

ADDITIONAL:

The map on your web page shewing which buildings are to be demolished is at
variance with that on Tfl's page at http://tinyurl.com/a6ad2

Your map shews the that the houses are to be demolished whereas the Tfl map
shews that only the buildings on what were the front gardens are to give way
to the junction improvement.

Those shops are of no architecural merit at all, in fact they are something
of an architecural eyesore although I recognise that they do provide
employment for a small number of people.

About West London Tram
 

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:43:22 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by English
Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be demolished so listed?
If not will you be making a listing application?

The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed',
although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage
buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why
does it have to be me to make a listed application?

If you care so passionately about these interesting and important
examples of our architectural heritage that you think the transport
needs of everyone living in the entire Uxbridge Road corridor are
secondary to the preservation of these buildings, surely making an
application to have them listed would be a small sacrifice?

It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not
be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme.

Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a
trolleybus scheme?

About West London Tram
 

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:02:47 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

[snip]



You must be looking at a different page to the URL given above.
Pictures of the retail outlets affected *ARE* on this page and the
row of icons at the bottom of the page includes a link to provide any
feedback.

I couldn't see a picture that provided a view of the fronts of the building
between Northfield Ave and Chapel Road.

Pictures 1,2,6.7 and 8 together show the threatened parade between Northfield
Ave and Chapel Rd, as best as the photographer could during daylight hours at
this time of year without risking life and limb by standing in the middle of a
relentlessly busy main road.


The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are
'listed', although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some
of these heritage buildings. Lots of other people may also believe
this to be the case, so why does it have to be me to make a listed
application? I could spend my lifetime dealing with such
applications and then miss a few through such a crusade.

It doesn't "have" to be you, apart from the fact that you are the one here
arguing for their retention in the face of a much needed improvement.


With regard to listed buildings, even statutory listing would be no gurarantee
of safety from destruction, particularly as the local planning authority
Ealing Concil supports the tram scheme and therefore the building destruction
in this case.

As for the web page I don't know what more I really can do to satisfy
your obsession of criticism you have on our beliefs that it is
totally wrong to destroy a vibrant collection of retail outlets that
serves the local community well, just for the sake of pushing a
tramway through the neighbourhood. It is not proven to me that the
same benefits that a tramway provides can not be equally, and less
destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme.

There is one very simple reason why a tram will fare better than your
proposal. People don't like buses, they do however like trams and trains.


I'm not sure I can be bothered to take time out to dignify this with a
refutation. People certainly did like the previous generations of trolleybuses
in this country, and the modern ones on other countries. People don't like
buses because of the noise, vibration, fumes and jerky motion, all of which
trolleybuses are free from. And perhaps you should ask some of the hapless
human sardines in the London tube and overground rail commuter area whether
they really like the trains they're forced to use.

If you bothered to actually look you will see there are several refgerences on
my web site that approaches the issue you raise head on. For example at
http://www.tfwl.org.uk/foe.html we write:
"From evidence to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Sheffield's Supertram
it was noted that the original projected ridership was 20+ million annually -
Actual ridership has never exceeded around the 12 million mark. As a result
the tramway got into severe financial difficulties Given a free choice, many
Sheffield travellers chose to travel by bus rather than tram.

To make something of the Manchester experience the original scheme linked two
suburban electric railways by a small amount of street track in the city
centre. It was cheap to build as it re-cycled railway assets. The scheme
doubled the previous railway ridership, attracting many motorists

However the subsequent small extension to Eccles was all new build involving a
lot of street track. The extension cost about as much in real terms as the
whole original scheme and added only a few percent to total system ridership.
It suffers from bus competition as they offer a quicker way into central
Manchester than the tramway extension

Therefore given a free choice, many travellers chose to travel by bus rather
than using the tramway extension. The original scheme is rightly judged as
very successful since it used re-cycled railway alignments and little new
build or street track whereas the new extension, which was all new build as
street track, gave extremely poor value for money and must be judged as
unsuccessful.

One can hardly argue therefore of the 'superior' attractiveness of the tram
compared with the bus!"

You appear to be someone who is proposing a solution because of a personal
preference rather than because it would truly be of benefit to the
community.

True. My personal preference for trolleys in this corridor is because it's the
only sensible solution here, with the potential to benefit the wider community
through expansion to form a network of electrified routes; while a street
tramway would only benefit (if at all) travellers just along Uxbridge Road,
leaving the rest of West London with noxious and umcomfortable diesel buses,
primitive stop facilities, no real-time service information and curtailed and
slower and less reliable service performance. It's you who clearly supports
the tram scheme in the face of the realities of this corridor and the needs of
wider West London, because of your personal preference for trams.

I have, however, given you one concession by adding text that gives
information on how you can provide your feedback.

However, that is not where the discussion started, this is. Why do you want
to move it?


I only responded to an issue that you raised about the aparent lack of ability
to respond to statements made on the web site.

To move onto other points that have been raised in a subsequent posts which
challange the demolition that is proposed in the locality. it is quite clear
from TfL info sheet C16 that you are unaware of what is actually proposed by
TfL.. The whole of this group of buildings including the 2 storey houses or
former houses behind the shopfronts ARE to be demolished. This whole site is
to be completely cleared not only for the road widening but also to serve as a
construction compound. Iit is also quite possible that the whole site east of
Chapel Road will also be acquired and demolished, but this can not be
determined from the published TfL information.

As for the "architecural eyesore" of this group of buildings, I have already
made my views clear on this. Real architectural merit requires fitness for
purpose, not just visual prettiness or elaboration. Forget about the precious
aesthetes, these well-maintained parades are not an eyesore, they present a
lively, varied, cheerful and vibrant street scene. In addition, the red
building behind the Coral shopfront at least is IMHO of real architectural
merit in your narrow sense.

In addition to 'employment for a small number of people' these premises
provide a variety of services for a large number of people who will be
deprived of a local retail outlet. Perhaps this is where the true extra
number of passengers for the tram will come from, not from modal shift but
from those least able to afford it who would have travel further afield to
obtain services that were previously nearby.

If I have not covered an issue to the detail you desire, no doubt you will
respond in due course.

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:37:31 +0000, asdf wrote:

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:43:22 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Building of architectural interest are eligible for listing by English
Heritage. Are any of the buildings you claim will be demolished so listed?
If not will you be making a listing application?

The text on the page mentions that none of these buildings are 'listed',
although it is felt that there is merit in retaining some of these heritage
buildings. Lots of other people may also believe this to be the case, so why
does it have to be me to make a listed application?

If you care so passionately about these interesting and important
examples of our architectural heritage that you think the transport
needs of everyone living in the entire Uxbridge Road corridor are
secondary to the preservation of these buildings, surely making an
application to have them listed would be a small sacrifice?

On the contrary it's you who thinks the transport AND OTHER needs of everyone
else living in, working in, visiting or having to pass through West London are
secondary to the desires of the minority who need to travel only along
Uxbridge Road (and who continue to be duped into believing that this street
tramway will improve their travel). ASs mentioned in an earlier posting,
making an application to have buildings listed in this locality is bound to
fail.

It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not
be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme.

Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a
trolleybus scheme?

Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to make it
work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido junction widening is
'necessary' only to make room for a pair of reserved tramtracks and associated
segregation islands. This junction scheme will disadvantage nearly all other
road users, including: the remaining bus services which will have the existing
bus lanes on Uxbridge Road removed, and will have no right turn priority
(except for the E8 in the Ealing direction, but for which the benefit thereof
is likely to be outweighed by even shorter green signal time than now on the
Northfield Avenue approach to the junction. Pedestrians who will have fewer
and less direct crossing facilities than now; many travellers on the trams who
will have fewer stops than the current 207/427 buses the trams will replace,
and will therefore have to walk further to access the service.

The trams will in any case derive little if any benefit from the priority at
the junction itself since they will be stuck in the consequently lengthened
queues of othe traffic, including buses, on the shared running sections away
from the junction.

A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating
road widening, and would integrate much better with the remaining bus services
(many if not all of which could justify conversion to trolley routes in any
case, with some of the vast amount of money saved by dropping the tram scheme)
and other traffic. Trolleybuses will be silent, vibration-free and
pollution-free while stationary in the traffic queues which are inevitable at
this location as elsewhere on Uxbridge Road and the rest of West London's road
network, and therefore a considerable improvement in journey quality over
diesel buses, and unlike trams will be able to steer round parked vehicles and
other obstructions, or go off-route under battery power in the event of more
serious disruption on the route.

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

In message , David Bradley
writes
Trolleybuses will be silent, vibration-free and pollution-free while
stationary in the traffic queues which are inevitable at this location
as elsewhere on Uxbridge Road and the rest of West London's road
network, and therefore a considerable improvement in journey quality
over diesel buses, and unlike trams will be able to steer round parked
vehicles and other obstructions, or go off-route under battery power in
the event of more serious disruption on the route.
You are making the case for the destruction of cars with IC engines, I
don't see this to be a very popular move.
--
Clive

About West London Tram
 

David Bradley said

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:37:31 +0000, asdf
wrote:


Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a
trolleybus scheme?

Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to
make it work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido
junction widening is 'necessary' only to make room for a pair of
reserved tramtracks and associated segregation islands.

*snip*


A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely
self-defeating road widening

But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more
than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines?

Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines
for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking
bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I
don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly
power lines to the bus.

About West London Tram
 

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:12:17 -0000, wrote:

David Bradley said

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 14:37:31 +0000, asdf
wrote:


Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a
trolleybus scheme?

Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to
make it work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido
junction widening is 'necessary' only to make room for a pair of
reserved tramtracks and associated segregation islands.

*snip*


A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely
self-defeating road widening

But wouldn't the trolleybus STILL need road widening if it's to be more
than just another bendy-bus with added overhead power lines?

A false assumption.

Now maybe you just happen to like bendy-buses with overhead power lines
for their own sake? But experience seems to show that simply sticking
bendy buses onto already overcrowded roads doesn't reduce congestion. I
don't see how they're going to fix that problem by just adding some ugly
power lines to the bus.

40 metre long trains, TWICE the length of bendybuses, running along Uxbridge
Road is really going to make a difference for the better or worse? Your call
to explain that one away.

David Bradley

About West London Tram
 

On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:09:16 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

It is not proven to me that the same benefits that a tramway provides can not
be equally, and less destructively, be provided by a trolleybus scheme.

Why would the level of destruction differ between a tramway and a
trolleybus scheme?

Because the tramway scheme evidently requires this destruction to make it
work, otherwise TfL wouldn't be proposing it. The Lido junction widening is
'necessary' only to make room for a pair of reserved tramtracks and associated
segregation islands.

But it's possible for a tramway to share road space with street
traffic. So any necessity for a separate lane is nothing to do with
the fact that the vehicles are trams. So it would apply equally to
trolleybuses.

A trolleybus system does NOT need this destructive and largely self-defeating
road widening,

You didn't explain what the difference is. What technical difference
between trams and trolleybuses requires a widening of this junction
for trams, but not for trolleybuses?

As far as I can see, it makes no difference whatsoever - both tram and
trolleybus proposals could propose either widening or not widening the
junction. Yet because TfL's proposal does and yours doesn't, you
proclaim it as an advantage of trolleybus technology over tram
technology.