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