Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram, ostensibly because of the large strategic construction compound which
would occupy a big chunk of Shepherd's Bush Green, and about which TfL didn't
inform them before going public to the media.

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website
[http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/initiati...ion2005.shtml] detailing
the construction compounds and substations and, even more importantly, the
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished. In some cases
the land used to provide sites for construction compounds and will ultimately
be used for permanent substations.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

David Bradley

Of course if it had been a new road scheme then they'd
probably be rubbing their hands with glee as all the Fulham
tractors would be able to get that little bit quicker to harrods.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities,

Trolleybuses have an image problem. The public would
probably just see them as another bus.
When Ken was running his fuel cell buses the other year I
didn't notice them packed to the rafters with happy eco
commuters. Trams though tend to get much more ridership
than a buses ever would - witness whats happened elsewhere
around the country particularly Nottingham. Would a trolleybus do the
same? Maybe for a short time for the
novelty value , but long term I doubt it. At the end of
the day they're just another uncomfortable , small capacity
(compared to a tram) bus albeit an electric one.

B2003

Glad, Boltar, that you recognise just how in the pocket of business and
yuppies Hammersmith and Fulham (Labour) Council is! They certainly
don't give a fig about those of us who are neither big business nor
yuppies (I'm aged 40 and have lived in Fulham my entire life).

Marc.

David Bradley wrote:

Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram,...

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website ...
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished.

If the tram doesn't go ahead, some of this demolition may happen
anyway, to increase capacity for cars and buses. The basic premise
behind the tram is to increase the capacity of the Uxbridge Road to
move people, in exchange for a reduction in its capacity to move cars.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

The reasons for choosing tram over trolleybus were never, in my view,
very good. They were mainly: trams are better at attracting people out
of cars, and will make it politically easier to achieve the necessary
demolitions and reductions in capacity for other motor vehicles.

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?
Asking people to predict what they'd do is not very accurate,
especially if you don't explain very carefully what a tolleybus is.

Cyclists may like to know that at present they can get from one end to
the other faster than the tram is projected to be able to. There is a
real danger that changes to get the tram in will delay cyclists enough
to make them slower than the tram.

Colin McKenzie

The whole West London Tram scheme is dead in the water, so much
opposition exists to the scheme in West London that I cannot personally
see it happenning in the forseeable future. I suspect the scheme will
be dropped on cost grounds as the benefits behind the whole scheme are
pretty limited and cost have been escalating.


Colin McKenzie wrote:
David Bradley wrote:

Hi,

LB Hammersmith and Fulham have now come out fully against the West London
Tram,...

It's worth taking a good look at the TfL website ...
devastating new permanent layout proposals for West Ealing Lido junction,
Hanwell Broadway and Southall Broadway main junction. Many small shops and
other businesses will be wiped out, and old but perfectly serviceable and in
some degree townscape-valuable buildings, will be demolished.

If the tram doesn't go ahead, some of this demolition may happen
anyway, to increase capacity for cars and buses. The basic premise
behind the tram is to increase the capacity of the Uxbridge Road to
move people, in exchange for a reduction in its capacity to move cars.

It is worth stressing that a trolleybus scheme would require far more
minimalist (and much shorter-lived) construction compound facilities, and no
such destructive road widening in town centres. Presumably substation
requirements would be similar to tram although why roadside cabinets using
local electricity supplies can't be used is a mystery to me.

The reasons for choosing tram over trolleybus were never, in my view,
very good. They were mainly: trams are better at attracting people out
of cars, and will make it politically easier to achieve the necessary
demolitions and reductions in capacity for other motor vehicles.

But I'm not sure there's any actual UK evidence that trams attract
more people out of cars than trolleybuses - how would you obtain it?
Asking people to predict what they'd do is not very accurate,
especially if you don't explain very carefully what a tolleybus is.

Cyclists may like to know that at present they can get from one end to
the other faster than the tram is projected to be able to. There is a
real danger that changes to get the tram in will delay cyclists enough
to make them slower than the tram.

Colin McKenzie

In article . com,
MartyJ writes
The whole West London Tram scheme is dead in the water, so much
opposition exists to the scheme in West London that I cannot personally
see it happenning in the forseeable future. I suspect the scheme will be
dropped on cost grounds as the benefits behind the whole scheme are
pretty limited and cost have been escalating.

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Incidentally, what is the latest cost estimate? The last figure I saw
was £648 m, but that was probably a year ago. I imagine it must be
nearing £1 bn, which means that if it were ever built it would probably
cost not far short of £3bn - of your and my money.
--
Thoss

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003

Have a look at this from the Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...846599,00.html

'......Transport for London embarked on a massive consultation exercise,
produced 500 pages of data, interviewed 16,895 people and printed 440,000
brochures and questionnaires in 11 different languages.
The findings were as clear as a thumb's down from the emperor in the
Colosseum: 70 per cent of respondents did not support the idea.'

Paul

Bit of selective cut and pasting by you there I think. You
forgot the next bit:"The only enthusiasm came from 71 people living way
beyond the terminus, in Buckinghamshire.". Last time I looked 71 people
is not 30% of 16895. So I suspect this journalist is playing a bit
fast and loose with the facts. On an aside I'd also be interested
to know why TfL thought it appropriate to do the survey in 11
languages. If people can't be arsed to learnt the language of
the country they're living in why the hell should they be allowed to
give their views and perhaps influence people
who do give a **** about this place?

B2003

OK, I take your postings to mean that you are in favour of the tramway scheme.
To understand your point of view please confirm you have no vested interest in
the project other than a potential user of the tramway. I would then be
interested to hear why you feel that such a huge investment should be made and
what you perceive to be the benefits of the tramway. Are you not in the least
bit concerned at the loss of unique shopping outlets and the demolition of
generally architecturally interesting and sound buildings that still have many
years of useful life?

David Bradley



On 30 Oct 2005 12:56:20 -0800, "Boltar" wrote:

Would that it were so. Unfortunately it is being pushed by Ken L, and
he doesn't seem to pay much attention to public opinion.

Public opinion it seems to me is generally in favour. Its more
a case of a load of standard issue Nimbies down the bottom end
whinging about it because it might make driving Jemima 500
yards to school a bit harder. For the people of Southall and
onwards to Uxbridge it would be a godsend given the
generally lousy public transport in that corridor.

B2003