One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better. I remember many years ago (late 1960s / early
1970s) when Europe was going anti-tram that they closed a main system
down in - I think - Zurich (or it may have been Geneva or somewhere
like that). Anyway, wherever, the lack of the trams actually caused
traffic to build up, bottle neck, and snarl up even more so than when
they were running. Apparently the trams were very useful in bunching up
blocks of traffic and actually kept the traffic moving. It was reported
that soon after closing the system down they re-introduced the trams.
CJB.

"CJB" wrote in message
ups.com...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram relate to
'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be closed to all other
traffic, which will be diverted on to a parallel residential street -
naturally residents on those streets don't like the idea.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram relate to
'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be closed to all other
traffic, which will be diverted on to a parallel residential street -
naturally residents on those streets don't like the idea.


I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
roups.com...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram relate
to
'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be closed to all other
traffic, which will be diverted on to a parallel residential street -
naturally residents on those streets don't like the idea.

Naturally.

I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram
scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum
or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been shown to
solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is because of their
layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is a bus is a bus, no
matter what its power source.

Peter Fox

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Peter Fox wrote:

However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned,
a trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus.

They accelerate briskly away from stops, reducing overall journey time
compared to buses. Of course in the UK we're determined to sabotage
that by having the driver take fares, ho hum. And of course they have
no emissions at the point of service, which is nice. Try Geneva
sometime, you'll see how a modern-day trolleybus can work (e.g the one
to/from the airport).

But it's no automatic alternative to a tram. Indeed the Genevois are
now extending their tram routes.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

They accelerate briskly away from stops, reducing overall journey time
compared to buses. Of course in the UK we're determined to sabotage
that by having the driver take fares, ho hum

Well, actually, we aren't, because we haven't got any trolleybus
systems (and aren't likely to get any).

Peter Fox wrote:
"David Bradley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
ups.com...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely
thought that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it
already is. However I haven't seen the argument that trams will
actually help traffic flow much better.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram
relate to 'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be
closed to all other traffic, which will be diverted on to a
parallel residential street - naturally residents on those streets
don't like the idea.

Naturally.

But it would not just be residential streets that would suffer increased
traffic. Many drivers would choose an alternative main road, thus
pushing more traffic on to Western Avenue and Chiswick High Road, and
thus increasing congestion and pollution there.

Today, Acton High Street was closed eastbound for emergency gas repairs,
so the 207 bendy-buses were using Chiswick High Road, presumably because
they couldn't get round the corners on any shorter alternative route on
residential roads.

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.

The trolleybus faction usually advocate hybrids, with auxilliary diesel
engines, both for diversionary and route extension purposes.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Richard J. wrote:

But at least they could divert, which trams and trolley buses would not
be able to do.

Take a look at (apologies for the horrible URLs) some of the fleet
listed at
http://www.tpg.ch/Internet+TPG/Franc...cVehicules.htm
for example
http://www.tpg.ch/Internet%20TPG/Fra...HESSBBC-SE.htm

GMA (Groupe de marche autonome)
Moteur essence VW / 127

I read that as something like
"autonomous propulsion group / petrol motor", no?

I don't know whether this feature is ever used for rescues in
passenger service, but evidently these trolleybuses are capable of
moving themselves if/when the need arises. (Not all of them are shown
as fitted with this feature, in case you want to have a whine.)

To the best of my recollection, some German trolleybuses have (or have
had) a fully fledged diesel motor, used routinely on the outer parts
of their routes, and only switch to/from OHL power for the more
central parts of the town/city. Evidently, in the event of a problem
(road blockage, OHL or power failure) they would be capable of
continuing in service on the other power source.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 21:26:07 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Fox"
wrote:


"David Bradley" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:32:33 +0000 (UTC), "Peter Masson"
wrote:


"CJB" wrote in message
groups.com...
One of the main arguments against the WLT is that it is widely thought
that the trams will snarl up traffic even worse than it already is.
However I haven't seen the argument that trams will actually help
traffic flow much better.

They should do, by encouraging motorists out of their cars.

AIUI at least some of the complaints against the West London Tram relate
to
'pinch ponts' on the route, where the road will be closed to all other
traffic, which will be diverted on to a parallel residential street -
naturally residents on those streets don't like the idea.

Naturally.

I have collated together the various arguments for and against the tram
scheme
along the Uxbridge Road at www.tfwl.org.uk - If you disagree with anything
said there then you can respond either through the Guest Book, the Forum
or an
email link back to me from the site.

David Bradley

This site is an anti-tram site which instead promotes trolley buses.
However, I have never seen how, as far as a passenger is concerned, a
trolleybus can be any better than an ordinary bus. Trams have been shown to
solve transport problems in ways that buses can't. This is because of their
layout, being effectively a versatile train. A bus is a bus is a bus, no
matter what its power source.

Peter Fox


The site is not anti tram in general but regards the Uxbridge Road corridor as
being totally unsuitable for a tramway. TfL's stance is that passenger
numbers will grow considerably over the next decade and that a high capacity,
quality service is therefore required to meet this demand. It is a matter of
pure conjecture that a high proportion of private transport will evaporate
away with the provision of a tramway since it doesn't supply a service for the
travel objectives of many private motorists; a switch to PT would for many
mean a bus / tram / bus journey. At interchange points the distance between
stops will be considerable as there is no integration between the two modes
of public transport.

Electrically powered transport is certainly environmentally friendly where it
matters, at street level, and pollution output from power generation sources
has certainly been cleaned up considerably over the last decade or so. Until
now in the UK, what has separated the image of tram travel over that of a bus
is the provision of quality, information rich and secure areas for intended
passengers to wait. Then there is the ease of boarding and a swift journey
because of exclusive use of road space or a private right of way. There is
absolutely no reason way buses can use these concepts to give the "right"
image and certainly a trolleybus route can be built to these standards for a
fraction of the cost of a tramway.

Jo Public doesn't really care if the public transport vehicle has steel wheels
or rubber tyres, just as long as it provides him with a travel experience
which approximates to the use of a car or improves upon that mode of travel
with either/or/and faster journey times at a perceived fair price.

While there are many factors affecting choice of mode by passengers, no
evidence has ever been produced that steel wheels on rails intrinsically
attract normal members of the public as passengers whereas there is
considerable evidence across the world (such as in Arnhem, Lyon and
Salzburg) that the quietness and environmental credentials of electric
traction do attract greater patronage.

Electric traction does of course also line up with government aspirations
in terms of both air quality and carbon dioxide emissions. High quality
trolleyways could therefore represent an even greater step forward in quality
and patronage than diesel buses.

This is my response to your statement that trams have been shown to solve
transport problems in ways that buses can't. Perhaps you may now care to
elaborate on this generalised statement?


David Bradley