asdf wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:11:20 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

Your subject line is a little misleading - there are still hurdles to
clear before it goes ahead.

I was a bit shocked by the subject line... I thought given the recent
change in political air in Ealing, TfL would decide to just let the
people of the Uxbridge Road stuff themselves harder into bendy buses and
would switch funding to the much less controversial (popular, even)
Cross River Tram.

As much as I think there is a lot of scaremongering and
statistics-waving over the West London Tram, having local authorities
opposed to an infrastructure scheme is always a bad idea, and they will
cause all sorts of problems for the WLT now.

Incidentally, the news article implies that only Ealing is against the
scheme, when in reality Hamm & Fulham and Hillingdon were already
against the scheme, and Ealing changed opinion recently following the
elections! (including the remaining Labour councillors who were
previously in favour...)

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Paul Scott" wrote:

The plans are then still subject to the Transport Secretary approval - see
Liverpool, SE Hants etc etc


The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

In article , Asdf wrote:
On 2 Jun 2006 05:36:15 -0700, wrote:

Weird. Areas of the country that *do* want tram schemes have them
refused, and areas that *don't* have them foisted upon them. Is this a
case of 'Nanny knows best?'.

The reason for the difference is as follows:

WLT is in London and would be funded by TfL. TfL likes trams.

Other tram schemes were outside London, and would have been funded by
the DfT. The DfT doesn't like trams.

And in the case of WLT, "nanny" really does know best - the opposition
are a bunch of raving NIMBYs who know nothing about transport
planning. (Normally I wouldn't use such terms, but their arguments are
idiotic enough to justify it.)

Agreed, having just sampled remarkably joined-up (and probably highly
subsidised) public transport in and around Berlin. S-bahn, U-bahn, trams
and buses all interconnected and integrated.

--

Jock Mackirdy
Bedford

asdf wrote:
On 2 Jun 2006 05:36:15 -0700, wrote:

Weird. Areas of the country that *do* want tram schemes have them
refused, and areas that *don't* have them foisted upon them. Is
this a case of 'Nanny knows best?'.

The reason for the difference is as follows:

WLT is in London and would be funded by TfL. TfL likes trams.

Other tram schemes were outside London, and would have been funded
by the DfT. The DfT doesn't like trams.

And in the case of WLT, "nanny" really does know best - the
opposition are a bunch of raving NIMBYs who know nothing about
transport planning.

If you were faced with the prospect of half the general traffic from
Acton High Street being diverted down your narrow residential street,
you might be a NIMBY too. "Transport planning" is supposed to avoid
that sort of thing.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Tony Polson wrote:

The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

There is also the the important point that the WLT is a genuine
transport scheme, the purpose of which is to address the need for
improved public transport in a busy established corridor.

In this respect it is markedly different from several of the schemes
that have failed to secure funding, and which were seen as part of
regeneration strategies.

In message .com
wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

There is also the the important point that the WLT is a genuine
transport scheme, the purpose of which is to address the need for
improved public transport in a busy established corridor.

In this respect it is markedly different from several of the schemes
that have failed to secure funding, and which were seen as part of
regeneration strategies.


Which "several of the schemes" do you mean?

But on another thread, I don't know London well, but one point strikes
me as exemplary: The planners have made great efforts to give their
new route interchange with surface and underground rail. If such
efforts had been consistently made in the past, we would be a lot
better off now.

Michael Bell




--

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:57:04 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Incidentally, the news article implies that only Ealing is against the
scheme, when in reality Hamm & Fulham and Hillingdon were already
against the scheme, and Ealing changed opinion recently following the
elections! (including the remaining Labour councillors who were
previously in favour...)

I did laugh at the number of houses here I saw with two posters side
by side: one saying "Vote NO Tram" and one saying "Vote Labour"...

No wonder they had such a landslide against them(!)

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

victormeldrewsyoungerbrother wrote:

Press release 15 May 2006

We are very sorry for any inconvenience experienced by our customers as
a result of teething difficulties on ftr.

Any word on what these teething difficulties are, and why it's so
difficult to operate what is basically a fancy bendy bus with fancy
ticket machines and a few extra decorative bits of plastic on the
outside?

Neil

asdf wrote:

And in the case of WLT, "nanny" really does know best - the opposition
are a bunch of raving NIMBYs who know nothing about transport
planning. (Normally I wouldn't use such terms, but their arguments are
idiotic enough to justify it.)

Quite common. Bus services have been changed in and around Milton
Keynes at times when car-dependent residents have complained about
them.

Apparently, the "play toy" Routemaster running round Monkston was
complained about in this way, though its withdrawal was down to its
owner not wanting to play buses any more rather than just the
complaints. Thing is, a Routemaster (or an OPO version of such) would
be ideal for the MK estate services due to the short and narrow
wheelbase - I think they're smaller than some of the "LWB" Merc
Beavers.

Neil