At 13:14:10 on Fri, 3 Aug 2007 asdf opined:-

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:51:28 +0100, thoss wrote:

Today's Ealing Gazette has a story that Ken has suspended the WLT until
after Crossrail opens, if that goes ahead.

I hadn't heard anything about this, so I went to
http://www.london.gov.uk to look for an announcement.

And it's there, under the utterly irrelevant heading of "Crossrail".

Hidden amongst a press release that digresses repeatedly onto the
subject of Crossrail is the news that WLT has been cancelled.

Ken doesn't seem to want us to find out about it, though. If he's
going to cancel a major transport project he could at least have the
guts to tell us.

According to the Ealing Gazette article (they interviewed Ken when he
visited somewhere in Ealing for a photoshoot) it's not cancelled, just
put on hold. Maybe he's just trying to confuse the enemy with
contradictory statements.
--
Thoss

"thoss" wrote in message
...
At 13:14:10 on Fri, 3 Aug 2007 asdf opined:-

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:51:28 +0100, thoss wrote:

Today's Ealing Gazette has a story that Ken has suspended the WLT until
after Crossrail opens, if that goes ahead.

I hadn't heard anything about this, so I went to
http://www.london.gov.uk to look for an announcement.

And it's there, under the utterly irrelevant heading of "Crossrail".

Hidden amongst a press release that digresses repeatedly onto the
subject of Crossrail is the news that WLT has been cancelled.

Ken doesn't seem to want us to find out about it, though. If he's
going to cancel a major transport project he could at least have the
guts to tell us.

According to the Ealing Gazette article (they interviewed Ken when he
visited somewhere in Ealing for a photoshoot) it's not cancelled, just
put on hold. Maybe he's just trying to confuse the enemy with
contradictory statements.

Given the length of time that it takes to get authorisation
for something that is current, being put on hold and cancelled
are much the same thing.

AIUI the Chelsea-Hackney line is still on hold ... from 1972.

tim

"tim....." wrote in message
...

Given the length of time that it takes to get authorisation
for something that is current, being put on hold and cancelled
are much the same thing.

AIUI the Chelsea-Hackney line is still on hold ... from 1972.


Down but not quite out, there has been some recent DfT consultation on the
route safeguarding for planning and development purposes.

Paul

thoss wrote:
At 13:14:10 on Fri, 3 Aug 2007 asdf opined:-

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 12:51:28 +0100, thoss wrote:

Today's Ealing Gazette has a story that Ken has suspended the WLT
until after Crossrail opens, if that goes ahead.

I hadn't heard anything about this, so I went to
http://www.london.gov.uk to look for an announcement.

And it's there, under the utterly irrelevant heading of "Crossrail".

Hidden amongst a press release that digresses repeatedly onto the
subject of Crossrail is the news that WLT has been cancelled.

Ken doesn't seem to want us to find out about it, though. If he's
going to cancel a major transport project he could at least have the
guts to tell us.

According to the Ealing Gazette article (they interviewed Ken when he
visited somewhere in Ealing for a photoshoot) it's not cancelled, just
put on hold. Maybe he's just trying to confuse the enemy with
contradictory statements.

The idea of WLT being "put on hold" seems to be a spin invented by the
Ealing Gazette, as the joint press release that appears on both the Mayor's
and Ealing's websites makes no mention of this. Both parties will proceed
to work on "a bus-based solution rather than the tram originally envisaged".
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

The idea of WLT being "put on hold" seems to be a spin invented by the
Ealing Gazette, as the joint press release that appears on both the Mayor's
and Ealing's websites makes no mention of this. Both parties will proceed
to work on "a bus-based solution rather than the tram originally envisaged".

It's disappointing but inevitable. I have posted before on how
surprised I have been at the depth of feeling against the tram in the
Ealing area where I have been working for 2 years. And, in all
honesty, I am coming round to the idea that the scheme is something of
a waste of money compared to a much cheaper bus based scheme.

For instance, my daily journey of Acton Central to a couple of stops
after Ealing Broadway could be reduced by half from the current 20
minutes (and I think this is a conservative estimate) by some simple
and relatively cheap measures:

1. Enforce a zero-tolerance on parking on the High Street in Acton
(particularly during rush hour) - every single day buses are delayed
through this narrow stretch by inconsiderate parking
2. Prioirity bus lanes/traffic lights on the Western end of the High
Street in Acton (and to the west of that stretch going the other way)
3. Stop buses parking on the eastbound Uxbridge Road at the tram depot
(why is this ever allowed??) and knock down the pavement-side wall of
the Tram Depot allowing easier access for buses terminating at the
Tram Depot heading west.
4. Priorirty bus lane/traffic lights on the A406 crossing both ways
5. A bus lane between A4020 westbound between the A406 and the
junction with The Common with - preferably - priority traffic lights
at the junction
6. Zero tolerance on bus lane parking on Ealing Broadway (again there
is not a day without several cars parked on this stretch during the
morning and evening rush hour)
7. Bus lane at the western end of the Ealing Broadway to allow buses
to pass traffic turning right between the 2 town hall buildings

Jase

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:44:24 -0700, whos2091 wrote:

The idea of WLT being "put on hold" seems to be a spin invented by the
Ealing Gazette, as the joint press release that appears on both the Mayor's
and Ealing's websites makes no mention of this. Both parties will proceed
to work on "a bus-based solution rather than the tram originally envisaged".

It's disappointing but inevitable. I have posted before on how
surprised I have been at the depth of feeling against the tram in the
Ealing area where I have been working for 2 years.

My own take on it is that whilst the majority of people quietly
thought it was a good idea, there was a very vocal minority of NIMBYs
who felt their car usage was under threat and launched a campaign
against the tram. Those in favour of the tram didn't have anywhere
near the same depth of feeling, so there was never much of a "pro"
campaign to counter the vocal and passionate "anti" campaign, which
successfully managed to invoke reactionary tendencies and spread
anti-tram feeling (using plenty of lies, half-truths and
exaggerations[1]) amongst a population that did not hear (and did not
care to find out) both sides of the argument. The local Tories saw an
opportunity and, together with the "anti" lobby, made it an election
issue, which stepped up the campaign to a reactionary frenzy (with
"Vote No Tram" posters all over Ealing).

[1]
See, for example, http://www.ealingstreets.org/ses_10reasons.htm .


For instance, my daily journey of Acton Central to a couple of stops
after Ealing Broadway could be reduced by half from the current 20
minutes (and I think this is a conservative estimate) by some simple
and relatively cheap measures:

2. Prioirity bus lanes/traffic lights on the Western end of the High
Street in Acton (and to the west of that stretch going the other way)
4. Priorirty bus lane/traffic lights on the A406 crossing both ways
5. A bus lane between A4020 westbound between the A406 and the
junction with The Common with - preferably - priority traffic lights
at the junction

Priority traffic lights won't work for buses because, if bus
frequencies are increased to cope with the rising demand over the next
few years, they will simply be too frequent, and traffic on the A406
etc would experience something too close to a constant red light.

A tram would have been able to satisfy the demand with just one every
3 minutes, allowing traffic light priority to work.

On 4 Aug, 13:36, asdf wrote:
care to find out) both sides of the argument. The local Tories saw an
opportunity and, together with the "anti" lobby, made it an election
issue, which stepped up the campaign to a reactionary frenzy (with
"Vote No Tram" posters all over Ealing).

Does anyone take the Tories seriously anymore with anything related to
public transport? They've proven time and time again they simply don't
have a clue. If they could get away with it they'd probably get rid of
all public transport and spend the money on road widening schemes (and
if it could plough stright through a historic or scientific interest
site in the process so much the better)

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 4 Aug, 13:36, asdf wrote:
care to find out) both sides of the argument. The local Tories saw an
opportunity and, together with the "anti" lobby, made it an election
issue, which stepped up the campaign to a reactionary frenzy (with
"Vote No Tram" posters all over Ealing).

Does anyone take the Tories seriously anymore with anything related to
public transport? They've proven time and time again they simply don't
have a clue. If they could get away with it they'd probably get rid of
all public transport and spend the money on road widening schemes (and
if it could plough stright through a historic or scientific interest
site in the process so much the better)


I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions or owt, but I'm detecting perhaps
a very slight anti-Tory bias in this post.

BTN

On 6 Aug, 11:51, "Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

oups.com...

On 4 Aug, 13:36, asdf wrote:
care to find out) both sides of the argument. The local Tories saw an
opportunity and, together with the "anti" lobby, made it an election
issue, which stepped up the campaign to a reactionary frenzy (with
"Vote No Tram" posters all over Ealing).

Does anyone take the Tories seriously anymore with anything related to
public transport? They've proven time and time again they simply don't
have a clue. If they could get away with it they'd probably get rid of
all public transport and spend the money on road widening schemes (and
if it could plough stright through a historic or scientific interest
site in the process so much the better)

I wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions or owt, but I'm detecting perhaps
a very slight anti-Tory bias in this post.

I thought I was stating more or less a fact given how they trashed the
railways and london buses by privatising them and starved the tube of
investment. Meanwhile on the roads it was bypasses aplenty - blank
cheques for Mr Laing and Mr Murphy. If thats bias on my part then so
be it.

B2003

It's disappointing but inevitable. I have posted before on how
surprised I have been at the depth of feeling against the tram in the
Ealing area where I have been working for 2 years.

My own take on it is that whilst the majority of people quietly
thought it was a good idea, there was a very vocal minority of NIMBYs
who felt their car usage was under threat and launched a campaign
against the tram. Those in favour of the tram didn't have anywhere
near the same depth of feeling, so there was never much of a "pro"
campaign to counter the vocal and passionate "anti" campaign, which
successfully managed to invoke reactionary tendencies and spread
anti-tram feeling (using plenty of lies, half-truths and
exaggerations[1]) amongst a population that did not hear (and did not
care to find out) both sides of the argument. The local Tories saw an
opportunity and, together with the "anti" lobby, made it an election
issue, which stepped up the campaign to a reactionary frenzy (with
"Vote No Tram" posters all over Ealing).
See, for example,http://www.ealingstreets.org/ses_10reasons.htm.

You're right about the vocal "anti" campaign and the Tories' hijacking
of the issue, but I think the "majority of the people" didn't have a
strong opinion either way. However, the reason why those in favour of
the tram did not have a strong opinion (and I would put myself in to
that group, along with many people who I know who live and work in
Ealing) was that there was always a sneaking suspicion that this was
not money well spent, rather than objecting to the investment in
public transport in the area per se. My previously posted new station
at Acton Wells as well as the road improvements I mentioned (amongst
others) would still come in cheaper than the tram and be substantially
less disruptive.

2. Prioirity bus lanes/traffic lights on the Western end of the High
Street in Acton (and to the west of that stretch going the other way)
4. Priorirty bus lane/traffic lights on the A406 crossing both ways

Priority traffic lights won't work for buses because, if bus
frequencies are increased to cope with the rising demand over the next
few years, they will simply be too frequent, and traffic on the A406
etc would experience something too close to a constant red light.

A tram would have been able to satisfy the demand with just one every
3 minutes, allowing traffic light priority to work.

Sorry, I was not at all clear in my numbered comments. By "priority
traffic lights" I did not mean that as a bus approaches, it favours a
green light (which, you are right, would cause chaos on the A406) but
a bus lane from Ealing Common Tube to the traffic light which then
gives the bus a few seconds ahead of queuing traffic (much like the
light at Chalk Farm Tube southbound towards Camden from Belsize Park).