On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:04:53 +0100, Paul Corfield 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".

Not really. The GLA press release says that the cancellation is
dependent on Crossrail proceeding. Now that may well be clever
semantics but the whole thing is a mess.

I think it's just a poor (and slightly bizarre) attempt at
face-saving. Needless to say, the tram and Crossrail would have
catered for completely different types of journey, just like other bus
and bus-like services that approximately follow a rail corridor for a
portion of their route length, and the necessity of the tram is not
affected by whether or not Crossrail goes ahead. £30 million has been
spent on the tram scheme in full knowledge of the plans for Crossrail.

Quite why Ealing Council believe a bus based system employing many of
the same traffic priorities as the tram would have used will be any more
popular I do not know. The main point of opposition to the tram, if I
have been paying attention, was the effect that its tracks and
priorities would have on people being able to use their cars. I can't
see buses being more readily acceptable to those same opponents. I
suspect Ealing Council hope they can scrap the majority of the proposed
priorities and just leave the bus service (enhanced or otherwise) to be
a disaster area.

Agreed. I fully expect to see this happen.

Current services are supposedly at capacity and
allegedly so are the roads so what is going to give to make all this
work? Apologies for the cynicism but I would have preferred the tram
scheme to proceed as that was the only option that would have both
forced a reduction of road space and provided a suitable attractive
alternative to car drivers.

I agree with everything you've said here. I think it's sad that the
private car stalwarts have managed to kill off a scheme that would
have left them relatively little worse off (whilst reducing car
capacity in places, it would have compensated by removing cars from
the road), while denying everyone else the option of a fast tram
journey, effectively dragging everyone down with them into congestion
hell.

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:28:17 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

thoss wrote:

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".

Not really. The GLA press release says that the cancellation is
dependent on Crossrail proceeding. Now that may well be clever
semantics but the whole thing is a mess.

The word "dependent" is nowhere to be found in the press release. It says
that the Mayor and the local boroughs will work together on a bus-based
solution "on the assumption of a positive government decision on the
construction of Crossrail". Nothing is said that implies that the tram
would resurface if Crossrail were abandoned.

Quite why Ealing Council believe a bus based system employing many of
the same traffic priorities as the tram would have used will be any
more popular I do not know. The main point of opposition to the
tram, if I have been paying attention, was the effect that its tracks
and priorities would have on people being able to use their cars.

Not just cars, but commercial vehicles too. If it was just cars, then there
would be some scope for diverting their occupants on to the tram, or on to
more reliable buses, but you can't do that with delivery vans, builders'
trucks etc etc.

I can't see buses being more readily acceptable to those same
opponents.

Buses are much more flexible in operation than fixed-rail trams, which
should avoid the need for complete closure of roads like Acton High Street
to non-bus traffic.

I suspect Ealing Council hope they can scrap the majority
of the proposed priorities and just leave the bus service (enhanced
or otherwise) to be a disaster area. Current services are supposedly
at capacity and allegedly so are the roads so what is going to give
to make all this work?

Crossrail should remove some of the traffic.

Apologies for the cynicism but I would have preferred the tram scheme
to proceed as that was the only option that would have both forced a
reduction of road space and provided a suitable attractive alternative
to car drivers.

True for east-west car drivers, but not for those on other routes who
currently need to use stretches of the Uxbridge Road, nor for commercial
vehicles (see above). The biggest problem with the tram was that it
attempted to use 80-year-old ideas of laying tram tracks on narrow streets,
and expecting other legitimate road users to sod off elsewhere, e.g. through
even narrower and less suitable residential roads.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

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.

"Richard J." wrote in message
.. .

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".

Here in Plain English Land that smells like "cancelled"
--
Brian
"Fight like the Devil, die like a gentleman."

At 13:09:47 on Sat, 4 Aug 2007 Paul Corfield opined:-

Ken might
have the last laugh and put in nice long articulated Trolleybuses with
loads of priority measures - I wonder if Ealing residents would be happy
then

Much more sensible than trams.
--
Thoss

Paul Corfield wrote:

The Uxbridge Road corridor is not dissimilar to the A11 corridor in East
London - there you have Great Eastern trains, the Central Line and an
intensive service on route 25 with supplementary services on the 205 and
86 and yet all modes are very busy. Really the 25 bus could quite easily
be replaced by a tram service as that sort of capacity is really needed.

Have you seen how narrow the Romford Road is in places? Why would a tram be
any more workable here than in Ealing?

People travel long distances on the 25 even though logic would dictate
travel by rail would be more effective.

A bit but part of it is where the stations are located and the desirability
of a direct service. Generally I only use the 25 late at night (and the
service is atrocious) but for route combinations such as Whitechapel to
Forest Gate the 25 is at least direct rather than the interchange scrum at
Mile End and Stratford.

(Also let's not beat about the bush - the 25 is heavily prone to free
riding.)

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007, sweek wrote:

I wonder if it's possible to turn West Drayton - Uxbridge into an extra
Crossrail Branch to serve Uxbridge as well? Or maybe a feeder shuttle
train.

Hang on, what? Do you mean West Ealing - Uxbridge? If so, how? Via the
Central line depot?

tom

--
Technology is anything that wasn't around when you were born. -- Alan Kay

On Aug 4, 8:35 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
Hang on, what? Do you mean West Ealing - Uxbridge? If so, how? Via the
Central line depot?

There used to be a line running due north from the GWML at West
Drayton to Uxbridge Vine St station. It's just about all been built
on, though.

The idea I have for reaching Uxbridge is taking over the Piccadilly
branch, which will be feeling very neglected after T5 opens.

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

On 3 Aug, 21:28, "Richard J." 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".

Since the uxbridge road already has a "bus based solution" that gets
nicely stuck in traffic jams I assume that means they're going to do
bugger all.

B2003

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