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)