On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:54:08 +0000, asdf wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:26:22 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Unlike pro tram supporters and the green element, we do not duck and dive from
any issues raised;

On the contrary, that's exactly what you've been doing.


Simply not true, I repeated return here to pick up on any points raised.

But to speciffically answer your question here as to whether a trolleybus
alone is the magic bullet that solves traffic congestion

That wasn't the question. The question was, how will a trolleybus
reduce traffic congestion more than a similarly-sized diesel bus?

Let me spell it out again for you what I have said previously. Sticking a
couple of poles on the top of a bus and stringing up overhead wires obviously
won't make one ioata of difference to the congestion problems along the
Uxbridge Road assuming that was all that was done. Our proposals go much
deeply than that but clearly you are not interested in the detail. You can't
consider one aspect in isolation and then rubbish the entire concept. Clearly
you have a solution that you feel WILL work, so stop hiding behind a bush and
come out and tell us all what that is.

David Bradley

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:35:12 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Unlike pro tram supporters and the green element, we do not duck and dive from
any issues raised;

On the contrary, that's exactly what you've been doing.

Simply not true, I repeated return here to pick up on any points raised.

Whilst often not addressing many of the points raised directly, if at
all.

Let me spell it out again for you what I have said previously. Sticking a
couple of poles on the top of a bus and stringing up overhead wires obviously
won't make one ioata of difference to the congestion problems along the
Uxbridge Road assuming that was all that was done. Our proposals go much
deeply than that but clearly you are not interested in the detail.

You have not been so kind as to furnish us with any of the "deeper"
detail.

Your website spends many pages and thousands of words rubbishing the
tram scheme (or just trams in general), but says very little about
this detailed scheme you say you are proposing instead. In fact,
almost all that can be inferred is that it involves trolleybuses, and
doesn't involve any demolition to increase capacity at the key
bottlenecks.

You've also made some vague mention in this group about wiring up many
different routes in west London for trolleybuses, but again with
little or no detail.

You almost give the impression that you're making up this proposal as
you go along.

You can't consider one aspect in isolation and then rubbish the entire concept.

We can only consider the aspects that you tell us about.

Additionally, if it cannot be shown that *any* scheme involving
trolleybuses does any more to reduce congestion than *the same* scheme
but using bendybuses, and if congestion reduction is principal
objective, and if the costs of trolleybuses over bendybuses are large
(wires, substations, etc), then it's perfectly legitimate to drop any
further consideration of using trolleybuses.

Clearly you have a solution that you feel WILL work, so stop hiding
behind a bush and come out and tell us all what that is.

If you want your proposal to be taken seriously then it is up to YOU
to convince the audience of its merits. This involves more than just
inviting the audience to come up with a better idea.

Nevertheless, scepticism has been expressed in this group that your
proposal will do any more to relieve congestion than the same proposal
but using diesel bendybuses - so if you feel you need an "alternative"
proposal to attack, fire away.

In message , asdf
writes
Additionally, if it cannot be shown that *any* scheme involving
trolleybuses does any more to reduce congestion than *the same* scheme
but using bendybuses, and if congestion reduction is principal
objective, and if the costs of trolleybuses over bendybuses are large
(wires, substations, etc), then it's perfectly legitimate to drop any
further consideration of using trolleybuses.
How about a Monorail like Wuppertal and get all the busses of that road,
free flow of people on PT and freed up road space. May not be the
answer, but try thinking outside the box.
--
Clive

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:19:50 +0000, asdf wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:35:12 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Unlike pro tram supporters and the green element, we do not duck and dive from
any issues raised;

On the contrary, that's exactly what you've been doing.

Simply not true, I repeated return here to pick up on any points raised.

Whilst often not addressing many of the points raised directly, if at
all.


Well that really won't do will it? So if you could kindly provide a listing
of the questions I have missed, I will address each and every one.

Let me spell it out again for you what I have said previously. Sticking a
couple of poles on the top of a bus and stringing up overhead wires obviously
won't make one iota of difference to the congestion problems along the
Uxbridge Road assuming that was all that was done. Our proposals go much
deeply than that but clearly you are not interested in the detail.

You have not been so kind as to furnish us with any of the "deeper"
detail.


True but this will be provided on the www.tfwl.org.uk web site sometime in the
next six weeks, i.e. before Christmas.

Your website spends many pages and thousands of words rubbishing the
tram scheme (or just trams in general), but says very little about
this detailed scheme you say you are proposing instead. In fact,
almost all that can be inferred is that it involves trolleybuses, and
doesn't involve any demolition to increase capacity at the key
bottlenecks.


My position is quite clear. Trams for the Uxbridge Road corridor will be a
disaster on any level you consider. However I have never said that they are
not suitable elsewhere, in fact I support the CRT proposal and some other
schemes around the UK which sadly seem to have bit the dust.

As I said above the information is coming but it all takes time to convert the
available material into a web page. A churn the pages as out as quickly as I
can but anyone who has every produced a web site will know, it is no 5 minute
job.

You've also made some vague mention in this group about wiring up many
different routes in west London for trolleybuses, but again with
little or no detail.

I did, but I have a primary objective with the Uxbridge Road scheme and
therefore information given is more directed to that locality. However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route. So I have prepared a map that identifies these routes which I put
forward as the trolleybus network for London. This map can be seen as a
hyperlink from http://www.tfwl.org.uk/data.html. I will add much more
information and detail on these routes to the web site in due course.

You almost give the impression that you're making up this proposal as
you go along.

You are so wrong there; you expect everything to be presented on a plate here
and now. Even TfL with their huge resources have yet to produced the details
on every aspect of WLT.

You can't consider one aspect in isolation and then rubbish the entire concept.

We can only consider the aspects that you tell us about.


My statement has been taken out of context and I will therefore not respond on
that one.

Additionally, if it cannot be shown that *any* scheme involving
trolleybuses does any more to reduce congestion than *the same* scheme
but using bendybuses, and if congestion reduction is principal
objective, and if the costs of trolleybuses over bendybuses are large
(wires, substations, etc), then it's perfectly legitimate to drop any
further consideration of using trolleybuses.

There is nothing the same about using bendybuses vs. trolleybuses. There are
pros and cons to using both vehicles but on balance there are more advantages
in favour of trolleybuses on the *right* routes. Considering a very narrow
objective of congestion reduction then this can equally be achieved by
congestion charging along the Uxbridge Road corridor.

Clearly you have a solution that you feel WILL work, so stop hiding
behind a bush and come out and tell us all what that is.

If you want your proposal to be taken seriously then it is up to YOU
to convince the audience of its merits. This involves more than just
inviting the audience to come up with a better idea.

I don't have a problem there providing your objection to trolleybuses can
actually be identified otherwise I am just wasting valuable time in a scatter
gun approach.

Nevertheless, scepticism has been expressed in this group that your
proposal will do any more to relieve congestion than the same proposal
but using diesel bendybuses - so if you feel you need an "alternative"
proposal to attack, fire away.

Congestion problems are only part of the equation for better quality of life
in this area of London. Where investment is put into any area then it needs
to have an identified return on the expenditure. Throwing money at quick fix
solutions solves nothing in the long term.

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:

However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route.

A rule, eh? As 'asdf' has mentioned, 'on your web site, you state that
"the opinion of the country's largest group of professional transport
planners is that the best option for most places is trolleybuses" '.
Did "the country's largest group of professional transport planners"
devise this rule? And, in any case, will you please tell us more about
this group?

On 13 Nov 2005 11:55:03 -0800, wrote:

David Bradley wrote:

However there
is a rule that says if the frequency of any route is less than 10 minutes then
it is a candidate for fiscally advantageous to operate it as a trolleybus
route.

A rule, eh? As 'asdf' has mentioned, 'on your web site, you state that
"the opinion of the country's largest group of professional transport
planners is that the best option for most places is trolleybuses" '.
Did "the country's largest group of professional transport planners"
devise this rule? And, in any case, will you please tell us more about
this group?

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

I am afraid that not everyone responds as immediately as you would wish and
you will just have to wait until I get the appropriate clearance "to publish".
However as a jesture of goodwill I am prepared to remove that paragraph for
the time being.

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

Another dodgy answer. You claimed that the opinion came from "the
country's largest group of professional transport planners". "Group" -
singular. Such a group must have a name, so why not tell us?

And you haven't told us where the "10 minute frequency" "rule" came
from. Such a clear-cut rule must be documented and attributable, so...?

On 13 Nov 2005 15:51:31 -0800, wrote:

David Bradley wrote:

The contents of the web page that is the home page of www.tfwl.org.uk which
has 'the opinion' statement was written in 2001 and has been continuously
displayed on another web site since that time. In four years a lot has
changed I am seeking an updated statement that reflects current thinking of
the organisations to whom this opinon originates from, together with
permissions to reproduce the exchange of emails received then and subsequently
on the issues you raise.

Another dodgy answer. You claimed that the opinion came from "the
country's largest group of professional transport planners". "Group" -
singular. Such a group must have a name, so why not tell us?

Because I MUST have permission first to use this information. It is one thing
for people working withinr such organisations to express an opiniont privately
but quite another for those same statements to be published.

And you haven't told us where the "10 minute frequency" "rule" came
from. Such a clear-cut rule must be documented and attributable, so...?

The 10 minute justification comes from the Arnhem report into whether to
replace or retain trolleybuses. When we were considering London we changed it
to five minutes because everything in the UK is absurdly more expensive to do
than on the other side of the Channel. We have never analysed the revenue
against costs of the proposal in full detail but did do some very rough
calculations of costs and revenue and that seemed to confirm that it was a
viable concept financially.

David Bradley

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:27:14 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Well that really won't do will it? So if you could kindly provide a listing
of the questions I have missed, I will address each and every one.

As you probably expected, I really can't be bothered.

Additionally, if it cannot be shown that *any* scheme involving
trolleybuses does any more to reduce congestion than *the same* scheme
but using bendybuses, and if congestion reduction is principal
objective, and if the costs of trolleybuses over bendybuses are large
(wires, substations, etc), then it's perfectly legitimate to drop any
further consideration of using trolleybuses.

There is nothing the same about using bendybuses vs. trolleybuses.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. All other aspects of a
solution for Uxbridge Road (dedicated lanes, demolition and road
widening, improved stop information, congestion charging, whatever)
would be the same, regardless of which of the two types of vehicle was
used.

There are
pros and cons to using both vehicles but on balance there are more advantages
in favour of trolleybuses on the *right* routes. Considering a very narrow
objective of congestion reduction then this can equally be achieved by
congestion charging along the Uxbridge Road corridor.

So you're saying that my conclusion fails because congestion reduction
is not (or should not be) the principal objective.

Nevertheless, scepticism has been expressed in this group that your
proposal will do any more to relieve congestion than the same proposal
but using diesel bendybuses - so if you feel you need an "alternative"
proposal to attack, fire away.

Congestion problems are only part of the equation for better quality of life
in this area of London. Where investment is put into any area then it needs
to have an identified return on the expenditure.

I shall leave it an open question as to whether replacing bendies with
trolleybuses provides better value than using the money in a way that
reduces congestion.

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 17:52:08 +0000, asdf wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:27:14 +0000, David Bradley
wrote:

Well that really won't do will it? So if you could kindly provide a listing
of the questions I have missed, I will address each and every one.

As you probably expected, I really can't be bothered.

Additionally, if it cannot be shown that *any* scheme involving
trolleybuses does any more to reduce congestion than *the same* scheme
but using bendybuses, and if congestion reduction is principal
objective, and if the costs of trolleybuses over bendybuses are large
(wires, substations, etc), then it's perfectly legitimate to drop any
further consideration of using trolleybuses.

There is nothing the same about using bendybuses vs. trolleybuses.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. All other aspects of a
solution for Uxbridge Road (dedicated lanes, demolition and road
widening, improved stop information, congestion charging, whatever)
would be the same, regardless of which of the two types of vehicle was
used.

There are
pros and cons to using both vehicles but on balance there are more advantages
in favour of trolleybuses on the *right* routes. Considering a very narrow
objective of congestion reduction then this can equally be achieved by
congestion charging along the Uxbridge Road corridor.

So you're saying that my conclusion fails because congestion reduction
is not (or should not be) the principal objective.

Nevertheless, scepticism has been expressed in this group that your
proposal will do any more to relieve congestion than the same proposal
but using diesel bendybuses - so if you feel you need an "alternative"
proposal to attack, fire away.

Congestion problems are only part of the equation for better quality of life
in this area of London. Where investment is put into any area then it needs
to have an identified return on the expenditure.

I shall leave it an open question as to whether replacing bendies with
trolleybuses provides better value than using the money in a way that
reduces congestion.

London Buses Ltd in its publication "Cleaner Air for London - London Buses
leads the Way" estimated that the cost of health care which results from
diesel bus air pollution equates to an equivalent of €0.20 per km. A different
report prepared at the Roma Tre University in Rome suggested the cost as being
as high as €1.20 per km. Using either figure helps justify the investment in
new trolleybus systems because it indicates that installing the electrical
infrastructure would result in significant financial benefits in reduced
health care costs. Certainly this is how the new Rome trolleybus system came
about.

No on-road transport scheme is going to reduce congestion, and any road based
public transport vehicle is going to have to spend a large part of its revenue
earning service stationary in traffic queues, in addition to the time spent at
stops picking up and setting down passengers, even with cash fare payment on
entry eliminated. In these circumstances trolleybuses win hands down in
respect of the ride quality, improved external environmental impact locally,
low energy consumption, identifiable operator commitment, level boarding with
100% level low floors, less maintenance costs and a longer life. Trolleybuses
also have a proven model shift appeal.

In contrast diesel bendibuses are noisy, vibrating, fume-belching and
fuel-wasting monstrosities. They also have an image problem that is hard to
shake off for modal shift.

The only hope of impacting at all on road traffic congestion in this area is
to improve the off-road public transport network (heavy rail, light rail and
if appropriate busways [preferably electric], and improve utilization of the
existing rail network. By all means tinker with congestion issues like
restricting certain vehicles on particular days and introducing benefits for
high occupancy vehicles [cars with 2 or more passengers] and anything else you
may car to think about but unless the Uxbridge Road becomes completely
pedestrianised, then any extra capacity will be quickly absorbed.

However, this thread is not about the merits of one type of bus against
another; it is more about the folly of building a tramway along the Uxbridge
Road corridor which, far from improving congestion problems, will actually
make things a lot worse and certainly change the character of the area into an
urban jungle.

David Bradley