On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 10:05:41 -0000, wrote:

David Bradley said:

I thought that the time had actually come to draw in line in the sand
over the exchanges made at uk.transport.london and the only reason I
kept it going for so long is that Internet searches on the West
London Tram would reveal discussions going on in this backwater.

Charming.

However it seem no matter how much I dot the eyes or cross the tees
it never seems to be enough to satisfy some people that are sceptical
that a trolleybus solution can deliver any real benefits.

And what does that suggest about your trolleybus solution? Maybe the
situation is more complex than your claims that "All trolleybuses are
good" would suggest?

Logically it suggests either that the argument is flawed or that there are
large numbers of people who have tightly closed minds or both. The first
option is not the only logical possibility even if it were expressed
correctly. The 'quotation' is of course not really one at all. No such phrase
has ever been used. This is an inversion of the argument put forward by some
of the pro-tram fraternity who often do espouse the view that 'all trams are
good'. Arguments based on any premise that one mode is always superior in all
circumstances (whichever mode it is) do not hold up against any form of
professional scrutiny. Unfortunately much debate is by enthusiasts with fairly
narrow interests (they just 'like trams') who have no real grasp of wider
social and economic issues. which do not interest them.


I thought it would be reasonably easy to respond to the issues raised
by you but found myself very quickly bogged down trying to provide
bullet point replies. All I could manage was several paragraphs
before getting a headache

Yes, well, the real world is more complicated than your "Trolleybuses
are always good" mantra. I'm sorry if that gives you a headache, but it
can't be helped.

No further comment required - answered above.


If there is going to be street based public transport along the
Uxbridge Road

Ah, that is a very big "if". Why should we restrict ourselves to only
considering "street based public transport along the Uxbridge Road"?
Instead, we could use our imaginations and creativity to come up with
approaches that are totally different.


There is no logical reason why we should restrict ourselves to only
considering "street based public transport along the Uxbridge Road'. It is
TfL who are restricting consideration to just one form of such public
transport, a street based tram. We are suggesting consideration of what we
consider to be another and more viable option, that of trolleybuses. There is
no reason why others should not come up with other options. All options could
be debated objectively on a benefit/cost basis. We are not afraid of any such
comparisons with the proposed Trolleybus option. It is TfL that has
deliberately stifled all debate and is proceeding with one option only
irrespective.

If we say a trolleybus option is better than a tram, then we have
arrived at that conclusion by considerable research into TfL's tram
scheme.

Take care you don't fall into what boffins call "the Fallacy of
Induction". Just because *a* trolleybus scheme is better than *a* tram
scheme, you can't always assume that all trolleybus schemes are better
than all tram schemes.


This appears to have degenerated into a semantics argument between the
definite and indefinite article. This true specific position in this case
needs to be made clear without diverting into arguments regarding the general
principles of logic.

TfL are proposing only a single version of a street running tram scheme. The
only allowed variation is for tweaks to some minor details but it is
effectively 'the one and only' tram option. We are proposing an unguided
trolleybus option which as far as we are aware is also 'the'one and only'
unguided trolleybus option (we are not aware of any others. Now of course
logically there could be options of different versions of both tram and
trolleybus schemes. There could be (in theory) but there actually are not (in
practice). There is nothing to stop others coming up with such variants but we
would reiterate that it is TfL which is adopting the stance of 'this
(particular tram scheme) is the only option'. We would welcome objective
debate and the GLA committee which represented such a forum for debate would
not endorse the TfL tram option as a proven 'best case' but suggested further
research and discussion. This has perhaps not unsurprisingly been totally
ignored by the Mayor and TfL.

Your response was "I would hope that
whatever mode of WLT is chosen, it wouldn't integrate its stops with
bus stops. Keeping them separate would help establish it in the
public's imagination as something new and different. This will help
stimulate their curiosity more than just the same old bus routes
calling at the same old bus stops but with added overhead cables."
Taking this text alone I assume you intended to throw the baby out
with the bathwater by not even trying to have an integrated public
transport system.

Not at all. I just have a different perception of "integrated" than
you. After all, you don't expect buses to stop at the platforms in
railway stations, do you? They stop on the street outside. And in, for
example, Euston station, the mainline trains don't share the same
platforms as the tube trains. (Heck, even the Northern Line branches
don't stop at the same platforms as each other.) Does this mean they
aren't "integrated" in your book?

Integration really is a complex subject that cannot be oversimplified without
making some very strange (and completely erroneous) conclusions. The different
Northern Line platforms at Euston are historical. They were built by two
different private companies at different times (and with two different
structure gauges and electrification systems). Whilst the station is
integrated in the sense that you can get from one set of platforms to the
other, it represents a later 'best of a bad job' scheme and it is not a very
convenient piece of integration between the two branches for the passenger.
The (deliberately planned) cross platform interchange at the same location
between the Northern Bank Branch platforms and the Victoria Line is much
better integration.

To come back to WLT, people do not consistently use a mode (or modes) of
transport out of 'curiosity'. This is really an absurd statement totally
contradicted by all research. One of the main factors that does make people
decide whether to use a mode or modes is convenience. People do not like
having long walks at interchanges (hence the cross platform interchange
already referred to at Euston). This is even more true if they have to make
the walk in the outside and subject to the vagaries of the UK climate.
Changing is always confirmed in any research to be one of the great
disincentives to use of any mode or combinations of modes. (On main line
railways when considering the marketing of services, actual waiting time at an
intechange was always multiplied by three and then added to the train running
time in any claculations of overall jourrney time to try and compensate for
this factor and this assumed a railway station that probably had at least a
roof if not a waiting room).

Twice a day along the Uxbridge Road (at changeover time) in the TfL plan, you
won't really know where to go even if you are not changing. At night do you
walk to the bus stop for the first night bus or the tram stop for the last day
tram and of course vice versa in the morning?

So irrespective of how you define integration, the actual manner of changing
tram to bus and vice versa involving a considerable walk in the open will
certainly not encourage use of the tram. It will discourage it and represent
negative modal shift (but this is not (un)surprisingly allowed for in the TfL
calculations of modal shift).

Having experienced the joint tram and bus stops (in many cases in lanes
segregated from other traffic) in many European cities (including Turin and
Milan recently) there can be no doubt that these represent better integration
(and therefore less unattractiveness to passengers) than is being proposed by
TfL along the Uxbridge Road.

Away from the attractiveness and modal shift implications, there are traffic
flow implications as well. At some places where carriageway width is at a
premium, the combination of 40 metre centre tram islands at one location with
kerbside bus stops at a different location slightly further along the road
could easily cause the traffic to stop and clog back. Whilst numerical
calcuations have been done by consultants for TflL of envisaged overall
traffic flows post tram and these have been made public, we are not aware of
any traffic flow simulations in respect of the scheme for specific sections of
the Uxbridge Road (certainly there do not appear to be any in the public
domain).

David Bradley