On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Paul Scott wrote:

The plans are then still subject to the Transport Secretary approval - see
Liverpool, SE Hants etc etc

It's in London - that won't be a problem.
--
Chris Johns

"Paul Scott" wrote:

The plans are then still subject to the Transport Secretary approval - see
Liverpool, SE Hants etc etc


The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

Tony Polson wrote:

The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

There is also the the important point that the WLT is a genuine
transport scheme, the purpose of which is to address the need for
improved public transport in a busy established corridor.

In this respect it is markedly different from several of the schemes
that have failed to secure funding, and which were seen as part of
regeneration strategies.

In message .com
wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

The plans are much more likely to gain DfT approval if the DfT does
not have to pay for it. As the West London Tram would be funded by
TfL, the DfT are more likely to approve it than if the money had to
come from their own budget.

There is also the the important point that the WLT is a genuine
transport scheme, the purpose of which is to address the need for
improved public transport in a busy established corridor.

In this respect it is markedly different from several of the schemes
that have failed to secure funding, and which were seen as part of
regeneration strategies.


Which "several of the schemes" do you mean?

But on another thread, I don't know London well, but one point strikes
me as exemplary: The planners have made great efforts to give their
new route interchange with surface and underground rail. If such
efforts had been consistently made in the past, we would be a lot
better off now.

Michael Bell




--

wrote:

There is also the the important point that the WLT is a genuine
transport scheme, the purpose of which is to address the need for
improved public transport in a busy established corridor.

And also one where the existing transport was failing. Oldham
Metrolink, for example, would have replaced an entirely adequate (if
not particularly fancy) train service with a tram that would be more
expensive at the point of use (though admittedly require a lower
operating subsidy - but I wonder how long it'd take to even out given
the capital cost of construction?), potentially slower and potentially
of lower capacity.

I think not everyone is unhappy that it didn't go ahead.

Neil

asdf wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 13:11:20 +0100, John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5031222.stm

Your subject line is a little misleading - there are still hurdles to
clear before it goes ahead.

I was a bit shocked by the subject line... I thought given the recent
change in political air in Ealing, TfL would decide to just let the
people of the Uxbridge Road stuff themselves harder into bendy buses and
would switch funding to the much less controversial (popular, even)
Cross River Tram.

As much as I think there is a lot of scaremongering and
statistics-waving over the West London Tram, having local authorities
opposed to an infrastructure scheme is always a bad idea, and they will
cause all sorts of problems for the WLT now.

Incidentally, the news article implies that only Ealing is against the
scheme, when in reality Hamm & Fulham and Hillingdon were already
against the scheme, and Ealing changed opinion recently following the
elections! (including the remaining Labour councillors who were
previously in favour...)

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:57:04 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote:

Incidentally, the news article implies that only Ealing is against the
scheme, when in reality Hamm & Fulham and Hillingdon were already
against the scheme, and Ealing changed opinion recently following the
elections! (including the remaining Labour councillors who were
previously in favour...)

I did laugh at the number of houses here I saw with two posters side
by side: one saying "Vote NO Tram" and one saying "Vote Labour"...

No wonder they had such a landslide against them(!)

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

Bob wrote:
If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

I think the Mayor is keen to avoid accusations of being a Mayor for
central London only - hence the progression of the East London and
Greenwich Waterfront Transit schemes, and WLT.

Additionally, the CRT scheme is partly dependent on the ins and outs of
the regeneration schemes at King's Cross and Elephant & Castle. The
latter in particular will create a route for CRT through the road
junctions which doesn't currently exist; to construct CRT before the E&C
regeneration scheme would either mean a delay to the start of Peckham
branch services (thus also limiting frequency through the core section)
or would mean ripping up the tram tracks just a year or two after
putting them down (and indeed rebuilding the road junction twice).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Bob wrote

If the majority of the residents of West London want to sit in
traffic
jams - they have the democratic right to do so. It has always struck
me
as odd that the West London scheme should be second on the list after
Croydon. Wouldn't the Cross River Link have a bigger economic impact?

But if what the "majority of the current residents don't want" is key,
what has the economic impact to do with it ?

Those who merely work there or pass through are to be ignored ?

Taking into account those who would find it convenient to shop there
but find the congestion too bad is not democratic ?

On your version of the constitution our multi level government might be
debarred on democratic grounds from building any new or improved Thames
crossing road, bridge or tunnel in the area betweenbetween Staines and
Kingston ?
(The Walton-on-Thames residents association had been opposing any but a
narrow, low weight limit Thames crossing for twenty years)

--
Mike D