The sooner the whole West London Tram scheme is abandoned the better,
it has a huge level of public hostility along with the Councils being
opposed the scheme. Far better to progress Croydon Tramlink extension
schemes in South London(where public hostility is very little) and
Cross River Tram. The scheme will die or death sooner or later, why
don't TfL just pull the plug on the whole thing now and spend the money
on more worthwhile schemes?

Martin
Dave Arquati wrote:
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

"MartyJ" wrote in message
ups.com...
The sooner the whole West London Tram scheme is abandoned the better,
it has a huge level of public hostility along with the Councils being
opposed the scheme. Far better to progress Croydon Tramlink extension
schemes in South London(where public hostility is very little) and
Cross River Tram. The scheme will die or death sooner or later, why
don't TfL just pull the plug on the whole thing now and spend the money
on more worthwhile schemes?

Martin
Dave Arquati wrote:
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


I live and work not too far away from the West London Tram area.
What is proposed has already been done. The bus route 207 is the tram route.
And the 207 is currently a fleet of bendies which do as bendies do and block
up
junctions and cause congestion when driven badly or without consideration.
The 207 has it's own bus lane for most of the section where the WLT will go.
And there are lots of 207's.

So I really see not a lot of difference to what we already have.
I can see why Tfl may want to do this solely as a replacement for the
existing 207.

The area is as people have already said a very busy area which econmically
is doing very well.
The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, londoncityslicker wrote:

So I really see not a lot of difference to what we already have.
I can see why Tfl may want to do this solely as a replacement for the
existing 207.

The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.

If busses are good enough for the provinces, why aren't the good enough
for London? Ironically, London is about the only place where busses aren't
viewed upon as the "poor persons transport" like they are everywhere else,
so in reality you could get away with a bus service in London (and have
people use it) whereas outside of London they'd drive/walk/magic carpet
rather than get a bus.

Cheers

Chris
--
Chris Johns

In message , Chris
Johns writes

Ironically, London is about the only place where busses aren't
viewed upon as the "poor persons transport" like they are everywhere else,

I agree, but it largely an acceptance of reality by many of us who live
in London. I certainly wouldn't regard myself as poor - we have two cars
(posh and not-so-posh), but I wouldn't dream of driving the 7 miles into
London, except perhaps early on a Sunday.

The Congestion Charge plus the near impossibility of parking in the
central area (or the exorbitant charges if you do find a space) are only
half the story - the fact is that public transport in London is usually
both quicker and cheaper than driving in.

As a result, there is a broad social mix to be found on buses, as on all
forms of public transport in the capital.

so in reality you could get away with a bus service in London (and have
people use it) whereas outside of London they'd drive/walk/magic carpet
rather than get a bus.

I'd like to think that matters in the provinces might change if and when
using a car becomes as difficult as it now is in London ... but a lot
more, including a political will for intervention and probably an
acceptance of the need for regulation, is going to be needed first.
--
Paul Terry

In article , Chris
Johns writes
The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.

There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0100, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.

There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

What is actually the limiting factor in how many buses you can run on
a route?

In article , asdf
writes
What is actually the limiting factor in how many buses you can run on
a route?

* How many buses you can spare.
* How many drivers you can spare.
* How quickly they can follow each other through bottlenecks.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Chris
Johns writes
The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.

There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.
--
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

Terry Harper wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Chris
Johns writes
The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.
Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.
There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.

True, but you can couple trams together and carry several hundred
passengers using a single driver (where you might need four drivers to
carry those people with buses).

In any case, the ability of buses to overtake is only useful when they
can avoid stopping at every stop, or when the infrastructure is
specifically designed to allow easy overtaking and multiple buses per
stop - something which would involve as much disruption to traffic as
the tram, if not more. For a super-high-capacity bus rapid transit
system, you'd essentially need to close most of the Uxbridge Road to
private traffic.

The reason trams were chosen for the Cross River scheme was that "only"
40 services were needed to meet peak hour demand, whereas 80 buses per
hour would have been needed. Even 40vph is pushing the limits at the key
junctions on the CRT route (Euston Road and High Holborn). Raising bus
frequencies to very high levels on the Uxbridge Road would also have
throughput implications at major junctions (e.g. North Circular).

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

In message
Terry Harper wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:43:05 +0100, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Chris
Johns writes
The area is as people have already said a very busy area which
econmically is doing very well. The 207 are jammed full most of the day.

Why replace it then? If they are jammed most of the day, then some more
busses might be in order.

There's a limit to how many buses per hour you can run on a route. The
same number of trams per hour carry far more people.

But can you run the same number of trams per hour as you can buses per
hour? I suspect not. Remember that buses can overtake each other.
Trams cannot.

They can only overtake each other if there is space, which there often
isn't, especially in London, and even if there is space they sometimes
don't, sometimes out of mental laziness, and sometimes, I am sure, out
of wish to avoid work. Let the other man carry the load!. Though I
have sometimes seen examples of very good working, a pair of busses
overtaking each other to take alternate stops.

Michael Bell


--