Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram




НазваниеEvidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram
страница1/25
Дата21.10.2012
Размер0.9 Mb.
ТипДокументы
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram

Contents





Page

1. Compendium of Written Evidence

1

2. Transcript of Informal Evidentiary Hearing 6th September, 2004

21

Appendix A - TfL response to Consultation queries arising from 6th September

65

Appendix B - TfL response to Questions Arising from 6th September

66

3. Transcript of Formal Evidentiary Hearing 26th September, 2004

69

4. Effects of Reducing Traffic Capacity of Roads on Travel Choices - Professor Phil Goodwin, University College London

97

5. Technical aspects of the West London Tram proposal - Professor Chris Wright, Middlesex University

102

Annex A - Orders and Translations

117


1. Compendium of evidence


The following organisations and individuals have submitted written evidence to the Committee:


Organisation/Individual

Page

Anne Marksman

1

Dave Benton

1

Electric Tbus Group

1

Friends of the Earth Ealing

3

Greenside Resident’s Action Group

5

Hammersmith & Fulham Cycling Campaign

5

Hammersmith & Fulham Historic Buildings

6

Jeffery Asante

6

London Borough of Ealing

7

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

8

London Borough of Hillingdon

9

London Borough of Hounslow

10

London Chamber of Commerce

11

London Forum of Civic and Amenity Societies

12

Peter Morgan

13

Quadrant Residents’ Association

14

Robert Feldman

15

Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

16

Save Ealing Streets

17

Save Shepherd’s Bush Streets

18

Stamford Brook Resident’s Association

18

West London Alliance

19

West London Resident’s Association

20


Full versions of the evidence submitted are available on request from Danny Myers on either danny.myers@london.gov.uk or 020 7983 4394.


Summaries of the evidence submitted are below.


Anne Marksman


There seems to be little overall benefit of the WLT. The purpose of the tram is to improve speed and reliability, however most journeys along the Uxbridge Road are short and users are happy with the existing bus service. The construction of the tram however, would cause huge disruption increase congestion, divert traffic to nearby streets, impact negatively on properties and case the destruction of a large number of trees. The cost is also very high.


A more appropriate response would be to improve the cyclepaths and introduce air conditioning to buses. This would ensure more people switched from cars to public transport.


Dave Benton


The tram would lead to traffic being diverted onto local streets, which would bring constant noise and air pollution. It would also switch people from a seating environment on the buses, to a 70% standing environment on the tram.


There would be 60% less stops which would not improve access, and the disruption over 5 years would be enormous. The cost has almost doubled since the initial proposal.


The current consultation is a smokescreen, in reality TfL have already made the decision to go ahead with the tram.


Improvements on the bus service along the Uxbridge Road will be sufficient if parking restrictions are adhered to and bus lanes properly policed.


Electric Trolleybus Group’s Response to the WLT


· Is there a traffic problem now on the A4020; is traffic going to get worse? If not, what assumptions made by TfL are incorrect?


The Uxbridge Road can be very busy, however it is no worse than many other comparable routes, and indeed better than some. There is no evidence that supports TfL’s preduction of a doubling in usage of the corridor. Indeed, the construction period of the tram is likely to increase traffic problems.


· Are trams the only alternative segregated method to buses? Are the reasons TfL cite for dismissing other alternatives, such as trolley buses, justified?


Trolleybuses provide the same service as trams, except for no guidance and lower capacity. However, this can easily be overcome by more trolleybuses on the road. A more frequent service would be more attractive to customers. Trolleybuses provide the same ease of access as trams and could be segregated in the same way.


· Are operating cost assumptions correct? Overall, taking into account operating costs and capital costs, does the tram deliver the best return on investment?


Cost estimates for trolleybuses are over estimated, in fact an equal trolleybus scheme to that proposed for the tram would be 50% of the present estimated costs.


· What can be learnt from other tram schemes such as those recently developed in Croydon and Nottingham?


These schemes have very little in common with the WLT. Patronage and a modal shift from public to private transport can be achieved by trolleybuses just as well as trams.


· What evidence is there that the environmental improvements will occur as a result of the West London Tram across the wider area beyond the A4020?


The WLT would have a limited and localised effect on the environment. A trolleybus scheme would have equal environmental effects but at a lower cost. This would make money available for other schemes that would provide benefit to many more Londoners.


· What evidence is there that new tram schemes provide economic regeneration to an area?


There is little evidence to show that property prices would increase anymore with a tram scheme than a trolleybus scheme. Both show a commitment to a permenant public transport system. It is the overall characteristics of the system, in terms of reliability and frequency that produce the end results, not simply the specific vehicles used on them.


Appendix A - Trolleyway Costs

Appendix B - West London Transit

Appendix C - Trolleyway Cash Flow


Ealing Friends of the Earth


· Is there a traffic problem now on the A4020; is traffic going to get worse? If not, what assumptions made by TfL are incorrect?


Significant traffic problems exist throughout the Uxbridge Road, with particular congestion spots in Acton, Ealing, Hanwell and Southall, many busy junctions. Buses are frequently delayed by congestion making journeys long and unpredictable. Rat running in nearby residential streets is an increasing and politically contentious problem. Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that population growth in Ealing has lead to significant increases in car ownership, especially in the number of households with 3 or more cars. Planned developments and housing growth will ensure this trend will continue. Between 4 and 8 million car journeys are estimated to be removed with the introduction of the tram, which is the only solution to reduce road traffic and rat running through residential areas.


· Are trams the only alternative segregated method to buses? Are the reasons TfL cite for dismissing other alternatives, such as trolley buses, justified?


Buses are not segregated, bus lanes are not continuous and do not have junction priority, and many cars park or use bus lanes illegally. TfL are right to dismiss other alternatives as they have lower passenger capacity, leading to more vehicles on the road; do not enforce segregation which means less reliability and do not make the most efficient use of road space. Trams are seen as a long term commitment to high quality public transport.


· Are operating cost assumptions correct? Overall, taking into account operating costs and capital costs, does the tram deliver the best return on investment?


No comment.


· What can be learnt from other tram schemes such as those recently developed in Croydon and Nottingham?


Croydon Tramlink demonstrates the importance of good traffic management and rigorous enforcement of traffic regulations, as well as simple ticketing and ensuring trams complement rather than compete with existing modes of transport. Increased land values and property prices have provided economic development, regeneration, as well as causing unemployment to fall by 9% overall and by 35% in the most deprived area. Trade has increased rather than decreased in many areas. Tramlink has particularly benefited children, the elderly and the disabled.


· What evidence is there that the environmental improvements will occur as a result of the West London Tram across the wider area beyond the A4020?


The reduced number of car journeys will reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. There will be a reduction in road building and car parks, thus enabling land to be retained as open space. Bus routes may be rerouted to ensure better connections with the tram, improving public transport in the surrounding area.


· What evidence is there that new tram schemes provide economic regeneration to an area?


Land values will increase, and the tram supports urban commercial and retail centres.


· Other comments


The timescale imposed on the responses may result in skewed, incomplete and less well considered results.


The Chair of the Transport Committee, Lynne Featherstone, has a lack of objectivity as she has recently spoken out against the tram at a public rally and made several statements that are incorrect or at odds with existing statistics.


Greenside Residents Action Group


· Is there a traffic problem now on the A4020; is traffic going to get worse? If not, what assumptions made by TfL are incorrect?


Whilst the Uxbridge Road is a major arterial road traffic stress is not at intolerable levels. The route is well served by the Underground and the 207 and 607 bus routes, which are not even busy outside peak times.


· Are trams the only alternative segregated method to buses? Are the reasons TfL cite for dismissing other alternatives, such as trolley buses, justified?


A multi-mode flexible transport solution would be preferable. Properly policed bus routes would insure all traffic was kept moving. A monorail would be a more flexible solution. There has also been little explanation of how the extension of Congestion Charging would interact with the tram around Shepherd’s Bush.


· Are operating cost assumptions correct? Overall, taking into account operating costs and capital costs, does the tram deliver the best return on investment?


The costs seem too high for any possible benefits, and it is likely that the tram would make a loss. It is likely that the public would foot the bill for any additional costs. Patronage numbers are overestimated and there is no evidence to support them. There has also been no cost analysis for car drivers, forced to elongate their journeys.


· What evidence is there that the environmental improvements will occur as a result of the West London Tram across the wider area beyond the A4020?


There will be an adverse effect on the environment, as many trees will be lost in the construction period, traffic will be diverted onto residential roads and the construction period will be extremely unwelcome to all residents.


· What evidence is there that new tram schemes provide economic regeneration to an area?


On the contrary, local businesses can expect a drop in trade. There will be very restricted access for deliveries and customers will shop further afield, particularly in the soon to open White City Retail Park. Shepherd’s Bush Market will suffer particularly. TfL has not considered the loss in profits for local traders when drivers can no longer drop in to shops to make small purchases, or to buy fast food.


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25

Похожие:

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconEvidence used for the London Assembly Planning and Housing Committee's investigation into London's War Memorials

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconGlaeconomics laying the foundations London’s construction industry February 2006 Transport for London London Development Agency Mayor of London Greater London Authority

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconCustomer satisfaction and loyalty in the eyes of new and repeat customers. Evidence from the transport sector

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconAnnex 1: London Plan objectives and Transport Strategy goals

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconEaling, Hammersmith & West London College

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconEaling, Hammersmith & West London College

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconN. C. Markatos, “Transport Processes Across a Wavy Boundary”, Ph. D. Thesis, University of London, 1973

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconLondon Assembly Planning and Housing Committee

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconBudget Committee report to the London Assembly

Evidence presented to the Transport Committee on the West London Tram iconCilip in London Branch Committee Meeting held on 29th May 2004 at the Barbican Library Present

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница