Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
citydreams said:
Facepainting.
Right, emergency services should stick to NSL?
Cross River Tram in Brixton?
- Thread starter lang rabbie
- Start date
Facepainting.
Right, emergency services should stick to NSL?
citydreams
on the road again
You weren't emergency services though were you.
Do you need some help writing to TfL, or can you manage it all on your own?
Oh, just seen your edit. Good for you. Let us know how it goes.
Do you need some help writing to TfL, or can you manage it all on your own?
Oh, just seen your edit. Good for you. Let us know how it goes.
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
citydreams said:
I dont need to prove anything to you, as Ive said Ive already written- I don't expect any meaningfull answers soon from TfL or you. Bye Bye
citydreams
on the road again
Gixxer1000 said:
lol.. I've not been at work. good to know you care though. bless.
citydreams
on the road again
Gixxer1000 said:
maybe your attitude has something to do with it?
We've got a team of people in my department (not trams btw) that answer queries from the public &c.
If you are having trouble getting a response I'd be only to happy to find out why.
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
So you should be able to answer my very basic questions very easily then? Im sure Im not the only one who wants more detail.citydreams said:
You have already stated that they should be available prior to any consultation.
(Some how I dont think you will though)
citydreams
on the road again
Gixxer1000 said:
Er, yes I could find out that information very easily (although it would take me away from the job that I'm paid to do), but why should you trust me?
Like I said, I'd be happy to make sure your enquiry is dealt with reasonably.
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
OK now we are all friendly I will look foward to your update on herecitydreams said:
citydreams
on the road again
It's you who should be updating us seeming as you've written the letter. Who did you adress it to?
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
citydreams said:
Well thats the thing I didnt get a reply and seeing as it was sent last year sometime(?) at the same time that pack arrived. Perhaps it was my attitude eh, funny that I didnt realise publically funded organisations could make those distinctions.
Anyway thanks again for kind offer- looking forward to receiving from you the actual mechanisms of the scheme, how it is anticipated in will work in practise. Will trams operate solely on roads? Will local businesses be allowed to load/unload. Maybe you will surprise us with the level of detail.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
This is what you asked:Gixxer1000 said:
You want the answers to these questions before anyone knows if the route will go via Brixton Road or Stockwell - just not possible in most cases. Route first.Gixxer1000 said:
citydreams
on the road again
We once had a response from a road side interview that said "f*ck you ken, and your f*cking newts. I'm too busy to answer your questions, I'm taking my kids to school". Funnily enough it didn't make it into our final report.
I suggest you write again, asking why your previous reposnse went unanswered. Perhaps leaving out the "retards" comment?
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
*Yawns* So if it goes via Stockwell that equals a dedicated tram line? IE no cars, buses.Surely someone knows? I mean, they are the experts arent they? Wheres the feasibility studies? Its only two options for fucks sake!London_Calling said:
TfL twinned with the stasis
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
And the relevance of this is?citydreams said:
The police pulled over someone in a hurry,for you, how dare he object?
Retards comment was on here not in my letter it is TfLs failure to answer basic civil questions that led me to draw this conclusion. I dont need to write again as you have very helpfully offered to draw more detail from them.citydreams said:
citydreams
on the road again
if only you put as much effort into asking TfL as you do in trying to be funny..
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
Youre not going to get us any answers are you?citydreams said:
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
blurb quoted by citydreams in post 41 said:
[URL="http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/2043.aspx" said:
So people can comment, but they are not being consulted.
Just what is this latest PR stunt about?
As I understand the route choices were fundamentally political between:
a) a route that follows the Northern Line between Stockwell and Kennington and relieves the chronic overcrowding on the Northern Line. This removes the need to consider expensive alternatives like linking up all the deep level air raid shelters to revive the original 1930s plans for separate express and stopping Northern Line services. This probably comes top on cost-benefit grounds. But it doesn't provide sexy new travel options for other areas.
b) providing tram links to other destinations that have been promised the tube for years but will realistically never get it. (Peckham, Streatham, Camberwell)
c) The tram as engine for "regeneration" argument. Lambeth and Southwark had identified major sites in Elephant, Brixton, Peckham that became a lot more valuable with tram stops next door. However, as Lambeth's new administration appear to have committed themselves to throwing millions at keeping the Rec rather than redeveloping, is this option seems off the cards as far as central Brixton is concerned?
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
Can we have a mock up of what the tram platforms will look like as well. I bet these haven't been factored into the designs for Brixton Central Square, which looks set to be an expensive urban design failure just like Manchester's Piccadilly Gardens.
The fibreglass mock-up that Ken has been photographed with doesn't have any wheels, so it is almost two feet closer to the ground than the real things will be. It makes the exhibition displays very wheelchair friendly, but doesn't make it obvious that in order to make the real "trams" - actually closer to light rail - fully wheelchair accessible you need to have platforms like small railway stations.
The fibreglass mock-up that Ken has been photographed with doesn't have any wheels, so it is almost two feet closer to the ground than the real things will be. It makes the exhibition displays very wheelchair friendly, but doesn't make it obvious that in order to make the real "trams" - actually closer to light rail - fully wheelchair accessible you need to have platforms like small railway stations.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
How cool does this 'artists impression' from the early '50s look (Lambeth Town Hall on the left):
citydreams
on the road again
citydreams said:
The Principal Transport Planner behind CRT is on leave for a couple of weeks, but from what I can gather the modelling that has been done is at a microsimulation level with focus on 3 junctions: Elephant & Castle, Brixton North and Brixton South. The road is due to be shared with cars, though segregated, with the Tram given priority at lights. Two seperate parts of TfL have their own models, and a third model is being developed in conjunction with Parliament Square.
So, all in all, it's still early days. Nothing has been decided, and even the base case models are yet to be approved. This project is still very much in its infancy.
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
citydreams said:
Apart from the fact that its not going via Stockwell
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
. . . nor, if that is the case, Kennington Road - which is in the Plan as an alternative to Kennington Park Road/Newington Butts.
TBF, I suppose the Elephant is a 'hub'.
TBF, I suppose the Elephant is a 'hub'.
citydreams
on the road again
citydreams
on the road again
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/transport/2007/jan31/item06a.pdf
Oval to Brixton
2.8
Both options on this route would benefit from transport priority measures and the regenerative effects the tram would bring. Option 1, via Stockwell, would best relieve congestion on the Northern Line and assist in regeneration of the Stockwell Park Estate. However, extensive traffic management measures would be required, particularly at congested junctions, to allow the tram to run down Stockwell Road.
2.9
Option 2 is a more direct route and would better serve the poorest areas in Lambeth, including Myatt’s Fields.
Oval to Brixton
2.8
Both options on this route would benefit from transport priority measures and the regenerative effects the tram would bring. Option 1, via Stockwell, would best relieve congestion on the Northern Line and assist in regeneration of the Stockwell Park Estate. However, extensive traffic management measures would be required, particularly at congested junctions, to allow the tram to run down Stockwell Road.
2.9
Option 2 is a more direct route and would better serve the poorest areas in Lambeth, including Myatt’s Fields.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
lang rabbie said:
Or like the ones at the stops for the Croydon tram.
As a crip I'd be fucking glad of a mode of transport whose accessibility didn't rely on the driver pulling in near enough to the bus stop (an annoyingly infrequent occurrence).
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
citydreams said:
Thats wonderfull, glad we have sorted it out finally, not going via Stockwell good-oh.
Gixxer1000
cant wheelie a shaftie :(
*lightbulb lights up in Gixxers head*Hence the link with the square redevelopment at citydreaming's family day out. *lightbulb dims to default level*lang rabbie said:
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
A quick correction
Having Googled some ultra-spoddish tram sites, it appears that the mock-up tram is an Alstom Citadis 100% low floor model, which would only require low platforms (about 1 foot high). Alstom also make a very similar looking 70% low floor version for metros that run partly on former railway tracks, such as the Dublin Luas, which is why I was getting confused.
However, from what I can find TfL have given no guarantees that they will be procuring 100% low floor trams for the project, and public procurement rules mean that they can't guarantee that they will be buying this sleek design from Alstom. This seems to be why Camden council are so concerned about not having various Bloomsbury squares carved up by TfL to create space for platforms and associated ramps if the chosen PFI contactor adopts the cheapest engineering solution.
Having Googled some ultra-spoddish tram sites, it appears that the mock-up tram is an Alstom Citadis 100% low floor model, which would only require low platforms (about 1 foot high). Alstom also make a very similar looking 70% low floor version for metros that run partly on former railway tracks, such as the Dublin Luas, which is why I was getting confused.
However, from what I can find TfL have given no guarantees that they will be procuring 100% low floor trams for the project,
and public procurement rules mean that they can't guarantee that they will be buying this sleek design from Alstom. This seems to be why Camden council are so concerned about not having various Bloomsbury squares carved up by TfL to create space for platforms and associated ramps if the chosen PFI contactor adopts the cheapest engineering solution.
