Insulting, dismissive, dishonesty, deceptiveness...

---

Resident also attacks Ken's response

Letters from residents (Ealing; Hammersmith hasn't react yet):

"I'm amazed, and somewhat angered, by the apparent dishonesty and deceptiveness of the Mayor of London and Transport for London in their recent report relating to the proposed West London Tram. Their omission of the most important figures from the recent TfL press release simply beggars belief.
The fact is that out of approximately 17,000 people who completed the consultation questionnaire 59% indicated that they did not want the tram, and only 30% indicated that they were in favour. That's clear enough, surely. So why haven't TfL highlighted this?
I hope that all councillors are fully aware of the true results of the consultation, and that those councillors who have previously supported the proposed West London Tram will now withdraw their support. I say to the Mayor of London, please now respect the views of the majority of the people. (People, I should add, who have read the TfL documents and made an informed decision).
The people have spoken, and spoken very clearly. They must not (indeed, they cannot) now be ignored - not even by the Mayor of London. After all, he wouldn't want to look and sound like a dictator, would he?"

John Holt, W5

 

"I am writing in protest against the proposed tram system in West London. Having taken the time and effort to complete a consultation document organised by Transport for London, I am appalled that they have decided their own consultation is flawed just because it did not provide the answer they wanted. Are we to be continually consulted until we finally give only the answer required? What sort of consultation is that? I live away from the main residential area likely to be affected by the introduction of the tram, residing in Boston Manor, but I do use Ealing as my main shopping centre and, like most people, travelling to and from Ealing, terminate my journey there without travelling along the Uxbridge Road or merely use the Uxbridge Road as a crossing point. The proposed tram will only cause further congestion and, quite honestly, I will probably switch my shopping centre to Richmond, Kingston or Hounslow. I totally sympathise with local residents along the route who have campaigned (and been supported by Ealing Council) for road calming measures, only now to find there are proposals for traffic congestion to be increased on their doorsteps. We will have to suffer years of road works and upheaval at huge expense and will, I believe, see the demise of Ealing as a prospering centre.
Has a survey been undertaken of the people who travel to work and shop in any of the centres of Ealing, Acton, Southall to find out if they travelled to work or shop only along the Uxbridge Road? None that I am aware of. I believe most people who visit these centres will have made their journeys via routes which approach from north or south, using buses, cars and train, and these journeys will be made intolerable from traffic displaced by the tram. If there was such a huge demand for a form of transport which travelled solely along the Uxbridge Road from Uxbridge to Shepherd's Bush, development of the underground would have been greater and a more sensible option. The only times I have travelled to Uxbridge from Ealing by public transport hardly any trains were timetabled to Uxbridge, presumably due to lack of demand.
If the same rights of way proposed for the tram were given to the buses then the bus system would run more swiftly and smoothly, without any of the huge expense. This would be more likely to encourage the majority of us who travel (not along the Uxbridge Road but to it or across it) out of our cars, reducing pollution and encouraging other forms of transport, such as bicycles.
My message to Ken Livingston is to stop the intended waste of Londoners money by stopping the tram, stop wasting our money by holding consultations that he then dismisses when the outcome is not what he wants to hear, and to understand that, having asked for our opinions, he should take heed!"

J. Jones

 

"The press release issued by Ealing Council on 2 March regarding consultation on the tram is a disgrace and an insult. The person responsible for it should be sacked immediately. It is not acceptable that Ealing Council should issue such misleading information.
Nor is it acceptable that the results of the extensive consultation on the tram should be dismissed so cavalierly. The consultation was aimed at those most likely to benefit from the plans and was accompanied by considerable explanatory information. There is no better informed or more appropriate audience. It is an insult to the residents of west London to claim otherwise.
What is more, much time, effort and money was spent on the consultation and accompanying roadshows. Why, if the results of this extensive public consultation are to be dismissed so lightly? Has the person responsible for such waste been fired?
It is clear that Ealing Council and Transport for London have no mandate to continue with this scheme. Through its offensive press release Ealing Council has also forfeited all credibility on the issue. The same is true of the press release issued by the Mayor of London which the Ealing release aped. It is time for those responsible for this destructive policy to resign. They should make way for others who can offer more acceptable ideas."

Robert Brooke, W5

"When one reads: "Of 17,000 people who completed TfL's consultation questionnaire, two-thirds are against the £648 million scheme. However this week TfL's press release on the consultation failed to mention this." and "The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, has said in the past that if the people of West London do not support the scheme, it will not go ahead." it seems that a mockery is being made of us residents.
This "supposed" tram consultation has been going on for a couple of years now and I am stunned that Ken Livingstone thinks that questioning 815 people amounts to a representative analysis of West London residents. He is following his own warped agenda and I for one, will not be voting for this man in future.
I live in West Ealing and over the years random traffic passing through my road to avoid traffic on the Uxbridge has been bearable, but obviously not welcomed, due to people speeding over ramps - I've lost count of the times my wing mirrors have been damaged this way. With the tram these unwelcome "short-cutters" will be multiplied ten or twentyfold resulting in more accidents and damage to residents' vehicles. Who is going to pay for the tram? Us residents, of course, and when you don't want something and you're forced to "buy" it, it does not go down too well...
I live in West Ealing and I work in Ealing on Uxbridge Road and I drive to work. I rarely use public transport, and I do not wish to be "forced" into doing so. I have my own car, why would I want to waste my money AND time walking 10 minutes down the road to catch and pay to get on a bus? I can drive easily to work in that period of time. My company has a free car park for staff too, which of course, I take full advantage of. On top of all this I pay road tax (as well as having paying tax when I purchased the car) just as most other car owners do. It's bad enough that the bus lanes were implemented and enforced, does anyone recall road tax being reduced even though we've lost the use of all those bus lanes on the public roads? I don't recall that happening!. I don't suppose my road tax will be reduced even when the tram goes ahead, which seems to be a foregone conclusion even though most of West London disagree with it. It's a sorry state of affairs when residents' wishes are completely ignored! Boo to Ken!"

Millie Roy, West Ealing

"Which part of NO does Ken Livingstone not understand?

60% of those who responded to an extensive consultation about the West London Tram scheme were against compared with only 30% in favour. The consultation was aimed at those most likely to benefit from the plans and was accompanied by considerable explanatory information. There is no better informed or more appropriate audience.

That audience voted overwhelmingly against the scheme. That should be the end of the matter. Livingstone's comments on the results of the consultation are a disgrace and an insult. He should resign immediately."

Robert Brooke, W5

 

"Ken Livingstone's insulting and dismissive response to the emphatic rejection by thousands of West London residents and business-people of his clumsy Tram scheme from Uxbridge to Shepherd's Bush is yet another
indication that he is unravelling on both a political and personal level.

He has toadied to powerful, vested interests in the commercial property world, to the detriment of London's skyline, he has ignited howls of protest with insensitive remarks relating to the Jewish Holocaust of WW2. and now he is determined to inflict this appalling catastrophe of a Tram scheme upon
us. Does anyone know what is wrong with this man, the Mayor of
London?

It is clear that London, like all major cities, suffers from congestion, which must be mitigated with intelligent responses using far-sighted planning and the best available technology on a regular basis. The growth of car traffic must not expand in cities and will diminish, especially at rush hours, if safe, regular public transport is running
reliably.

London’s network of roads is clearly capable of supporting large fleets of buses, running on cleaner fuels and batteries, linked and communicating with advanced telecom. and computer systems. Optical route control systems are available and developing. Intelligent traffic recognition devices can control and monitor buses, giving them priority over cars at peak times.
Buses can turn left and right and be re-deployed if needed, unlike trams, which blindly follow their steel tracks.

All this is acceptable and desirable, in contrast to TfL’s Tram scheme which will certainly be a monstrosity of waste, destruction and undemocratic intrusion into the lives of all residents in this area. As for the much-quoted £648 million budget, is there anyone who believes this for a
minute? It will cost over a billion, if ever completed, God forbid, just like any Whitehall contract for a new missile.

Would not £648 million subsidise London’s bus fares for a generation, persuading the public to leave their cars at home in large numbers?

Buses can be introduced in phases, flexibly, testing each advance in technology and control, before moving to the next development. With a tram, nothing moves, including the unfortunate local residents, until the last rail is laid.

The only traffic will be vast quantities of money, moving between the contractors and Ken’s bureaucracy. Ken Livingstone is a career politician with no experience in managing huge
civil engineering contracts. He will be well off out of it and retired, while West London will be grinding to a halt in the disastrous legacy of this dreadful, stupid proposal.

Are you listening now, Ken Livingstone? We don’t want your Tram!"

Gerald Stevens, W7

March 6, 2005