Save Ealings' Streets's Campaign of Misinformation About Tram

The West London Tram would be the biggest boost for public transport in West London for decades (with the possible exception of Crossrail). It will take between 4 and 8 million car trips pa off the road - say 6 million. See introductory page for more information. Sadly, but rather predicably, there is a chorus of opposition to the scheme.

SES Poster

An anti-tram lobby group, 'Save Ealing's Streets' (SES) has been set up. Although centered around the Ealing Broadway area, it includes Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing, Ealing Broadway, Acton and Shepherds Bush. That is, the boroughs of Ealing and Hammersmith & Fulham (but not Hillingdon).

SES has engaged in a campaign of scare-mongering and mis-information in order to whip up opposition to the tram. See below for a sample of misleading statements from SES and its supporters and see our rebuttals.

The FOE responses are short and therefore inevitably somewhat simplified. We have produced far more detailed rebuttals of the SES arguments and are happy to provide them if required.

We have been criticised by some tram opponents for the 'tone' of our comments. However, we take the view that it is in the public interest that we robustly expose misinformation and deceit; not cover them up with euphemisms and weasel words. Interestingly, it is the tone of the comments or the fact that we saying such things that offends; respondents hav not found any factual inaccuracies in what we say.

In a uncharacteristic moment of plain speaking an Ealing councillor was reported as saying "Councillor John Delaney, cabinet member for street and environment, dismissed the anti-tram groups like Save Ealing's Steets as a loud, vocal minority more interested in saving roads for private cars than the general good." (Ealing Gazette, 30 July 04) So it is not just FOE that has spotted what SES and its supporters' real agenda is!

Traffic

"Over 27,000 cars and lorries travel along the Uxbridge Road every day. Imagine the consequences of diverting that traffic through residential streets!" (SES web site)

There is and never has been any proposal to divert all the cars and lorries off the Uxbridge Road to anywhere, let alone down residential streets. The reality is that more residential streets will see a reduction of traffic than will see an increase as a result of the tram.

"The traffic forecasts are "fiction" (SES claim)

So Transport for London (TfL) and their consultants Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick are making up figures just to mislead the residents of West London!

TfL says "Some drivers will seek alternative routes to avoid these new restrictions", but TfL doesn't say where they'll go." (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

Alternative routings among many other factors is used in the traffic modelling in order to calculate the traffic flows.

"How will permanent road closures and restricted traffic flow change the routes of these 25,000 drivers? Which roads and rat runs off these roads will receive the displaced traffic?" (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

TfL's traffic modelling shows where the displaced traffic will go.

"TfL has removed forecasts from its website .."

At the time this was stated, traffic forecasts were on the TfL web site.

"No information has been provided on the assumptions that into the forecasts." (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

Information on the assumptions has been provided on various occasions by TfL's traffic consultants Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick.

".. TfL's highly [dubious] theory that traffic in West London will evaporate when the tram has built." (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

There is ample evidence that when better public transport is provided, car traffic does reduce. This is the conclusion not just of TfL, but of their hugely experienced consultants. This is turn is based on extensive evidence from schemes of many types from many places.

" .. TfL's .. claim that car drivers are more likely to step on a tram .. there cannot be any study that proves this dubious claim and if claims one does exist, it has been fabricated." (Anthony Collins, letter in Ealing Gazette, 30th July 04).

Studies do show this, so TfL are not fabricating. It is the tram opponents who are having to fabricate in order to make a case.

Road closures

"Save Ealing's Streets formed two years ago to fight the proposed road closures in Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing, Ealing Broadway, Acton and Shepherds Bush." (SES web site)

There is and never has been a proposal to close roads. The only proposals are to close short stretches of the Uxbridge Road to certain types of traffic.

"Uxbridge Road will be permanently closed to all passenger .. vehicles in West Ealing and Acton and in one direction at Shepherds Bush Green and Ealing Broadway." (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

Freudian slip by Ealing's car lobby! The Uxbridge Road will most certainly be open to passenger vehicles - namely buses and trams.

The anti-tram campaign

SES Poster

"In November 2002 1000 protesters packed Ealing Town Hall .." (SES web site)

There may have been nearly 1000 people at the public meeting. But they were not all protesters - observers and supporters such as Friends of the Earth were there.

"In February 2003 1,200 people joined a protest march." (SES web site)

It didn't look like 1200!

"SES has delivered a petition of 11,000 signatures to TfL, and a further 4,000 postcards calling for the Uxbridge Road to be kept open at all points." (SES web site)

The roads will be kept open at all points to trams, buses, cycles and pedestrians. SES, alias Ealing's Car Lobby, forgot to mention that it is only closure to cars they are interested in.

"A recent poll by the [Ealing] Gazette showed that 91 per cent of local people oppose the tram." (SES web site)

The Gazette poll was not representative and was never claimed by the Gazette to be so. The only representative sample to date shows a majority in favour of the tram.

"Business leaders have also opposed the scheme .." (SES web site)

Only some business 'leaders' of some small businesses have opposed the tram. The bigger businesses do not oppose it.

"Around 1100 people attended the anti-tram event at Haven Green on 3rd of July." (SES claim)

It looked more like 350, the police estimate.

Ealing Friends of the Earth (EFOE) " .. could not speak because it asked at the last minute" (Anthony Lewis, SES - and OBE!)

EFOE asked to speak at least a week before the meeting.

"The police were not keen for them to speak from our podium because they took an aggressive stance" (Anthony Lewis, SES - and OBE!)

The police told EFOE this was not the case; Sergeant Nigel Stock said "There was no ban on FOE speaking".

The consultation

"TfL admit that its earlier consultation was flawed .." (SES web site)

On a major consultation on a complex issue there are bound to be some flaws. That does not mean the whole process or the results are invalidated.

".. and say that the community's views would be considered." (SES web site)

They were considered. There has already been a major public consultation and an extensive series of detailed 'stakeholder' consultations. Major changes to the proposals were made as a result. A huge second round public consultation started in June 04.

"TfL's traffic forecasts are so that TfL will not discuss, explain or justify them." (SES on Chiswick W4 website)

Local Consultation Groups, which included SES, had presentations on traffic modelling; had a 4 hour special Q&A session on traffic modelling and were provided with four Information Sheets.

The cost

".. which is now estimated to cost £648 million" (SES web site). "The scheme costs £648 million" (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

It is not estimated to cost £648 million. This figure includes a "risk premium" of 40% to cover potential unforeseen costs. The current estimate is therefore £462m. This is a device to ensure that the finances and the business case are robust and to prevent the project stalling should the estimate increase by even a small amount.

Air pollution

"The tram will cause increased pollution, due to diversion of traffic down residential streets." (SES claim.)

There will only be an increase in pollution in streets where there is an increase in traffic. In the majority of streets, there will be less traffic as a result of the tram and therefore less pollution. A reduction of 4 to 8 million car trips pa will self-evidently reduce air pollution overall, not increase it.

Compulsory purchase

"How would you like it if YOUR house was going to be compulsorily purchased?" (Questioner at 3rd July demonstration.)

"Actually, if it was on the Uxbridge Road where air pollution levels well above government-set levels to protect human health, and where SES apparently supports even more traffic, I'd rather like it!"

Trees and wildlife

"Up to 1000 mature trees along the route will be felled." (SES 'worry', quoted in Ealing Gazette) "Over 1,000 mature trees line the Uxbridge Road and TfL says a large number of these will have to go." (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

There are over 1000 trees along the route. There is no suggestion by TfL or any other responsible parties that anything like this number would be felled. What does "up to 1000" mean anyway? It could mean 2!

" .. by holding an event this Saturday under some of those very same trees (and birds' nests) that TfL propose to fell .." (Anthony Lewis, SES - and OBE!)

Construction of road through Haven Green, which would entail felling of these trees, is just one option and one that Ealing FOE opposes.

"Are you not betraying FoE's principles and telling the whole world that you care nothing for trees, wildlife and the environment" (Anthony Lewis, SES - and OBE!)

We think not. We support major improvements in public transport which will reduce traffic, reduce congestion, reduce pollution, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, improve accessibility for many, reduce social exclusion and provide economic and regeneration benefits. In short, a whole raft environmental, social and economic benefits. We believe these are far more important than the 'right' of some selfish car drivers to drive and park their '4-by-4's' and 'people-movers' wherever and whenever they want.

"The stance of the Green Party and Friends of the Earth is quite staggering. .. The consultation document itself says that 1000 mature trees could be lost" (Roger Jarmine, letter in Ealing Gazette, 23th July 04)

The consultation document simply does not say that. The Green Party and Friends of the Earth base their position around facts and proper forecasts from authoritative sources, not misinformation put out by lobby groups.

Tram is less convenient

People will have to walk 500m to a tram stop. (Tram protestors)

Wrong. The tram stops will be about 500m apart, so people will have to walk to 250m maximum and on average less than 125m. (Less on average because the stops will be concentrated where most poeple want to be.)

Disabled people will not be able to use the tram. (Tram protestors)

The tram will be much easier than buses because at the tram stops there will be platforms at boarding height and because the trams are single-deck with access along the whole length.

Commerce and regeneration

"Can local shops and services survive the disruption? If shops and services disappear, how will the tram support regeneration and encourage investment in local areas?" (SES consultation leaflet, July 04)

Evidence from other schemes such as Croydon show that shops do survive, except for the few that are economically marginal anyway, and that the areas are regenerated.

Road building

" .. the same TfL that is about to allow developments that will permantently prevent the 30 year overdue improvements [ie road widening] along the A40." (Letter by Mike Brandt, Ealing Gazette, 6 Aug 04)

So is this the other agenda of the car lobby - road building as well as stopping public transport schemes?

Dishonest politicians

"Out of the 30 groups who have worked with TfL on this - not a single one now supports the tram. All 30 now totally oppose the plans" (Lynne Featherstone, LibDem member of the GLA and Chair of the Transport Committee).

Untrue - Ealing Friends of the Earth, the London Cycling Campaign and other organisations do support it.

"Councillor Barbara Yerolemou, shadow member for finance [Conservative councillor in Ealing], began by pointing out that 91,000 people in Ealing voted for parties that opposed the tram." (Gazette article, 30th July 04)

No they didn't. This was the combined vote for Ealing and Hillingdon. By the way, 91,000 is under 20% of the population.

Scraping the barrel

"If we are really honest, none of us really chooses to travel by public transport .." (Anthony Collins, letter in Ealing Gazette, 30th July 04).

Some of us would much rather take the tube to Central London than drive. Many who may be having a few drinks would much rather use public transport than risk killing people by driving a car.

"Shepherd's Bush, Acton, Ealing, Hanwell and Southall will become ghost towns .." (Anthony Collins, letter in Ealing Gazette, 30th July 04).

What an extraordinary idea - that a modern high-capacity transport system which will give better access for thousands and which will reduce the amount of traffic and risk of gridlock will turn a whole series of town centres into ghost towns!

Ealing's Car Lobby?

SES's headline is "Thousands of vehicles to be displaced off Uxbridge Road onto YOUR local streets" (SES web site, Sep 04). SES also says "Thousands of cars and lorries are likely to be forced off the Uxbridge Road through residential streets to find alternative routes." As can be seen from the previous material, these statements are at best grossly exaggerated and at worst untrue. SES are misleading about trees, about the costs, about the consultation, about almost everything. So why are they saying these things?

Our conclusion is that SES's real agenda is protect all streets, theirs and the Uxbridge Road, for their cars. They believe, probably correctly, that the tram would interfere with their 'right' to drive wherever and whenever they want.

SES cannot openly say this - otherwise they would gain little support. The public would probably agree with Councillor John Delaney: ".. anti-tram groups like Save Ealing's Steets as a loud, vocal minority more interested in saving roads for private cars than the general good." So they conjure up every possible other reason to oppose it, however spurious.

This interpretation would explain why so many of the objections - see the earlier analysis - are actually about cars, even though this is not stated explicitly. We have little hesitation in giving Save Ealing's Streets the pseudonym 'Ealing's Car Lobby'.

Spoof of SES Poster

Other pages

For information on the tram see introductory page and onward links for more detail.
Return to Transport introduction