Talk:Cross River Tram

Crystal ball
Transport for London is taking this proposal quite seriously. Check the references listed in the article. While nothing is definite, I think a lot of people, whether Londoners or tram enthusiasts, will want to read about the proposal. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Opposition
I have added a section of opposition to the proposal. Many people are likely to be affected by the siting of depots along the route. I am aware of a large community of people in Peckham who will lose jobs and will be kept awake at night, and woken early in the morning if a depot is built next door or on their places of business. Little information has been released as TfL would rather not get any opposition, and would prefer to buy out as much land as they can. C hris_huh talk 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Peckham Vision is a group of local residents, artists, businesses, community and faith groups campaigning for an integrated development of Peckham town centre are concerned that TfLs preference for Peckham followed a flawed selection process in which the proposed site was wrongly described as 'derelict' and not compared fairly with others. TfL's own consultants have recommended that a comprehensive review of all tram depot sites along the the proposed tram route should be undertaken. It is crucial that this review is undertaken if the site selection process is to be seen as fair and transparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph57 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 13 January 2007


 * There is too much opinion here, not backed up by adequate sources/references. The supposed references recently added read more like descriptions than titles. Nick Cooper 10:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Pecham paragraph
This provides no counterarguments for the points given and does gives unsourced statements e.g. "destroying local churches and places of business" which is read nowhere -brownfield. --Qu e ntin Smith 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, it says that i put it up there but i didnt, i guess i must have stayed logged on and someone else put it up. I do know that there has been some problems with the tram depot proposal in Peckham and i think about the time that that got put up there i was with some of the people affected by it so one of them must have put it up there, not realising i was still signed in. The counterarguments seem to be whatever TfL says are the benefits of the tram depot. From what i understand TfL want the build a tram depot on Peckham high street which will prevent it from being redeveloped into anything useful for teh next 100 years or whatever - have a look at the link to Peckham Vision at the bottom (i guess that would be the citation as well). I have seen the plans that TfL have made for many sites to place this depot and the one that they are trying to go for is probably the worst one (i don't get it).


 * I don't think there really can be many counterarguments for this as they are already counterarguments of the tram depot proposal. As for the citation i would use the link to Peckham Vision, or some of the other local sites (Southwark News, South London Press, Peckham Society). C  hris_huh talk 21:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Opposition/Peckham
After being tagged for citations for well over a year, nothing has been added that justifies this rather vague section. I suggest that it be deleted, especially since it pre-dates the Sept 2007 consultation polling results. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Location
I came across this page whilst looking at a number of pages about public transport in London and was struck by "in London, UK,". As well as being clumsy the "UK" is not necessary as when you say London the vast majority of people will think of the capital of England.

So I removed it saying "The UK is rather redundant as this is [the] London that most readers will think of". As evidence of this London points to the capital of England. All the others Londons are qualified but this one is not.

Ground_Zero reverted my change saying "this provides clarity for the minority that think of one of the other Londons around the world"

I don't think that such a major city needs to be qualified and this is not done in other cases and is even omitted in some, e.g Baker_Street_and_Waterloo_Railway, Bakerloo_line, Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell, Crossrail. Similarly PATH assumes the user knows where New York is.

If anyone is unsure which London is being talked about then all they need to do is click on the link although the context (reference to London Underground, various places, moderately well known people such as Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson) will make that unnecessary in all but a few cases.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No adverse comments on this so I am reinstating my earlier change. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)