“It is a shame that pertinent concerns raised by the Crystal Palace Community Association, at the meeting, have gone unreported. The CPCA is not 'anti-tram' but does question the need to run the tram and its associated infrastructure through protected Metropolitan Open land (MOL) Crystal Palace parkland. In addition TfL want to double the size of the existing bus station that has been built on the Park, while construction costs for the extension are now put at more than £170 million, nearly THREE times the original estimate.

These proposals will, just like the housing development planned for the Park, be a 'green light' for routing transport schemes across other public parks and open spaces. No land costs or need for compulsory purchase or compensation. Just force it through using powers under the Transport and Works Act.

It is claimed that the tram will help 'regenerate' the Triangle district centre but no supporting business case has been provided. Indeed there is a real risk that business will be one-way, with shoppers and others using the admitted convenience of the tram to travel to Croydon and beyond. Interruption to the busy road network may also deter people from coming to the area. Ironically the Crystal Palace to East Croydon overground train has just been axed, a regular service that did allow people to travel to Croydon in just 8-10 minutes.

The tram is not the great green environmental machine that is claimed. Like any form of transport it requires significant energy. In the trams case it is produced at the power station. The Borough of Bexley, with its power station, suffers some of the highest pollution levels in London. Generated electricity has to be transmitted via the National Grid through various sub stations and onto the tram network with line power losses, compromising efficiency, occurring at every stage.

The CPCA believe that consideration should be given to a far cheaper and more flexible alternative in the form of one of the new eco-generation hopper buses. These have virtually no carbon footprint and a circular route could be devised that would link every local district centre, tram stop and railway station. The existing bus lanes would ensure relatively reliable journey times with the added benefit of more stopping points.

Further research must be conducted, BEFORE committing to a costly capital project, to identify any benefits of bringing trams to Crystal Palace. Lobbyists for the tram extension should accept that a tram to Crystal Palace might harm rather than help the area.

More information and photographs of the trams environmental impact can be found on the CPCA website, www.cpca.org.uk”

“Croydon is going ahead with its regeneration and New Addington phase is on ice at the moment . But if T.F.L is to be serious about getting London moving its in all our interest in the long run to have the tramlink to Crystal Palace.”

“I wholeheartedly support the tramlink scheme to Crystal Palace. Why oh Why? do authorities never seem to think that anything is a priority at Crystal Palace? and it is put on the second phase of any scheme or other. Are they frightened that objectors will turn out again? They should go ahead build it as the silent majority welcome a better transport system in the area - ELL, buse, trains and trams what a marvellous interchange - it has cross party support - Get on with it Boris!”

“Before we all start chanting ¿Four legs good, two legs bad", we need to be clear of the benefits of the extension and of its costs. The costs, certainly, will be not just financial but social and environmental. The benefits are less clear. An extended Tramlink could be used by Bromley Council, for example, as a springboard to resurrect its bonkers plans to concrete over Crystal Palace Park, which would not be of benefit to anyone, apart from the moneyed interests that Bromley represents. When TfL consulted, it only asked about alternative routes. It did not include the 'do nothing' option.

An extension must also not be allowed to disrupt our lives either in its construction or its operation. Remember that the East London Line is coming to town (and to Crystal Palace), which must qualify the usefulness of a tram extension.

So, do we really need the extension? The view from Valhalla is that the case has not been made.”

“I would have thought that it was far more important to make the trams safe for people to travel on before they think about extending it.”