dave wrote:
What about the freeloading hippies who live in old ambulances by the king Alfred, where will these poor victims of the greedy developers go?

GUNTER wrote:
Get TATCHELL involved. He will campaign for it on behalf of all the gays in Brighton. Tatchell is absolutely superb with things like this and would be a great ambassador for the scheme.

puzzled john wrote:
Just strikes me that we already have a tourist attraction that tries to fulfil half the route... wouldn't it be cheaper to upgrade the Volks between Marina and Pier? Extending the line so it actually goes to the marina could be a start?

mark wrote:
more nonsense, how can it run along the front? in bad weather you get pebbles thrown up on the pavements to derailing or not running in bad weather, 30mph is going to see people killed. how funny to connect 3 dead losses, the marina is dead outside of weekends, and shoreham is full of banjo players,who would want to go to shoreham? as for king alfred,excluding good weather no one will go once the novelty wears off.

Alan wrote:
God, this town is truly full of cynics, and people who are intent on turning England into the world's largest theme park to the 19th century. I can already hear the "if it's not Regency, it's rubbish" brigade getting out the war drums and the chequebooks to insure that this plan is quashed under spurious uses of ancient law (the West Pier) or due to miswording (Falmer Stadium). It seems like every time there is a plan to do anything in this town (and I say TOWN specifically as these people are holding back any type of city potential) a certain minority who for some reason (££) have far more clout than numbers, start howling. The worst thing is, people who actually live here and have to work for a living are held hostage to these old attitudes at the expense of common sense. Thus we put up with a town centre that is clogged with cars (and with people demanding more parking feet from their destinations), falling down old buildings that have outlived their purposes but can't be redeveloped at all due to overbearing conservation rules, a falling down leisure centre, and a rusty hulk in the sea. I am not saying that the town should be razed and rebuilt, but let's have common sense and look at these things without being overly worried about the "Past" and "Regency Splendor" as the only markers of whether or not a project should be done. Nostalgia is great, but where would it be without some progress?

jim wrote:
The questions so far go the heart of what matters here. Would people use a monorail along this route? If there was demand for this route, you would imagine an enterprising business would tap into all those potential customers. Brighton and Hove Buses has a good track record of providing a bus service where there's a profit to be made. The fact it doesn't serve the proposed monorail route is a reliable indicator of the lack of demand. This suggests the initial £20 million would be better spent on alternatives. Our roads need to be better and we need more parking closer to the places people want to go. Labour spent a fortune making it harder to get around our town and harder to park. New buildings seem to be permitted as long as they don't provide enough parking for the traffic they will generate in the hope that fewer people will drive to and from these places. The Tories could save £20 million and insist developers provide at least enough parking. Those of us who drive need to look at greener technology in cars, chances to use the bus more and opportunities to cycle or walk more. A monorail will be a waste of our council tax and a waste of council staff's time.

Ed wrote:
This City can't even get a non offending stadium built in a run down area. A mono rail is a tad ambitious for the nimbys I would imagine

Paul wrote:
David, did you miss the part that says \\\"It is the greenest form of transport apart from getting on a bike\\\"

Dave wrote:
Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth Like a genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car Monorail! What'd I say? Ned Flanders: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: What's it called? Patty+Selma: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail! Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud... Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud. Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend? Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend. Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs? Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs. Abe: Were you sent here by the devil? Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level. Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can. Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man. I swear it's Springfield's only choice... Throw up your hands and raise your voice! All: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: What's it called? All: Monorail! Lyle Lanley: Once again... All: Monorail! Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken... Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken! All: Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! Monorail! Homer: Mono... D'oh!

buzzer wrote:

mark wrote: more nonsense, how can it run along the front? in bad weather you get pebbles thrown up on the pavements to derailing or not running in bad weather, 30mph is going to see people killed. how funny to connect 3 dead losses, the marina is dead outside of weekends, and shoreham is full of banjo players,who would want to go to shoreham? as for king alfred,excluding good weather no one will go once the novelty wears off.

yeah. Ridiculous idea. Who\'s ever heard of a train running along Brighton\'s coast? Certainly not the VOLKS on here anyway.

jim wrote:
The questions so far go the heart of what matters here. Would people use a monorail along this route? If there was demand for this route, you would imagine an enterprising business would tap into all those potential customers. Brighton and Hove Buses has a good track record of providing a bus service where there's a profit to be made. The fact it doesn't serve the proposed monorail route is a reliable indicator of the lack of demand. This suggests the initial £20 million would be better spent on alternatives. Our roads need to be better and we need more parking closer to the places people want to go. Labour spent a fortune making it harder to get around our town and harder to park. New buildings seem to be permitted as long as they don't provide enough parking for the traffic they will generate in the hope that fewer people will drive to and from these places. The Tories could save £20 million and insist developers provide at least enough parking. Those of us who drive need to look at greener technology in cars, chances to use the bus more and opportunities to cycle or walk more. A monorail will be a waste of our council tax and a waste of council staff's time.

yes perhaps you would explain why it takes afew weeks evey year to repair storm and clear the pebbles off the VOLKS LINE!!! strange it only runs when its dry

Further, the Volks cannot be extended because it is a listed monument (I think Grade 1!) and by its very design requires the track to be segregated (110VDC third rail).

Roger the Shoe Designing Guitarist wrote:
Those are not banjos, they're Paul Reed Smiths. And we can play them. Shoreham is so much more pleasant than Brighton. That's why new restaurants are continuing to open and do well. It's amusing that you seedy Brightonians think Shoreham people will want to go to the squalid Brighton Marina, or the chewing-gum strewn Brighton town centre, when the monorail traffic will obviously be coming the other way - people wanting to get out of the god-forsaken third-world hole that Brighton is becoming. Can we also make it clear that the entrance to "Shoreham Harbour" is in Hove (actually)as most Brighton media types, never having been further than the King Alfred, seem to think that this is Shoreham. It most definitely is NOT.

I also have visions of the Monorail being closed during the winter months when the high winds would simply blow it off its track.