Jump to content
 

Transport For London , December 2021, Section 114 "Bankruptcy" - Service Cuts?


Recommended Posts

The statistics so far: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-e-scooter-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-e-scooter-factsheet-2020

 

They're a big thing where I live, because we have miles of shared-use (pedestrian and cyclist) paths, and are a hire trial location. My observation is that the hire ones are in some ways more trouble than the illegal private ones, because people leave them lying about on the paths, where they are a hazard to all. Riders vary from ‘sensible’ to ‘lunatic’, with some of the scariest I’ve seen being parents with very young children riding both on the same scooter. I’ve never yet seen anyone wearing a helmet, and the potential for head injuries if a person comes off when hitting a pothole (easy with small wheels) must be pretty great.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, 31A said:

 

Is this not as a result of an 'industrial relations' situation?

 

 

Yes and no.

 

The despite is technically about excessive rest day working - BUT its worth considering exactly why XC are so very reliant on rest day working (i.e. drivers doing overtime) to run their published service.

 

Logic suggests they simply don't have enough drivers full stop - yet recruitment of extra staff requires the sign off from the DfT, who are very much in cuts mode and who are pushing recruitment freezes as a way of bringing costs down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes and no.

 

The despite is technically about excessive rest day working - BUT its worth considering exactly why XC are so very reliant on rest day working (i.e. drivers doing overtime) to run their published service.

 

Logic suggests they simply don't have enough drivers full stop - yet recruitment of extra staff requires the sign off from the DfT, who are very much in cuts mode and who are pushing recruitment freezes as a way of bringing costs down.

 

I think you'd find a lot of TOCs are, and it isn't a particularly new thing - it was certainly the case before I retired, 7years ago.  The union withdrawing their agreement to work Rest Days is an issue which comes up from time to time, for various reasons.

 

Edited by 31A
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
33 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The statistics so far: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-e-scooter-factsheet-2020/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-e-scooter-factsheet-2020

 

They're a big thing where I live, because we have miles of shared-use (pedestrian and cyclist) paths, and are a hire trial location. My observation is that the hire ones are in some ways more trouble than the illegal private ones, because people leave them lying about on the paths, where they are a hazard to all. Riders vary from ‘sensible’ to ‘lunatic’, with some of the scariest I’ve seen being parents with very young children riding both on the same scooter. I’ve never yet seen anyone wearing a helmet, and the potential for head injuries if a person comes off when hitting a pothole (easy with small wheels) must be pretty great.

Are you in Brizzle by any chance? :-)

Theoretically they should be no more of a hazard than a cycle, as cycles can be deadly quiet, not all cyclists have or use bells, and there is a definite lunatic macho adrenalin fueled  element. But I agree, I've seen far more irresponsible behaviour from e-scooter riders than cyclists.

(Before all the die-hard cyclists on here get up in arms, I'm a "regular" cyclist commuter here in Brizzle, or was pre-pandemic at least, cycling 10K each way to & from work most days on a mix of cycle paths & roads. There are idiots in all walks of life, some are on 2 wheels, some four, some on foot.)

But we are straying :offtopic:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, col.stephens said:

As Mayor 'No Khan Do' has managed to clog up Central London with his vastly underused cycle lanes, the closure of any Underground line would be a disaster for Londoners.  However, I think that the threat of closure is just sabre rattling before any serious negotiations start with the Government. 

 

You appear to have had a significant bout of amnesia as the big push for Super Cycle highways across London was instigated by a certain Boris Johnson!

 

This was primary because it was a cheap and easy thing to do - expanding stations / rail lines is extremely expensive and takes ages so if you can shift a several hundred folk onto bikes instead it takes off some of the pressure and provides a quick win.

 

It should also be renumbered that this coincided with a surge in sporting success on the bike - Team Skys exploits at the Tour de-France and our athletes performance at recent the Olympic games contributed to a surge in folk taking to two wheels

 

So while Mayor Kahn has expanded on them (mainly for the same reasons as Boris) its hardly a policy HE dreamed up of his own volition.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

My favourite one was Vancouver bus strikes in 2000…

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/metro-vancouvers-last-transit-strike-2001-1.5318483
 

one local part of the economy complained (elderly etc).

 

As one who has used public transit in the Toronto area for the last 30 years (and I doubt that Vancouver is all that different) I suspect you will find that is was merely only the elderly who had the time and inclination to talk to the media - everyone else was dealing with commutes that had dramatically increased in time and thus a serious lack of time for everything else in the day.

 

The people using transit aren't the elderly - they are a very small percentage (even in mid-day) - transit usage is driven by higher education students and workers - even mid-day is heavily biased towards 20 to 40 year olds.

 

6 hours ago, adb968008 said:

The rest, were glad, as the buses cleared off the roads and made both commuting and parking easier… some even were complaining when the strike ended.

 

Sorry, don't believe this.  Whenever in the past the TTC (Toronto) went on strike the key thing the media covered was the traffic chaos as all that ridership desperately attempted to shift to any other form of transportation clogging up the roads.

 

Even in a more suburban setting the removal of buses wouldn't achieve much given the gridlock that exists already during rush hour (which means the buses are frequently held up by other traffic, not the other way around).

Link to post
Share on other sites

From  BBC5, Mayor Khan is seeking £500m from December 11th,  Tfl rail travel is running at  65%  and bus travel 75% of pre-Covid levels.

Attached are letters from Minister Grant Shapps to Tfl concerning the most recent  tranche of Govt funds for  Covid support measures to Tfl.

One is somewhat "frosty", censuring Khan for disclosures to the Financial Times and shortcomings in the Tfl  Review and path to financial sustainability  where the Minister is seeking overhauls of  Tfl to yield cost savings.

The next 11 days could be very uncomfortable for Tfl, I would not be surprised for Tfl  to  mothball  the Bakerloo line to save money and introduce  revenue raising measures such as suspension of certain types of  concessionary travel to raise political pressures on the Minister

 

tfl-extraordinary-funding-and-financing-settlement-letter-1-june-2021.pdf

 

letter-secretary-of-state-mayor-of-london-june-2021.pdf

 

TfL-settlement-letter-with-annexes.pdf

Edited by Pandora
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

The problem with those stats, and unfortunately they will be the ones that are probably used, is that they don't include "near misses" and illegal use (running red lights (including pelican crossings) and pavement use) which, as anyone who has experienced them in Birmingham, are by far the major problem for pedestrians and those with wheelchairs and buggies and the blind/partially sighted. So far all the evidence points towards the users being unable to stick to the rules, but unless they start doing some proper research into their misuse I fear they'll be legalised.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pandora said:

Attached are letters from Minister Grant Shapps to Tfl


Many thanks for posting those, a really good insight.

 

To me, the big thing that comes across is how, in exchange for providing money, what the Minister is requiring is a significant amount of control/oversight, to a degree that would effectively emasculate The Mayor and the TfL Board, leaving them accountable to the public, but not in control, while the Minister would be in control, with no effective accountability.

 

Its a sort of natural thing to happen, in that the Minister would be negligent if he simply handed over a huge sum of money with no strings attached, but it to some degree subverts the entire function of TfL. There is also the question of how powerful the TUs are on the underground particularly, and how that annoys the Minister, who would really like to see them off, but not in an open fight.

 

Now, if TfL does go technically bankrupt, the whole thing reverts to the Minister and DfT, and I reckon that nobody, on either side, wants that for multiple reasons, The Minister and DfT because they don’t have the capacity to handle it, and because it would fly in the face of the logic of the rail review that they are pushing through on the National network (which was significantly inspired by the TfL model), and because all the mud and blood of making cuts would stick to them. The Mayor, because it would represent a huge failure to look after the interests of his electorate.

 

But, The Mayor is between a rock and a hard place: the pandemic has handed the Minister a golden opportunity to “puppeteer” TfL from behind a curtain.

 

My expectation of what might happen: in order to minimise the time/extent to which he is played like puppet, and to leave muck on the Minister’s doorstep while everyone understands that “it was the pandemic what dun it”, the Mayor could indeed impose cuts and fare rises himself, and because he is so heavily into bus services and the social-inclusion agenda he will try very hard to protect buses.

 

- trimming of capacity on all underground lines, attempting to take-out least-used services, in ways that allow actual cost savings (reduced numbers of trains in circuit, reduced staff on duty). Increase service intervals off-peak on top end of the Met, east and west District, jubilee beyond Finchley Road or Neasden etc etc.

 

- make Bakerloo peak only.

 

- cut suburban bus services by looping outer routes together and increasing service intervals in very targeted ways ….. effectively another re-cast of the suburban service patterns.

 

- maybe reduce the ‘across the centre’ element of bus services, to reduce visible ‘over-bussing’ in the centre at the price of having people change buses at the edges of the centre (this is not always service efficient though, and seriously inconveniences everyone). It’s an ancient conundrum.

 

- accelerate the ‘HQ functions’ savings/efficiency plans that are already underway (making sure he doesn’t make redundant all the service planners he needs to do the above!).

 

Its a sort of choice: cut yourself, or be cut by others.

 

Interesting spectator sport.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/11/2021 at 21:16, Pandora said:

London has an incredible generous free-travel policy,  the over 60s Oystercard,  provides  free travel 7 days / week for those aged 60 to 66 on Tfl, Network Rail , bus, underground  over a vast area Romford - Surbiton East-West,  Hadley Wood to Epsom North - South.

The  days of the over 60s Oystercard free travel scheme must be numbered as  Tfl place a begging bowl  before the Govt again

 

I disagree

 

The amount it costs is massively overstated because it assumes every journey made would still be made and paid for which isn't bourne out by surveys and polling.  Many of the journeys made would simply not be made or would be made by a cheaper route/mode.  Scrapping it would make little difference to the overall TfL finances.

 

You have to pay an annual fee for the card.  People would expect that fee to be refunded if it were scrapped.  TfL would also lose the fee revenue going forward thus reducing further any financial benefit 

 

London residents would demand a reduction in the TfL council tax levy if it were scrapped, which if not forthcoming would cause a political storm, and if it were forthcoming would affect TfL's finances.

 

 There is across the board political support in London for it to be retained.  Khan and Labour don't want its removal on their watch, and the tories get a substantial proportion of their vote from the demographic concerned especially in the outer boroughs.  The last Mayoral election proved that Khan is not as unbeatable as was thought but to beat him going forward the tories need to maintain and bolster their support not alienate it.  The London Assembly voted recently for the morning travel restrictions to be removed so the political sentiment in London is very much for retention.

 

Oh and the person that introduced it?  One B. Johnson.  Another political storm waiting if it is removed by a Government headed by one B. Johnson.

 

In short the financial benefit from scrapping it is peanuts compared to the likely political fallout.  I predict it is going nowhere.   

Edited by DY444
  • Agree 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

 

12. Studies leading to driverless trains with an on board conductor for Waterloo and City line, and progress towards Piccadilly line.

 

That’ll ensure harmony between the unions and tfl.

 


That’s rather ancient news, and I think it’s only been included as specifics by the Minister to make it sound as if he’s propelling it, when in fact it’s been underway for ages.

 

The Jubilee, Central, Northern, Victoria, and, as they are progressively commissioned the Met and District are under automatic train operation (GAO2) already, and the Picc has always been next on the list. There has never been a plan to go for unattended train operation (GA04), and exactly what tasks exactly the staff member on the train under GAO3 should do, and where they should sit/stand has long been a subject of debate and head-scratching …… if you think about it, having the staff member “mixed in with the passengers” isn’t by any means obviously the best thing to do when it comes to handling perturbations and emergencies anyway.

 

Mike Brown when he was MD, before he was Commissioner IIRC, in c2015, made a promise/forecast to staff and TUs that every driver currently on the staff at the time would have a driving job until they left or retired if they wanted, but anyone taking on a driving job after that had to accept that they might not be in that position. He said that because it matched the profile of the train fleet and signalling/control, i.e. when the next fleet to be renewed (Picc and Bakerloo) was built, it might not have cabs in the conventional sense.

 

The big issue around all this is having access to enough capital to fund the next line upgrade/fleet-renewal, and a sub-issue is nursing the Central Line stock along, because that has proven not to be as physically robust as earlier and later train fleets.

 

If you want to get your head around what this is all really about, this seems to be an excellent summary https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-of-the-driverless-tube-train/

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

If you want to get your head around what this is all really about, this seems to be an excellent summary https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-of-the-driverless-tube-train/

 

 

Sounds like a typical salesman problem when he encounters a customer who tries to put as many objections infront of the purchase as possible in an attempt to thwart the sale to preserve his status quo.

 

The only real objection that comes up there is putting up PEDs.. doors.. so put them up, imo they should be retro fitting it as a matter of course, driver or driverless.

 

Technology can provide sensors to check if the door is closed, and if someone is where they shouldn't be, a light / sound above the door can automatically indicate where there is an issue and a platform attendant can deal with it.

No lights, train is good to go.


I think on board conductors is one for the birds… DLR at 4 carriage is different to the very long, non corridor tube trains we have today… unless the trains have the 1990’s era Hong Kong style endless carriage with connectors, which Red Ken claimed to have “invented” when visiting Singapore in 2005.

 

The objections have been placed there, but with enough will the objections, and the objectors can be flattened. A driverless car is harder than a driverless train, but the objectionable mindset is the harder one to overcome.

 

There are a few driverless trains, that is multi carriage in the UK and has been for decades, and isnt the DLR, and has Peds… Gatwick Terminal shuttle… Stansted another, and of course the BA Pods to Terminal 5.

 

In an emergency on board, what difference does a driver make ? He wont do anything until control tells him. Even then all he does is use a microphone to inform passengers, but if he's in the front and a passenger climbs out the back.. theres nothing he can do, which is no different to a driverless, indeed today he might not even know, and if the train is crowded he certainly wont be going to find out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
6 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

I disagree

 

The amount it costs is massively overstated because it assumes every journey made would still be made and paid for which isn't bourne out by surveys and polling.  Many of the journeys made would simply not be made or would be made by a cheaper route/mode.  Scrapping it would make little difference to the overall TfL finances.

 

You have to pay an annual fee for the card.  People would expect that fee to be refunded if it were scrapped.  TfL would also lose the fee revenue going forward thus reducing further any financial benefit 

 

London residents would demand a reduction in the TfL council tax levy if it were scrapped, which if not forthcoming would cause a political storm, and if it were forthcoming would affect TfL's finances.

 

 There is across the board political support in London for it to be retained.  Khan and Labour don't want its removal on their watch, and the tories get a substantial proportion of their vote from the demographic concerned especially in the outer boroughs.  The last Mayoral election proved that Khan is not as unbeatable as was thought but to beat him going forward the tories need to maintain and bolster their support not alienate it.  The London Assembly voted recently for the morning travel restrictions to be removed so the political sentiment in London is very much for retention.

 

Oh and the person that introduced it?  One B. Johnson.  Another political storm waiting if it is removed by a Government headed by one B. Johnson.

 

In short the financial benefit from scrapping it is peanuts compared to the likely political fallout.  I predict it is going nowhere.   

So in other words, it's a marginal cost, because those extra bums are going to be on seats that are running around anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

The objections have been placed there, but with enough will the objections, and the objectors can be flattened. A driverless car is harder than a driverless train, but the objectionable mindset is the harder one to overcome.


You do understand that the GAO2 systems already in wide use on the Underground drive the trains, not the train operator? The operator checks that it’s safe to close the doors, enables door closing, and has multiple things to do in the event of system failure or emergency. Software drives the trains.
 

On the Victoria Line, the trains have been under automatic operation since the 1960s, and it’s on its second generation of automation.

 

And, you do understand that nobody is pressing to move to GAO4 on existing lines, because the necessary “route way” alterations to allow passengers to de-train and walk out in an emergency, without a staff member present, would be “off the scale” costly? GAO4 in the London context is really something for new-build routes.

 

What has long been in the plan is migration towards GAO3, and it is anything but certain that even that has worthwhile payback for retro-fit to existing lines. If you notice, what the Minister has called for are Business Cases, in other words cost vs benefit analyses. The key point is that under GAO3, there is still a staff member on the train, and they still have important role in emergency and failure situations.

 

The question isn’t “Could we do GAO3?” because everyone already know that the answer to that is “Yes, if enough money was spent on it”. The question is “Should we do GAO3?”, would the benefits of doing it exceed the costs of doing it.

 

Here is the summary of the GAOs, although I think the descriptive terms may be out of date, in that I have a suspicion that GAO3 may now be termed “Attended Train Operation”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

F75D9B8A-4BF2-4DE2-983F-1B9487BF9EAA.jpeg

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

So in other words, it's a marginal cost, because those extra bums are going to be on seats that are running around anyway.

 

There's a bit of that but it's more the flawed assumption that all journeys currently made with a 60+ Photocard would still be made in the same way at the same time, and the fares collected would be commensurate with that. 

 

We've already seen this demonstrated as fiction with the restrictions that were placed on elderly concessions using TfL services before 0900 on Mondays to Fridays as part of an earlier bailout.  Many either don't go at all, use a cheaper mode or wait until after 0900 and the revenue gained is way less than the numbers previously travelling before 0900 would generate were they still doing the same.

 

Imo there are 5 things responsible for TfL's financial woes and concessions for the elderly isn't one of them.  In no particular order, they are:

 

1. Covid

2. Crossrail overspend

3. Removal of TfL's central government grant

4. The fares freeze

5. Bus/Tram hopper fares

Edited by DY444
  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:


You do understand that the GAO2 systems already in wide use on the Underground drive the trains, not the train operator? The operator checks that it’s safe to close the doors, enables door closing, and has multiple things to do in the event of system failure or emergency. Software drives the trains.
 

On the Victoria Line, the trains have been under automatic operation since the 1960s, and it’s on its second generation of automation.

 

And, you do understand that nobody is pressing to move to GAO4 on existing lines, because the necessary “route way” alterations to allow passengers to de-train and walk out in an emergency, without a staff member present, would be “off the scale” costly? GAO4 in the London context is really something for new-build routes.

 

What has long been in the plan is migration towards GAO3, and it is anything but certain that even that has worthwhile payback for retro-fit to existing lines. If you notice, what the Minister has called for are Business Cases, in other words cost vs benefit analyses. The key point is that under GAO3, there is still a staff member on the train, and they still have important role in emergency and failure situations.

 

The question isn’t “Could we do GAO3?” because everyone already know that the answer to that is “Yes, if enough money was spent on it”. The question is “Should we do GAO3?”, would the benefits of doing it exceed the costs of doing it.

 

Here is the summary of the GAOs, although I think the descriptive terms may be out of date, in that I have a suspicion that GAO3 may now be termed “Attended Train Operation”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

F75D9B8A-4BF2-4DE2-983F-1B9487BF9EAA.jpeg

I dont think GoA 3 is practical, trains are too busy and too long. They need platform staff support, especially where there are curved platforms, and that is no different to today.

 

1 conductor… how is he different to the driver today in the purest security only role ?

That role doesn't exist today.. the only staff on the train is the driver, and he doesn't interact with the passenger except by microphone.

 

However GoA4 is more practical, but still with staff on the platform…

 

But step back from the brink and look at real world… trapped passengers panic with or without staff. How many times have passengers stopped listening and smashed windows (on Eurostar) or deboarded themselves (SWR, Southern etc) when the delay gets too long and the information stops flowing.

 

In every case this happens there is a driver, who is locked away in a driving compartment away from the passengers, who is unable to do anything on his own.

If there was an onboard conductor, if they are like other staff on regular rail most likely, they will goto ground and communicate by microphone too in a situation.

 

So its all nebulous… driver, conductor or computer… the solution to panicky passengers is information… and an emergency control can do that remotely.

 

On the platform, jubilee line doors are old technology, sensors, notification alerts can be tapped to every door and be much more efficient than any staff in detecting abnormalities, the office i’m in has sensors that tell us when the bins are full… tech exists, use it.

 

Technology exists to make life safer and easier, if the chance to use that technology to make life safer isn’t taken, for fear of protecting the status quo, then the motives behind it are morally wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Technology exists to make life safer and easier, if the chance to use that technology to make life safer isn’t taken, then the motives behind it are morally wrong.


So, where is the evidence/knowledge to underpin your assumption that GAO2 is less safe than GAO4?

 

It is actually quite technically challenging to make GAO4 as safe as GAO2 or GAO3 under emergency conditions, which is where additional measures, and the cost of them come in.

 

What can a tube train operator do from their cab in an emergency? Communicate with control, communicate with the customers on the train, and if necessary make safe, and deploy the emergency steps from the end of train and organise “walk out” to the nearest station.

 

Under GAO3 it’s likely that very much the same roles would fall to the attendant.

 

Under both GAO2 and 3 the operator/attendant usually also has the ability to take over and drive the train in a very restricted “manual” mode if the control system fails completely. This is typically used to “creep to the next station”.

 

Control can also communicate direct with customers on a train, and in some cases have CCTV views into trains too (I can’t for the life of me recall to what extent that applies on LU).

 

Under GAO4, all those things are done remotely, which is perfectly technically feasible, they are just expensive, and in the case of “walk out” it is seriously questionable whether it can safely be done in the context of London tubes …… GAO4 lines all (someone will correct me if there are exceptions that I’m unaware of) have tunnel walkways, like narrow continuous platforms, as do other new-build lines these days.

 

But, GAO4 is a bit of a red-herring here, because that isn’t what’s being asked.

 

 

Edited by Nearholmer
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now a piece on line , Bakerloo to get 68 years old trains  this jumbled bit of rubbish when looked at carefully says that no new trains for the line will be built for twenty years or more.Also cut backs in service levels will be in force very soon .Its the talk of old trains that will get people upset quickly plus the Central Line is included with the freeze on new stock as according to the article it is not busy . The stock on the Central is well looked after and comfortable and is capabable of a long life. These articles keep popping up all scaremongering and not based on fact but will stir up the idiots.its a shame to see London Transport brought to its knees by covid and political idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank Pick would be unimpressed - he'll be rotating in his tube.

 

Not the first time London Transport (as I prefer to think of it) has been a political football.  

 

Fares Fair increased patronage massively.  My Dad, (LT and proud of it) was impressed and it increased passenger numbers.   However, the GLC under its then leader was anathema to a certain politician who also happened to be PM.  In fact,  so loathed that she dismantled the GLC and turned a public body accountable to a very democratic body representing the people the system served into one accountable to Central Government. (Till formation of TfL).

 

I'm sure we'll see much political brickbats tub thumping and point scoring.  How much of it to the advantage of the travelling public in London remains to be seen.  Frank Pick would have had something worth listening to to say.

 

Best regards

 

Matt Wood

Edited by D826
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, D826 said:

Not the first time London Transport (as I prefer to think of it) has been a political football.  


Its such a routine occurrence that one might liken it to the FA Cup final, and it’s a particularly regular occurrence when the National and London administrations are of different colours, in either direction.

 

The same happens in other countries too, where the central and city administrations fall out with one another.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damed right! 

 

The last thing anyone wants is people going about the place on pedal cycles, when they should be chugging along in vehicles, puffing out fumes like any decent person would.

 

I should write a stiff letter to The Times about it if I were you.

  • Like 1
  • Round of applause 3
  • Funny 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, col.stephens said:

 

Whilst your Dad might have been impressed with Ken Livingstones' Fares Fair' policy, it wasn't very fair to the rate payers in those areas of London which the Underground didn't serve at the time.  All power to Bromley Council who took the GLC to Court and made Livingstone return my £50 rate surcharge.

No bigger picture to consider here. Cos transport stops at Borough boundaries. Move along please.

 

Transport policy based on individual Boroughs/District boundaries ain't going to be very strategic.  But different folks different opinions.  No worries.

 

Matt W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...