On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:04:03 +0000, Dave Arquati wrote:

John wrote:
In article , Dave Arquati
writes

Paul Corfield wrote:
(lots of snip)

Oh and a strategy for the proper development of all of London's
transport would also be a good thing.

Like this?
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/strategies/transport/

Well yes there is that document. I just wonder to what extent it is
actually being implemented.

A quick glance suggests that whilst it may be approaching Paul's
objective, the revisions suggest that we are in the normal quasi-
political government cycle of proposal, change, proposal with no
consistency or any actual investment.

Precisely. There are far too many schemes that to all intents are
finalised but which are going nowhere - Thameslink being the biggest
victim of this inertia.

Like education, you only see the results of a transport policy after a
significant number of years, the changes made today will not be apparent
for some time and so our elected representatives feel obliged to try
other changes before they find out if their first policy actually
worked!!

That may be true for nationwide transport policies, but to me it seems
to be progressing much more quickly in London.

The congestion charge is
in place,

Well yes it is but what purpose does it now serve? It makes very little
money to fund extra public transport investment and in some parts of
town there seem to be as many cars around as before. I think that the
cost has now been absorbed by many businesses and individuals and thus
the deterrent effect will reduce.

improved bus services are in place,

but no more development can be afforded. There are now cuts being made
to a range of services including the night bus network which is contrary
to the strategy. London Buses are also cutting back on vehicle numbers
for future bids thus risking the reliability improvements made to date.
The bus fleet will also now age significantly following the huge and
rapid push to a low floor fleet over the last 3 years. I am afraid that
I consider TfL to be in breach of the Mayor's strategy so far as the bus
network is concerned.

the first phase of the
East London Line project has approval and funding,

And I look forward to it being built. However I am nervous that the
slitting of the project into two phases will mean that Phase 2 never
happens. The government are taking over control of the national rail
network and I just cannot envisage the money being made available for
the Highbury and Clapham Junction phases of this project.

the DLR extension to City Airport is under construction and the further extension to Woolwich
is ready to go;

I accept that DLR seems to be the exception to all transport ills in
London. Don't know how they do it but they have an exceptional record in
providing a decent service and of expanding the network. If I had a
concern it would be how they maintain service reliability as the
original parts of the network begin to age.

the West London Tram, East London Transit and
Greenwich Waterfront Transit are all well-advanced.

For some reason I am somewhat underwhelmed by these schemes. I think the
West London tram will never happen because of public opposition and
escalating costs for tram schemes. I still don't understand the
reasoning for the transit schemes and would prefer that the money set
aside for these schemes were put into development of the bus network
overall.

I note that you have omitted the Cross River Tram which I do think
should go ahead as a matter of urgency - if only to get trams back into
the centre of London from where further expansion can then take place.
It is strategically important that this tram scheme is built and built
soon.

Crossrail would be
ready to go if central government decided how little money it wants to
contribute.

I just wish someone would take the final decision and then we either
bury the scheme or else build it.

I'd say money is being poured into London's transport, and some of the
effects have already been felt.

Yes plenty of money has been spent but I still wonder about the value
for money aspect. I also question the balance between modes and whether
there is a real "vision" for what a public transport journey will be
like in 10 or 20 years time. The strategy seems to be a way of dealing
with a load of problems rather than recognising that there are issues to
be dealt with but that there is still a target to aim for in terms of
passenger convenience, ease of use and reliability / quick journey
times.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!