On 7 Feb, 16:35, "MIG" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:
It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.
Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."
A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.
Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.
(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)
--
John Band
john at johnband dot orgwww.johnband.org
John's right here, and MIG is talking border-line nonsence. The
consultation was very clear that the time would be shifted; that
services would start later on Saturday morning. This was because the
first consultation, where services would run an hour later on Friday
and Saturday, produced a result in favour of the change but with a
significant majority worrying about, particulalry, the Sunday morning
service starting an hour later - hence the change to half and hour
later on Friday and Saturday nights, and the hour later start only
occuring on Saturday morning.
The consultation was incredibly fair and even handed, and went to
considerable lengths to ensure both sides of the argument were
presented and that people could respond
I took part in the consultation. The questions were on the lines of
"if they ran later, would you be likely to use them?". "how often
would you be likely to use them?" etc.
The fact that I would use them and would probably use them more often
than early morning services was not actually asking my opinion about
whether I thought the late night services were more important than
retaining the early morning ones.
I would use them if they were there, but I don't particularly mind
using a bus if I stay out later: I'm only going to bed after all. I
do mind if there's no early service on the less frequent occasions
when I really need it for something urgent.
There was opportunity to express general comments and concerns (which
I did), but any objective figures were to do with whether or not one
would use the services if they were there. You cannot possibly deduce
whether people were in favour of the change.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Are we talking about the same consultation - see page four of this
PDF:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/initiative...ater/pdf/Consu...
And I quote, question 4A: "Do you support or oppose running the
Underground an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, if that means
starting the Underground an hour later on Saturday and Sunday
mornings?"
Could that be any clearer? I think you're being unfair here, MIG, for
no good reason.
I don't remember that precise question in what I completed; sorry if I
missed it.
Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given
as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people
need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts.
I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL
has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to
take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do
a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent
buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc.
Not to stretch this out too far, but this is still not a fair critque
consultation. The short leaflet said "We are proposing to start trains
one hour later and finish them one hour later: first trains would
arrive at Central London stations at around 7am on Saturdays and
8:30am on Sundays; last trains would depart from the West End on
Friday and Saturday nights at around 1:30am." - again, this is far
from ambiguous, and is on the page before the questions start. Just in
case one couldn't be bothered to read that, question 3A then said "Do
you ever travel before 7:00 am on Saturday or 8:30 am on Sunday?", re-
enforcing the fact, along with the previously quoted question 4A, that
this wasn't an extension of hours, merely a re-allocation.
And before you get into what looks like an anti-PC diatribe it's worth
realising that the reason the original proposal (runs an hour later on
Friday and Sat nights, starts an hour later Sat and Sun morning) was
rejected, despite a majority being in favour, was *because it would
disadvantage a minority*. The proposal was then changed so that Sunday
hours would be unaltered, and the tube would run half an hour later on
Friday and Saturday nights, while starting an hour later on Sat
morning. Two thirds of those disadvantaged by the original scheme
would now not be disadvantaged by the revised scheme - TfL attempted
to minimise the impact on an even smaller minority while providing a
service requested by the majority.
I take issue with your accessibility point - partly because low-floor
buses benefit everyone who board buses, partly because in the long-run
we would be forced by law to change to low floor vehicles anyway but
mostly because there's a large difference between not being able to
use public transport at all (before low-floor buses a person using a
wheelchair would have little chance with the tube and no chance with
buses) and havign to switch from tube to buses (which will be the case
for those disadvantage by the hour-later start on Saturday mornings.
To further complicate things, I'm almost certain London Buses have, in
the past, conducted willingness-to-pay surveys with low-floor buses
one of the features that people were asked to pair off with others to
determine the customer benefit of bus alterations.
Tom