|
S7 Stock to Barking
On 13/01/2013 17:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:53:49 on Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Phil Cook remarked: Someone remind me about the fare system on london buses again... The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on entry works. That's rather strange, because the flat fare on buses predates oyster. Then perhaps it's a reason not to use Oyster as a way to introduce zonal fares on buses. However, I recall a story about a nun who fell asleep on a bus and missed her stop being PF'd as a result of being over-carried. If there were flat fares then (1999), how did that happen? Ah, possible memory failure, there was a two stage fare system. Outer and zone 1. Outer zone fares were 70p and fares including zone 1 were £1. The change to a single flat fare coincided with the introduction of Oyster in 2004. -- Phil Cook |
S7 Stock to Barking
Recliner wrote:
Also, because London buses are slow (lots of stops, as well as bad traffic), most people don't travel very far on a bus compared to even a slow, stopping Tube train. So not many people would stay on the bus long enough to get into a higher fare (eg, multi-zone) band. Furthermore, a single Tube fare might include two or three separate rides, with no surcharge; taking two or three buses on one journey doubles or trebles the price (unless you hit a daily cap). The lack of free transfers on UK buses is extremely unfair on those that are already disadvantaged by having to change bus. Day tickets priced at the same as or slightly less than two singles mitigate this for almost everyone (return journeys are more common) but don't totally solve it. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
S7 Stock to Barking
Paul Corfield wrote:
The other unknown is what would happen to TfL's revenue under such a scheme. The TOCs almost certainly would refuse to join in such a scheme and would object to a policy which could lead to them losing revenue even if the policy only applied to tube fares. That's just the nature of things under a franchising system where they take the revenue risk. It would be sensible for National Rail fares in the TfL area to be the business of TfL (by law), just as they are in the PTE areas. The flat fare on buses is only there to make sure Oyster validation on entry works. You could have a graduated system but it would either mean people telling the driver where they were travelling to on entry so the right fare is deducted or else have validation on exit which is potentially fraught with problems in London. These options would affect the economics of the bus services as dwell times would probably increase meaning longer journeys and more buses to provide a given frequency level. Exit validation does apply in Singapore but societal norms are a bit different there. The Dutch also have it. As their culture is much more similar to the UK, I would be interested in how it's working there. Other places in the UK seem to have retained "state your destination" which is slower. As for graduated bus fares, it would be vastly fairer to have zonal bus fares but with changes allowed than a flat fare with two buses meaning a higher cost. That might be a viable way of allowing changes without revenue loss or raising all fares. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message
. net, at 23:51:22 on Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Neil Williams remarked: Exit validation does apply in Singapore but societal norms are a bit different there. The Dutch also have it. As their culture is much more similar to the UK, I would be interested in how it's working there. On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
Roland Perry wrote:
On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram. If you mean Amsterdam, aren't they just one-way gates as found on some bendy buses in the UK? I think they were there before. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply. |
S7 Stock to Barking
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:25:29 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote: travel patterns. It would probably be popular in outer areas for travel to the centre but not for local trips (through zones 2-9) which are relatively cheap on PAYG, especially off peak. It would most Given that probably the vast majority of tube journeys are by people commuting in to the centre from the suburbs I don't have a problem with that and given that TfL already fleeces tourists in zone 1 with their absurd paper ticket prices they could continue that unsavoury tradition. scheme. The TOCs almost certainly would refuse to join in such a Don't care. I think that if a practical way of getting back to graduated bus fares existed then TfL would want to adopt it to increase revenue / reduce subsidy. Exactly , its all about revenue, not about whether the system is practical. B2003 |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message
. net, at 09:33:38 on Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Neil Williams remarked: On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram. If you mean Amsterdam, aren't they just one-way gates as found on some bendy buses in the UK? I think they were there before. They are probably one-way as well, but you need to swipe your rfid ticket to get them to open from the inside. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , at 11:31:42 on
Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: [Amsterdam trams] I am not certain if the "gates" only allow exit if a RFID ticket has been presented. That was the case on the last tram I used, which was a bit annoying as being a one-shot ticket (not a pre-pay purse) there seemed to be no need. There are no paper tickets used in Amsterdam any more - even day tickets are on RFID format even though they look like paper tickets. Yes, I know. This was a one-shot ticket made of paper, but with an RFID in it. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
Paul Corfield writes:
These options would affect the economics of the bus services as dwell times would probably increase meaning longer journeys and more buses to provide a given frequency level. Yet these increases in dwell time would probably not be as great as the increase when driver only operation[1] replaced rear platform buses with a conductor. [1] Especially where you have to pay the driver and receive change. |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , at 14:41:49 on
Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Paul Corfield remarked: Yet these increases in dwell time would probably not be as great as the increase when driver only operation[1] replaced rear platform buses with a conductor. [1] Especially where you have to pay the driver and receive change. Probably not as great but still a factor that needs to be considered - especially at peak times where buses can be full or already have long dwell times in Central / Inner London. Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically around £4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling in their purses to find their bus pass. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
http://www.priceoftravel.com/595/pub...ldwide-cities/
So, it looks like they've overstated the minimum London fare, and included peak fares for routes from the centre to places well outside London when calculating the maximum fare. I wonder how wide ranging an area the fares they quote for other cities are? For Toronto... For the New York subway... For Paris... For San Francisco... Thanks for the info -- do the fares quoted look right for these cities? A further issue that can make these comparisons misleading is that some cities offer reduced fares if you buy, say, 5 tickets at a time -- what the French call a carnet -- and others don't. I think the carnet fare is the correct comparison since most people who don't use a pass (season ticket) will pay that amount. They have chosen to show the single-trip fares. If they had shown the carnet-type fares, the numbers for New York, Toronto, and Paris would have been lower by amounts (using today's fares in early 2013) varying from 7% to 21%. And do they, like London, have different off-peak fares? In all four cases, not that I am aware of. -- Mark Brader "Well, it's not in MY interest -- and I represent Toronto the public, so it's not in the public interest!" -- Jim Hacker, "Yes, Minister" (Lynn & Jay) My text in this article is in the public domain. |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 14/01/13 17:10, Roland Perry wrote:
Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically around £4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling in their purses to find their bus pass. Unfortunately my job is moving to Swindon, where apparently many of the buses are "exact change only". I thought that sort of thing had gone out 30 years ago. It makes me very reluctant to use the buses because I can't be sure of having the correct fare, especially if I have no idea what the fare would be and the only way to find out the fare seems is to get on a bus and ask. This is extremely unfriendly to passengers. Roger |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 14/01/2013 07:26, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . net, at 23:51:22 on Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Neil Williams remarked: Exit validation does apply in Singapore but societal norms are a bit different there. The Dutch also have it. As their culture is much more similar to the UK, I would be interested in how it's working there. On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram. I hear that they have them on some surface transport in Moscow. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 14/01/2013 11:31, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 14 Jan 2013 09:33:38 GMT, Neil Williams wrote: Roland Perry wrote: On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram. If you mean Amsterdam, aren't they just one-way gates as found on some bendy buses in the UK? I think they were there before. That's what they looked like when I was last there. The concept dates back to when conductors were put on Amsterdam's trams. Open boarding was abolished in favour of boarding via certain doors and exiting via others. Gates were put on the exit only doors to try to prevent people dodging on and not going past the conductor booth. I think I even saw some of the modern trams with conductors still on board but my memory may be playing tricks. The last time I was in Amsterdam, about 7 years ago, the newer trams had conductors who sat in a booth and would stamp your strippenkaart as you boarded. Are they no longer there? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 14/01/2013 19:24, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 14/01/13 17:10, Roland Perry wrote: Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically around £4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling in their purses to find their bus pass. Unfortunately my job is moving to Swindon, where apparently many of the buses are "exact change only". I thought that sort of thing had gone out 30 years ago. It makes me very reluctant to use the buses because I can't be sure of having the correct fare, especially if I have no idea what the fare would be and the only way to find out the fare seems is to get on a bus and ask. This is extremely unfriendly to passengers. Roger You could, of course, find out what the local transport agency is in Swindon and either access their website or give them a ring. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , at 20:08:44 on Mon, 14
Jan 2013, " remarked: The last time I was in Amsterdam, about 7 years ago, the newer trams had conductors who sat in a booth and would stamp your strippenkaart as you boarded. Are they no longer there? The strippenkaarts are long gone. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , at 19:24:58 on
Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Roger Lynn remarked: Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically around £4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling in their purses to find their bus pass. Unfortunately my job is moving to Swindon, where apparently many of the buses are "exact change only". I thought that sort of thing had gone out 30 years ago. It makes me very reluctant to use the buses because I can't be sure of having the correct fare, especially if I have no idea what the fare would be and the only way to find out the fare seems is to get on a bus and ask. This is extremely unfriendly to passengers. Where I lived in Nottingham it was very simple. That daily cash fare was £3.40 advertised on all buses, all bus stops, and that miracle of modern technology the Interweb. If you didn't want to find the change for every trip you bought a pre- pay carnet smartcard where each day was discounted (by up to 38%): http://www.nctx.co.uk/nct-fares/easy...ider-citycard- anytime-adult/ Even cheaper to buy the equivalent of a season ticket. I don't know if they have a similar scheme in Swindon. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 14/01/2013 20:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:08:44 on Mon, 14 Jan 2013, " remarked: The last time I was in Amsterdam, about 7 years ago, the newer trams had conductors who sat in a booth and would stamp your strippenkaart as you boarded. Are they no longer there? The strippenkaarts are long gone. Just discovered I still have a part used one in my wallet. -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 14/01/2013 20:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:08:44 on Mon, 14 Jan 2013, " remarked: The last time I was in Amsterdam, about 7 years ago, the newer trams had conductors who sat in a booth and would stamp your strippenkaart as you boarded. Are they no longer there? The strippenkaarts are long gone. I was referring to the conductors, actually. Are they also gone? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
S7 Stock to Barking
|
S7 Stock to Barking
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:54 +0000
Recliner wrote: On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:39:11 +0000, Paul Corfield Of course it is. I thought, given your stated political leanings, that you would fully support fares increasing and revenue being maximised so subsidy is as low as possible. I don't see flat fares on the tube being helpful in terms of subsidy reduction. From memory, Boltar describes himself as right wing on social issues, but left wing on economic ones. So he probably approves of public Pretty much. transport subsidy, as long as it's targeted only at people he approves of (white adult British males) but not those he doesn't (eg, immigrants, women, gays, etc, etc). Now you're just being silly. The fact is that since other critical infrastructure in the UK is subsidised by the public purse I see no reason why the underground shouldn't be to a greater extent either. I suspect the same people who champion rail travellers paying through the nose to lessen subsidy are the same people who would baulk at the sort of PAYG road pricing thats been mooted by the government even though in principal its exactly the same thing. The road tax as it exists at the moment is to all intents and purposes a flat fare. B2003 |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , at 09:53:30 on Tue, 15 Jan
2013, d remarked: The road tax as it exists at the moment is to all intents and purposes a flat fare. Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:51:54 +0000 Recliner wrote: On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:39:11 +0000, Paul Corfield Of course it is. I thought, given your stated political leanings, that you would fully support fares increasing and revenue being maximised so subsidy is as low as possible. I don't see flat fares on the tube being helpful in terms of subsidy reduction. From memory, Boltar describes himself as right wing on social issues, but left wing on economic ones. So he probably approves of public Pretty much. transport subsidy, as long as it's targeted only at people he approves of (white adult British males) but not those he doesn't (eg, immigrants, women, gays, etc, etc). Now you're just being silly. The fact is that since other critical infrastructure in the UK is subsidised by the public purse I see no reason why the underground shouldn't be to a greater extent either. I suspect the same people who champion rail travellers paying through the nose to lessen subsidy are the same people who would baulk at the sort of PAYG road pricing thats been mooted by the government even though in principal its exactly the same thing. The road tax as it exists at the moment is to all intents and purposes a flat fare. Actually, we agree on this point. |
S7 Stock to Barking
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:31:56 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:53:30 on Tue, 15 Jan 2013, d remarked: The road tax as it exists at the moment is to all intents and purposes a flat fare. Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT. Well it all comes from the treasury pot so its rather academic how much is raised by which tax since none of them are specifically reserved to be spent on the roads. But you still have to tax an insure your car if its on a public road even if you pushed it yourself. B2003 |
Quote:
to reduce the subsidy from the tax payer and to release funds for improvements to the infrastructure. It's about the only thing Boris Johnson has got right in my opinion. |
S7 Stock to Barking
Roland Perry wrote:
Yet these increases in dwell time would probably not be as great as the increase when driver only operation[1] replaced rear platform buses with a conductor. [1] Especially where you have to pay the driver and receive change. Probably not as great but still a factor that needs to be considered - especially at peak times where buses can be full or already have long dwell times in Central / Inner London. Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically around £4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling in their purses to find their bus pass. Providing of course later buses are signed up to the all day tickets. Many a traveller has tales of being caught in a suburb or satellite village and finding the only buses that turn up at that time won't accept the already purchased ticket. And this information isn't always easy to find online. -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
S7 Stock to Barking
On Jan 14, 10:15*pm, "
wrote: On 14/01/2013 20:21, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 20:08:44 on Mon, 14 Jan 2013, " remarked: The last time I was in Amsterdam, about 7 years ago, the newer trams had conductors who sat in a booth and would stamp your strippenkaart as you boarded. Are they no longer there? The strippenkaarts are long gone. I was referring to the conductors, actually. Are they also gone? They were still there when I last visited Amsterdam, in May 2012. Robin |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 15/01/2013 10:31, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:53:30 on Tue, 15 Jan 2013, d remarked: The road tax as it exists at the moment is to all intents and purposes a flat fare. Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT. The revenue to maintain the roads comes from general taxation. All UK taxes go into one pot and are distributed from there. -- Phil Cook |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , at 11:38:26 on Tue, 15
Jan 2013, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked: Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically around £4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling in their purses to find their bus pass. Providing of course later buses are signed up to the all day tickets. Many a traveller has tales of being caught in a suburb or satellite village and finding the only buses that turn up at that time won't accept the already purchased ticket. All-day tickets that are interavailable between operators are generally harder to find and more expensive. I've never found that people *expect* an all-day ticket to intervailable, so checking that the suburb you are travelling back from has buses from the right company, at the time you need them, is an inevitable (but trivially easy) part of the exercise. And this information isn't always easy to find online. For Nottingham, where I lived and there were several all-day tickets available, such information is very easy to find online. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
On Jan 15, 12:09*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:31:56 +0000 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 09:53:30 on Tue, 15 Jan 2013, remarked: The road tax as it exists at the moment is to all intents and purposes a flat fare. Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT. Well it all comes from the treasury pot so its rather academic how much is raised by which tax since none of them are specifically reserved to be spent on the roads. But you still have to tax an insure your car if its on a public road even if you pushed it yourself. It's the same argument as is going on in a parallel thread about buying "green" electricity or nuclear electricity when it all comes out of the national grid. All the money comes out of the general pot of mixed funds. There is no way to identify whether a particular pound spent on filling a pothole came from fuel duty, VAT on fuel, duty on beer, income tax, national insurance or corporation tax. Robin |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , at 11:49:34 on Tue, 15
Jan 2013, Phil Cook remarked: Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT. The revenue to maintain the roads comes from general taxation. All UK taxes go into one pot and are distributed from there. It's still possible to look at the tax collected and spent, and see that in a general area the one provides the other. -- Roland Perry |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 14/01/2013 22:12, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 14/01/13 20:13, wrote: On 14/01/2013 19:24, Roger Lynn wrote: Unfortunately my job is moving to Swindon, where apparently many of the buses are "exact change only". I thought that sort of thing had gone out 30 years ago. It makes me very reluctant to use the buses because I can't be sure of having the correct fare, especially if I have no idea what the fare would be and the only way to find out the fare seems is to get on a bus and ask. This is extremely unfriendly to passengers. You could, of course, find out what the local transport agency is in Swindon and either access their website or give them a ring. I've never seen bus fares on websites when I've looked in the past. They usually make it difficult enough just to find which route you want and a timetable for that route. Even when I have found the fare I still can't be sure of having the correct change. Roger So, ring them up then and explain your situation and ask what they might advise. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 15/01/2013 12:32, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:49:34 on Tue, 15 Jan 2013, Phil Cook remarked: Most of the revenue to maintain the roads comes from fuel duty & VAT. The revenue to maintain the roads comes from general taxation. All UK taxes go into one pot and are distributed from there. It's still possible to look at the tax collected and spent, and see that in a general area the one provides the other. From he http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/transport-statistics-great-britain-2011/tsgb-2011-summaries.pdf Nearly £5.8 billion was raised through vehicle excise duty (VED) in 2010/11. This was based on nearly 43 million unique vehicles being licensed during the year and includes refunds for surrendered tax discs. About £27.3 billion was raised through fuel tax in 2010/11. Expenditure on local and national roads was £9.4 billion. -- Phil Cook |
S7 Stock to Barking
Roland Perry wrote:
Out in the provinces the existence of "all day" tickets (typically around £4) means people only have to pay once, and combine that with an "exact change only" policy and it's quicker overall than having people fumbling in their purses to find their bus pass. Providing of course later buses are signed up to the all day tickets. Many a traveller has tales of being caught in a suburb or satellite village and finding the only buses that turn up at that time won't accept the already purchased ticket. All-day tickets that are interavailable between operators are generally harder to find and more expensive. I've never found that people *expect* an all-day ticket to intervailable, It may be a specific thing for Londoners and perhaps those from abroad, but I've certainly experienced people misunderstanding the nature of all-day, all-evening, return and similar tickets where the wording immediately available isn't the clearest and can lead to the assumption it means all buses in the area. so checking that the suburb you are travelling back from has buses from the right company, at the time you need them, is an inevitable (but trivially easy) part of the exercise. Inevitable perhaps but often not so trivially easy, particularly when the information about meetings and the like doesn't carry it. Part of the problem may be locals not thinking about this because the system is second hand to them. And this information isn't always easy to find online. For Nottingham, where I lived and there were several all-day tickets available, such information is very easy to find online. My visits to Nottingham have been fairly limited but in general it's been one of the easier cities to get round the system without needing to find a native. -- My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c |
S7 Stock to Barking
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:30:05 +0000
Robin9 wrote: to reduce the subsidy from the tax payer and to release funds for improvements to the infrastructure. It's about the only thing Boris Johnson has got right in my opinion. Except every year since god was a boy we've been hearing the same refrain from whatever mayor or before that westminster politico was in charge. And yet still there is a 3rd world level of service on some lines not to mention constant signal failures at the same old places and other assorted ****ups. B2003 |
S7 Stock to Barking
In message , Roland Perry
wrote: The Dutch also have it. As their culture is much more similar to the UK, I would be interested in how it's working there. On the trams they have little gates at the exit doors, to make sure people "touch out". I think it's the only place I've ever seen other than an unimpeded exit from a bus or tram. Hong Kong trams are pay on exit: you just board without restriction at the back, but you touch your Octopus card to exit. (It's a flat fare for the entire tram network.) -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Quote:
Ken Livingstone held fares down for as long as he could get away with it even though Bob Kiley told the relevant Parliamentary Committee that the subsidy on buses was going through the roof and had reached a £billion a year, a third of TfL's then annual budget. Livingstone, the archetypal Socialist parasite, maintained that investment in big infrastructure should come from grants from Central Government and not from TfL's budget. This was one the points Steve Norris made during his unsuccessful campaigns to become Mayor. Livingstone has not changed his tune and he still sings the same old song every Saturday morning on LBC. Boris Johnson, being a different brand of parasite and using his office merely as a springboard to leadership of the Tories, is eager to reduce the subsidy but not in order to increase investment. (What new projects has Boris Johnson initiated? Almost everything completed during his term was started by Livingstone.) Johnson's agenda is to demonstrate to the Tory faithful that he is far more effective than George Osborne at cutting expenditure and reducing debt without seriously damaging services. So Johnson is using the money saved to pay off the debt. (This was one of the points Livingstone made during the last Mayoral election. Livingstone said he would use the saved money to reduce fares.) Neither of these two wastrels has indicated there is a link between fare levels and investment. As for the quality of services, I suggest it may be more due to management and the suspiciously high costs of every project. The more that is spent on existing projects, the less there will be for other important work. |
S7 Stock to Barking
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:48:11 +0000
Robin9 wrote: Except every year since god was a boy we've been hearing the same refrain from whatever mayor or before that westminster politico was in charge. And yet still there is a 3rd world level of service on some lines not to mention constant signal failures at the same old places and other assorted ****ups. B2003 Wrong! Almost the opposite is true. Not about the service. The one time I took the tube to work last week there were delays on the piccadilly and central lines. Its always nice to have my decision to commute by car vindicated every time I take the tube these days. Ken Livingstone held fares down for as long as he could get away with it even One of the things IMO Ken was good at was transport (shame about his tedious racial agenda bordering on obsession) and part of that was keeping the fares down. He got the point that the tube is a public service, something which Boris doesn't seem to grasp. points Steve Norris made during his unsuccessful campaigns to become If Norris hadn't been such compliant bull****ting mouthpiece for the company that screwed up at Potters Bar he might have done better. not in order to increase investment. (What new projects has Boris Johnson initiated? Almost everything completed during his term was started by Livingstone.) Unfortunately the only thing Boris is interested in is Boris. If him starting new schemes or projects won't boost his popularity with the faithful any further then he won't bother. Neither of these two wastrels has indicated there is a link between fare levels and investment. I don't think that needs to be pointed out to the average traveller. They clocked that years ago. As for the quality of services, I suggest it may be more due to management and the suspiciously high costs of every project. The more that is spent on existing projects, the less there will be for other important work. Its management and staff. I've lost count of the number of times I've watched drivers amble along to take their train at Arnos Grove or White City while 500 people have been sitting there for 5 minutes waiting for them to get their lazy arse into the drivers seat with trains no doubt backing up behind. Its an attitude problem that seem to be ingrained at LU. B2003 |
S7 Stock to Barking
On 17 Jan, 09:49, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:48:11 +0000 Robin9 wrote: Except every year since god was a boy we've been hearing the same refrain from whatever mayor or before that westminster politico was in charge. And yet still there is a 3rd world level of service on some lines not to mention constant signal failures at the same old places and other assorted ****ups. B2003 Wrong! Almost the opposite is true. Not about the service. The one time I took the tube to work last week there were delays on the piccadilly and central lines. Its always nice to have my decision to commute by car vindicated every time I take the tube these days. Ken Livingstone held fares down for as long as he could get away with it even One of the things IMO Ken was good at was transport (shame about his tedious racial agenda bordering on obsession) and part of that was keeping the fares down. He got the point that the tube is a public service, something which Boris doesn't seem to grasp. On transportation Ken Livingstone was excellent. And, the municipal level is one where socialist policies are appropriate, provided they are paid for by those who live and work in the metropolis. However, Ken was so despicable with regard to meeting with terrorists, and caustically anti-Semitic remarks, I could never support for him. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:27 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk