Guess what? Tuesday's "Peoples' Question Time" at New Cross took a vote
on later running of the Undrground on Fridays and Saturdays and no
surprise there was around a 65% majority in favour. BUT, at no time was
the consequential later start by one hour on Sat & Sun mornings
mentioned (apart from one shouted voice from the audience). How many
other "world cities" have to "rob peter to pay paul" in order to get a
proper late night train service, and how much longer are the PPP
infracos going to hold London's commuters to ransom? (30 years I guess.)

wrote in message
oups.com...
Guess what? Tuesday's "Peoples' Question Time" at New Cross took a vote
on later running of the Undrground on Fridays and Saturdays and no
surprise there was around a 65% majority in favour. BUT, at no time was
the consequential later start by one hour on Sat & Sun mornings
mentioned (apart from one shouted voice from the audience). How many
other "world cities" have to "rob peter to pay paul" in order to get a
proper late night train service, and how much longer are the PPP
infracos going to hold London's commuters to ransom? (30 years I guess.)


I see that people want ever more tube services for ever longer time periods,
but the reality is that a certain number of hours are needed for
maintenance. Whilst it would be marvellous to have service both later and a
earlier, people will have to accept that this is having your cake and eating
it. My concern is that TfL are not being more open about this.

Michael

Imagine a 7.30 Saturday start and getting a start-up like yesterday
morning. I can't wait for London retailers getting stuck into Ken
Livingstone over that one.

Kevin

wrote:
Guess what? Tuesday's "Peoples' Question Time" at New Cross took a
vote on later running of the Undrground on Fridays and Saturdays and
no surprise there was around a 65% majority in favour. BUT, at no
time was the consequential later start by one hour on Sat & Sun
mornings mentioned (apart from one shouted voice from the audience).
How many other "world cities" have to "rob peter to pay paul" in
order to get a proper late night train service, and how much longer
are the PPP infracos going to hold London's commuters to ransom? (30
years I guess.)

How do you work out that it is the Infracos that are holding London's
commuters to ransom?

The only reason the railway is having to be shut for long periods is because
successive governments, over many decades, have failed to adopt a strageic
view of transport (in the widest sense) to ensure the industry's efforts are
properly directed and that it is properly funded.

wrote:
Guess what? Tuesday's "Peoples' Question Time" at New Cross took a vote
on later running of the Undrground on Fridays and Saturdays and no
surprise there was around a 65% majority in favour. BUT, at no time was
the consequential later start by one hour on Sat & Sun mornings
mentioned (apart from one shouted voice from the audience). How many
other "world cities" have to "rob peter to pay paul" in order to get a
proper late night train service, and how much longer are the PPP
infracos going to hold London's commuters to ransom? (30 years I guess.)

From where I was sitting, the vote question was very clearly worded -
it said would you support the Tube finishing an hour later on Fridays
and Saturdays but starting an hour later on Saturdays and Sundays.

They couldn't have been much clearer about it.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Guess what? Tuesday's "Peoples' Question Time" at New Cross took a vote
on later running of the Undrground on Fridays and Saturdays and no
surprise there was around a 65% majority in favour. BUT, at no time was
the consequential later start by one hour on Sat & Sun mornings
mentioned (apart from one shouted voice from the audience). How many
other "world cities" have to "rob peter to pay paul" in order to get a
proper late night train service, and how much longer are the PPP
infracos going to hold London's commuters to ransom? (30 years I guess.)

From where I was sitting, the vote question was very clearly worded - it
said would you support the Tube finishing an hour later on Fridays and
Saturdays but starting an hour later on Saturdays and Sundays.

They couldn't have been much clearer about it.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

It is a logical decision to me.

1) The number of people who want to travel late on a Friday & Saturday night
is *much* greater than those who want to travel early on Saturday and Sunday
morning, so it's for the greater good. The number of people cramming on to
last trains out of the West End at the moment, compared to those using first
trains on Saturday & Sunday, is evidence enough.

2) Road traffic before 7.30am on Saturday, and before 8.30am on Sunday is
about as light as it gets, so the difference in journey time between bus and
tube is minimised (particularly if some express buses are laid on to
compensate for the lack of tube).

3) The tube will still be working in good time for the majority of Saturday
& Sunday users. Shop workers in stores with regular weekend opening hours
(9am start Saturday, 10 or 11am start Sunday) will not be affected. Some
jobs where shift changes are based around tube times could move the shift
change by an hour if necessary.

Colin

Well, clearly the full question *wasn't* heard clearly where I and a
colleague were sitting (L/H at rear), since we both reached the same
assumption that the full implications weren't mentioned.

How are people required to start around 0700-0730 going to get to work
on Sunday mornings? Frankly, employers are not going to be interested
in how they get there and despite ken's exhortation that "buses are
getting better" they are *not* a viable alternative for people living
in the suburbs.

As for the Infracos holding London to ransom, even if I don't think
Livingstone a particular good example to quote, I'll settle for
Christian Wolmar, Simon Jenkins and Peter Ford to start with. Also, the
Infracos moaned like hell recently when LU cancelled 'engineering
hours' to allow sleet trains to run, despite heavy snow being forecast.
Clearly, it was better for them to carry out maintenance work at night
on lines, and risk no service operating in the morning, and then pay
the penalty charges (capped after a certain time), instead of
postponing such activities and ensure lines were kept ice-free for
passenger trains.

wrote:
Well, clearly the full question *wasn't* heard clearly where I and a
colleague were sitting (L/H at rear), since we both reached the same
assumption that the full implications weren't mentioned.

The question was clearly worded on the screen. The person reading it out
may have faffed around a little - I was reading rather than listening to
him. I accept that some people in the audience may have been relying on
hearing rather than looking, but for the majority who could see the
screen, the question was clear.

How are people required to start around 0700-0730 going to get to work
on Sunday mornings? Frankly, employers are not going to be interested
in how they get there and despite ken's exhortation that "buses are
getting better" they are *not* a viable alternative for people living
in the suburbs.

How do people currently required to start around 0600-0630 get to work
on Sunday mornings? I suspect night bus hours will be shifted to
compensate for the loss of the Tube; as for them being a viable
alternative, they seem to manage out to the suburbs every night of the
week. However, the demand is much higher at 0100 than 0600, so letting
the Tube take the strain seems like a sensible proposal.

As for the Infracos holding London to ransom, even if I don't think
Livingstone a particular good example to quote, I'll settle for
Christian Wolmar, Simon Jenkins and Peter Ford to start with. Also, the
Infracos moaned like hell recently when LU cancelled 'engineering
hours' to allow sleet trains to run, despite heavy snow being forecast.
Clearly, it was better for them to carry out maintenance work at night
on lines, and risk no service operating in the morning, and then pay
the penalty charges (capped after a certain time), instead of
postponing such activities and ensure lines were kept ice-free for
passenger trains.

Engineering time would still be required regardless of whether we had
infracos or not. Whether infracos are inefficient or poor value is a
completely different discussion.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
wrote:

How do people currently required to start around 0600-0630 get to work on
Sunday mornings? I suspect night bus hours will be shifted to compensate
for the loss of the Tube; as for them being a viable alternative, they
seem to manage out to the suburbs every night of the week. However, the
demand is much higher at 0100 than 0600, so letting the Tube take the
strain seems like a sensible proposal.

Considering the inebriated state of some people at 1am you might not want
them trying to decend escalators and then minding the gap to board the tube.
They may also struggle to get from the kerb on to a bus but at least they'll
do themselves less damage if they miss there.

Dave

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 22:36:42 -0000, "Colin"
wrote:

It is a logical decision to me.

1) The number of people who want to travel late on a Friday & Saturday night
is *much* greater than those who want to travel early on Saturday and Sunday
morning, so it's for the greater good. The number of people cramming on to
last trains out of the West End at the moment, compared to those using first
trains on Saturday & Sunday, is evidence enough.

I assume you've not travelled on early morning trains on those days or
attempted to get across London to or from Heathrow airport with luggage.
There are a lot of people who rely on early morning trains at the
weekend. I accept it will be less than those who would use a later
finishing tube service but I'm not convinced by the run the tubes later
argument.

2) Road traffic before 7.30am on Saturday, and before 8.30am on Sunday is
about as light as it gets, so the difference in journey time between bus and
tube is minimised (particularly if some express buses are laid on to
compensate for the lack of tube).

But there has been no mention of any compensatory bus services being
provided. As TfL have no money to improve normal bus services beyond
current standards, even where there is a proven need, then I fail to see
where extra express buses are going to come from. Anyway if there is a
big enough demand to sustain express buses surely it's better to run the
Tube ?

3) The tube will still be working in good time for the majority of Saturday
& Sunday users. Shop workers in stores with regular weekend opening hours
(9am start Saturday, 10 or 11am start Sunday) will not be affected. Some
jobs where shift changes are based around tube times could move the shift
change by an hour if necessary.

People work in lots of other parts of commerce / public sector than
shops. The whole city has a level of activity that requires people to
be able to get to their places of employment - often hours before any
public opening times. I take it that hospitals, police stations and a
whole range of essential service personnel will be given their own
personal transport to get them to work?
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!