How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .
I find this a bit hypocritical, Mr Livingstone said: "There is no
bigger task for humanity than to avert catastrophic climate change. The
world's largest cities can have a major impact on this", unless you are
the Mayor of London jetting of to Los Angeles that is.

Kevin

Kev wrote:
How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .

I assume you're talking about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5237356.stm

Have you ever tried to have a multi-person meeting by video
conferencing? It doesn't work. It's a pointless and annoying waste of
time. It just about works for groups of 2-3 people, but the technology
does not yet exist to do anything more than that.

In addition, part of the point of the meeting is to raise awareness of
the CCI and the LCCLG among industry and the public - a video
conference would not have achieved this.

I find this a bit hypocritical, Mr Livingstone said: "There is no
bigger task for humanity than to avert catastrophic climate change. The
world's largest cities can have a major impact on this", unless you are
the Mayor of London jetting of to Los Angeles that is.

That's as morally retarded as saying "Churchill hated the Nazis because
they killed civilians, but he's a hypocrite because British bombing in
WWII killed civilians too"[*].

Obviously politicians of all types sometimes have to do things which
are counter to their long-term goals in order to achieve their
long-term goals; if you don't accept that, then the only society you
can possibly ever live in is an anarchy.
[*] let's assume that in this context that all bombing in WWII was
directed at military targets and that civilian casualties were an
unfortunate but unavoided consquence. I know this isn't quite the case,
but that really isn't the point here.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:
Kev wrote:
How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .

I assume you're talking about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5237356.stm

Have you ever tried to have a multi-person meeting by video
conferencing? It doesn't work. It's a pointless and annoying waste of
time. It just about works for groups of 2-3 people, but the technology
does not yet exist to do anything more than that.

In addition, part of the point of the meeting is to raise awareness of
the CCI and the LCCLG among industry and the public - a video
conference would not have achieved this.

I find this a bit hypocritical, Mr Livingstone said: "There is no
bigger task for humanity than to avert catastrophic climate change. The
world's largest cities can have a major impact on this", unless you are
the Mayor of London jetting of to Los Angeles that is.

That's as morally retarded as saying "Churchill hated the Nazis because
they killed civilians, but he's a hypocrite because British bombing in
WWII killed civilians too"[*].

Obviously politicians of all types sometimes have to do things which
are counter to their long-term goals in order to achieve their
long-term goals; if you don't accept that, then the only society you
can possibly ever live in is an anarchy.

[*] let's assume that in this context that all bombing in WWII was
directed at military targets and that civilian casualties were an
unfortunate but unavoided consquence. I know this isn't quite the case,
but that really isn't the point here.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

Still seems rather hypocritical to bang on about Chelsea tractors when
he jets off where ever he likes and as long as it fulfills some long
term political aim that is ok.I can't follow what Churchill and the
Nazis has to do with it.
Either global warming is the most important issue at the moment or it
isn't. Not that it is the most important issue at the moment if you are
a car driver/householder/holiday maker but not if you are a politician.

Kevin

Kev wrote:
How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .

Ken often delivers the opposite of what he preaches, hence massive
congestion as he throws more and more buses into London, and they end
up nose-to-tail for miles on end.

Paul Weaver wrote:

Kev wrote:
How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .

Ken often delivers the opposite of what he preaches, hence massive
congestion as he throws more and more buses into London, and they end
up nose-to-tail for miles on end.

I fundamentally disagree with that. The bus service has improved
dramatically since his reforms, services are now far more reliable and
frequent. For many people going by bus is now a good alternative to
taking the car, not least as good bus services open up the rest of the
public transport network to those not in the immediate proximity to a
station.

Occasionally there are bus jams - but the increase in buses on the
streets is IMO a very good thing - and it hasn't created "massive
congestion". Road congestion existed beforehand, and is probably
inevitable at certain pinch points.

Ken deliveres on what he preaches far more than most other politicians.
He'll get my vote again next time.

"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...
Paul Weaver wrote:

Kev wrote:
How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .

Ken often delivers the opposite of what he preaches, hence massive
congestion as he throws more and more buses into London, and they end
up nose-to-tail for miles on end.

I fundamentally disagree with that. The bus service has improved
dramatically since his reforms, services are now far more reliable and
frequent.

What reforms? Piles and piles of cash have been thrown at TfL bus services
thanks to chunky government grants (so they can persuade everyone the whole
Mayoral/GLA thing is working) and debts run up by TfL themselves. Unless
you're saying he's such a strong personality he can extract more money out
of central Govt than anyone else? I suppose the Kengestion Charge has
helped with additional funds for public transport, but I believe they are
small in comparison to the overall spend. Anyone who has been given such a
large amount of cash for spending on buses would've made them more reliable
and frequent, I wager.

For many people going by bus is now a good alternative to
taking the car, not least as good bus services open up the rest of the
public transport network to those not in the immediate proximity to a
station.

Maybe in some parts of the TfL network but I wouldn't agree with that in
Bexley. The only time I use a bus is when I take my car in for servicing
and have to get home and, although reliable and fairly frequent, they are in
an absolutely appalling state; smelly, dirty, defaced, graffiti over the
windows and other interior services. A really squalid form of transport
thanks to rampant teenage vandalism that TfL quite clearly do not care too
much about or they'd be doing a hell of a lot more about it. I am sick and
tired of the operators bleating "we haven't got the money to add a conductor
or replace the windows when they've been scratched" and then reveal profits
of millions every year.

Occasionally there are bus jams - but the increase in buses on the
streets is IMO a very good thing - and it hasn't created "massive
congestion". Road congestion existed beforehand, and is probably
inevitable at certain pinch points.

I would say, however, that I see loads of busses traversing Bexley at night
that are in-service but completey empty (while chucking out loads of
combusted diesel fumes). This is a complete waste - for such small numbers
in the evenings it would probably be less polluting and cheaper to run a
taxi service and actually take people to their door ;-)

Ken deliveres on what he preaches far more than most other politicians.

Quite possibly.

He'll get my vote again next time.

If he stands...

Nick

Nick wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...
Paul Weaver wrote:

Kev wrote:
How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .
Ken often delivers the opposite of what he preaches, hence massive
congestion as he throws more and more buses into London, and they end
up nose-to-tail for miles on end.
I fundamentally disagree with that. The bus service has improved
dramatically since his reforms, services are now far more reliable and
frequent.

What reforms? Piles and piles of cash have been thrown at TfL bus services
thanks to chunky government grants (so they can persuade everyone the whole
Mayoral/GLA thing is working) and debts run up by TfL themselves. Unless
you're saying he's such a strong personality he can extract more money out
of central Govt than anyone else? I suppose the Kengestion Charge has
helped with additional funds for public transport, but I believe they are
small in comparison to the overall spend. Anyone who has been given such a
large amount of cash for spending on buses would've made them more reliable
and frequent, I wager.
(snip)

The London Assembly disagrees, and criticising the Mayor is their
full-time occupation.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=712


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

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...
Paul Weaver wrote:

Kev wrote:
How come Ken Livingstone, the great environmentalist is allowed to get
away with dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Couldn't he have
linked into this by video conferencing. That is what we are encouraged
to do .
Ken often delivers the opposite of what he preaches, hence massive
congestion as he throws more and more buses into London, and they end
up nose-to-tail for miles on end.
I fundamentally disagree with that. The bus service has improved
dramatically since his reforms, services are now far more reliable and
frequent.

What reforms? Piles and piles of cash have been thrown at TfL bus
services thanks to chunky government grants (so they can persuade
everyone the whole Mayoral/GLA thing is working) and debts run up by TfL
themselves. Unless you're saying he's such a strong personality he can
extract more money out of central Govt than anyone else? I suppose the
Kengestion Charge has helped with additional funds for public transport,
but I believe they are small in comparison to the overall spend. Anyone
who has been given such a large amount of cash for spending on buses
would've made them more reliable and frequent, I wager.
(snip)

The London Assembly disagrees, and criticising the Mayor is their
full-time occupation.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press-cent...t.asp?prID=712

No, I didn't disagree it was value for money necessarily. My point was
anyone with wads of cash to spend on TfL bus services was bound to provide
more of them and probably improve their reliability. Ken Livingstone
doesn't have magic-like qualities to improve bus services, he just got given
lots of money by central government and spent it.

And I maintain the quality of the bus environment in Bexley (in terms of
broken bus shelters, vandalised and dirty buses) is very, very poor - way
below expectations, particularly given the amounts TfL have spent on the
network overall. Maybe someone other than Ken Livingstone would've directed
TfL and those who have appropriate power to improve the dreadful situation
in Bexley; presumably, therefore, he hasn't and doesn't care very much.

Nick

Mizter T wrote:
I fundamentally disagree with that. The bus service has improved
dramatically since his reforms

Perhaps, it's must have been really bad before in that case.

services are now far more reliable and

I see half a dozen broken down buses a day.

frequent. For many people going by bus is now a good alternative to
taking the car, not least as good bus services open up the rest of the
public transport network to those not in the immediate proximity to a
station.

I've caught a bus a few times from Ealing to Shepherds Bush when the
central line has been on the blink. It took forever, almost faster to
walk, and this was on a saturday!

Occasionally there are bus jams - but the increase in buses on the

If by "occasionally" you mean "permanently" from Marble Arch, along
Oxford Circus, down to Piccadilly circus and trafalger square, then
yes.

Because buses are so large and opaque, it's hard to filter through on a
bike, where filtering through stationary cars and taxis is easy.

streets is IMO a very good thing - and it hasn't created "massive
congestion". Road congestion existed beforehand, and is probably
inevitable at certain pinch points.

Buses go where the routes are, and they are the only traffic on oxford
street, congestion is designed by the people who design the routes.

The new killer buses (the massive 17m long ones that jut out in the
centre, mount kerbs, and take forever making manouvers) are even worse,
frequently blocking junctions causing even more traffic problems (one
inconsiderate driver -- not hard to find -- can bring trafalger square
to a halt for 2 minutes easilly)

Paul Weaver wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
I fundamentally disagree with that. The bus service has improved
dramatically since his reforms

Perhaps, it's must have been really bad before in that case.

services are now far more reliable and

I see half a dozen broken down buses a day.

frequent. For many people going by bus is now a good alternative to
taking the car, not least as good bus services open up the rest of the
public transport network to those not in the immediate proximity to a
station.

I've caught a bus a few times from Ealing to Shepherds Bush when the
central line has been on the blink. It took forever, almost faster to
walk, and this was on a saturday!

Occasionally there are bus jams - but the increase in buses on the

If by "occasionally" you mean "permanently" from Marble Arch, along
Oxford Circus, down to Piccadilly circus and trafalger square, then
yes.

Because buses are so large and opaque, it's hard to filter through on a
bike, where filtering through stationary cars and taxis is easy.

streets is IMO a very good thing - and it hasn't created "massive
congestion". Road congestion existed beforehand, and is probably
inevitable at certain pinch points.

Buses go where the routes are, and they are the only traffic on oxford
street, congestion is designed by the people who design the routes.

The new killer buses (the massive 17m long ones that jut out in the
centre, mount kerbs, and take forever making manouvers) are even worse,
frequently blocking junctions causing even more traffic problems (one
inconsiderate driver -- not hard to find -- can bring trafalger square
to a halt for 2 minutes easilly)


I think I have to agree with you on querying the improved reliability.
I accept that according to very specific criteria, eg the number of
buses arriving at their destination on time, reliability may have
improved.

But in terms of the overall likelihood of arriving where you want to
go, and the level of comfort in doing it, I am not so sure.

Much of the reliability has been achieved by cutting short the bus
routes, often short of a popular destination, requiring more changes
etc (and extra fares if on PAYG).

Much of the rest of it has been achieved by making all bus stops into
request stops. You certainly don't get where you want to go if you
can't get on, or if you get whisked off beyond where you are going.

As for bendy buses, what can I say? Monstrous, ludicrous vehicles,
creating traffic chaos and a huge hazard to pedestrians, cyclists etc
(I know some people on the group think all cyclists should be killed,
and would think this was a good thing).

I've tried to cross the roads in the Trafalgar Square and Whitehall
area, and repeatedly found a pedestrian crossing on green, with a bendy
bus parked across it, so that people have to walk around and sometimes
find themselves trapped in the middle of the road when the traffic
starts again.

And how many times does a 29 park across the entire width of Whitehall
when trying to get out of the side road they drive round? What
insanity led to buses designed for wide open boulevards and airport
terminals being crammed into the windy streets of London?

On the other hand, night buses really are improved and are a major
contribution to a "24-hour city". I never worry about lateness of
getting home now.