Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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.

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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.

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

"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

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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 also see that having just jetted back from LA Tony Blair is now
jetting back to Barbados for his holiday. Couldn't he have saved the
CO2 emmissions and flown straight from LA to Barbados.
There again he could forgo his holiday and sort out a cease fire in the
Middle East. One of the biggest crisis since we invaded Iraq and we are
left in the hands of the guy with 2 jags.

Kevin

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

Kev wrote:
Middle East. One of the biggest crisis since we invaded Iraq and we are
left in the hands of the guy with 2 jags.

He could demand an immediate ceasefire from Israel, and tell Bush where
to go, which would instantly erase his past transgressions.

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

"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

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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)

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

In message of Thu, 3 Aug 2006
12:34:40 in uk.transport.london, Nick writes

[snip]

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.

Please complain - you might start at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/contact_home.asp - rather than moan - I
view your comments here as moaning.

I can't comment about buses in Bexley. The service for EC2 has improved
a lot since Mayor Ken has influenced it. I now complain a lot. The
service is good enough to justify complain about its deficiencies. Buses
are slow compared with cycling, taxis, tubes, cars, etc. People-watching
on buses is one of the pleasures of living in London, IMHO.
--
Walter Briscoe

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

"Walter Briscoe" wrote in message
...
In message of Thu, 3 Aug 2006
12:34:40 in uk.transport.london, Nick writes

[snip]

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.

Please complain - you might start at
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/contact_home.asp - rather than moan - I view
your comments here as moaning.

What makes you think I haven't complained? And complained and complained and
complained. Along with friends and neighbours, nothing seems to change.
We've got Operation BusTag that's supposed to be cutting down graffiti,
vandalism and crime on buses in particular but the dire state of Bexley's
buses seems as bad as ever. I am chair of the local residents' panel that
prioritises the work of the local community policing team, a memeber of the
Bexley Police Community Consultative Group etc, so I expend energy and
effort on this and don't just post to newsgroups about it. What can I tell
you - we are all fed up with bus vandalism in Bexley but can't get TfL to
enage in a dialogue with us - we get fobbed off to talk to their contractors
or Adshell etc for the neglected bus shelters, and they pass us back to TfL
or ignore us. All absolutely crazy. Still waiting for a reply to my letter
on this to Emperor Livingstone about 4 weeks ago.

I can't comment about buses in Bexley. The service for EC2 has improved a
lot since Mayor Ken has influenced it. I now complain a lot. The service
is good enough to justify complain about its deficiencies. Buses are slow
compared with cycling, taxis, tubes, cars, etc. People-watching on buses
is one of the pleasures of living in London, IMHO.

Buses in central London are in pristine condition compared to Bexley's, and
I suspect that's why TfL couldn't really give a damn about the problem.

Nick

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

Nick wrote:

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.

I can confirm that bus services in Bexley are appalling. Over three
years ago it was announced that route B14, which was quite unreliable,
was to increase in frequency to 3 buses per hour. But they never
actually made that change. Buses still only run every half hour, except
that they don't run to schedule because reliability has actually
DECLINED despite three changes of operator. I'd be surprised if it
wasn't the worst in London now.

But still the B14 was very useful for old people who can't walk very
far. Many people used it to get up a steep hill (Kimberley Drive) until
this year TfL changed the route so that it goes down the hill in both
directions!!!

Although I've returned to Australia, my grandmother still lives in
Sidcup. She's written many letters to TfL, and each time they reply -
but it's usually just standard replies, and always a complete lack of
action. After 6 months she contacted Travelwatch, and TfL sent her a
letter saying they're disappointed she felt the need to!

The fact that they removed the most useful part of the route suggests
they don't know what they're doing. The fact that they did it without
consulting residents shows they're out of touch. And the fact that after
6 weeks they've still not fixed the problem shows just how useless they
are.

I used to be in favour of extending bus regulation throughout the
country, but in order for it to work, the regulators have to be
competent. Now they demonstrate their incompetence in London, and there
doesh't seem to be anything anyone can do about it.

--
Aidan Stanger
http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 01:38:47 +0930, Aidan Stanger wrote:

But still the B14 was very useful for old people who can't walk very
far. Many people used it to get up a steep hill (Kimberley Drive) until
this year TfL changed the route so that it goes down the hill in both
directions!!!

Was the Bexley landscape designed by M.C. Escher?

(Sorry; I'm sure you have a serious point!)

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:

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.

snip

I used to be in favour of extending bus regulation throughout the
country, but in order for it to work, the regulators have to be
competent. Now they demonstrate their incompetence in London, and there
doesh't seem to be anything anyone can do about it.

Indeed, the problem does seem to be accountability. In Bexley, we can't
seem to hold anyone responsible for the dire bus situation (well, anyone who
can answer for the problems). Fringe suburbia which is seen as Tory
territory is probably the lowest of Ken Livingstone's priorities, as anyone
visiting would soon notice.

And yet TfL do have money and they could improve the situation if they got
their act together. Indeed, why are they spending money on marketing
themselves on billboards and on TV and radio when the all the bus shelters
in Bexley are heavily vandalised and/or smashed to pieces? They're a joke.

Nick

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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.

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 02:31:53 +0100, "Nick"
wrote:

And yet TfL do have money and they could improve the situation if they got
their act together. Indeed, why are they spending money on marketing
themselves on billboards and on TV and radio when the all the bus shelters
in Bexley are heavily vandalised and/or smashed to pieces? They're a joke.

Funnily enough, living in Wood Green, and working in both Lewisham and
central London, and regularly being in Tooting, Finchley, and other
parts of the capital, I can't think of anywhere that experiences the
type of damage you claim is happening in Bexley. Perhaps your area is
so uniquely lawless that it is beyond any remedial measures?
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War, and in Films & TV:
http://www.nickcooper.org.uk/

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 02:31:53 +0100, "Nick"
wrote:

And yet TfL do have money and they could improve the situation if they got
their act together. Indeed, why are they spending money on marketing
themselves on billboards and on TV and radio when the all the bus shelters
in Bexley are heavily vandalised and/or smashed to pieces? They're a
joke.

Funnily enough, living in Wood Green, and working in both Lewisham and
central London, and regularly being in Tooting, Finchley, and other
parts of the capital, I can't think of anywhere that experiences the
type of damage you claim is happening in Bexley. Perhaps your area is
so uniquely lawless that it is beyond any remedial measures?
--
Nick Cooper

Thanks for that Nick ;-)

Seriously, though, I agree with your observations about Wood Green,
Finchley, etc, they just don't have the problem. Seems to be a strange
Eltham/Bexley/Dartford phenomenon, though the Met claim they have similar
such problems in Sutton also on the suburban fringes. From my observations,
parts of Bromley have this problem at a lower level, but when you get out of
the immediate public transport catchment area (ie over the river to
Havering/Thurrock, or further out into Kent in Sevenoaks/Tonbridge), the
problem does seem to vanish.

Somehow it's become fashionable for (small numbers of) teenagers to go
around etching all public transport infrastructure from the train windows,
bus windows (upper deck so defaced you can barely see out of the windows)
and bus stops. I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find any bus stop in the
borough that wasn't etched or had graffiti scrawled on it, and this is a
damning indictment of TfL. The problem is out of control I think, but it
would appear to be so difficult to catch these mindless morons in the act
unless you patrol every bus stop and bus every second of the day. Week
after week, poor quality CCTV pictures of kids are published in the local
paper caught on camera defacing busses, but to be truthful these pictures
aren't that great though I do think some get caught.

It is distressing and somewhat embarrassing when visitors come to Bexley for
all this damage to be on show. Similarly you'll see similar problems in
Eltham to the west and Dartford to east. All these areas share bus routes
and indeed rail services. Of course, it wasn't always like this, and I
remember a time when there was virtually no damage to anything around here;
the problem started slowly but nothing was done to combat it; occasional
damage was left unattended to, and the problem grew from there.

Southeasterm (the local rail company) is now finally doing something about
the problem with refurbished trains with sacrificial film which they seem
reasonably efficient at keeping in good condition (though some of the
unrefurbished trains are in a shocking state), but the same can't be said of
the busses.

Nick

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

Nick wrote:
"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 02:31:53 +0100, "Nick"
wrote:

And yet TfL do have money and they could improve the situation if they got
their act together. Indeed, why are they spending money on marketing
themselves on billboards and on TV and radio when the all the bus shelters
in Bexley are heavily vandalised and/or smashed to pieces? They're a
joke.
Funnily enough, living in Wood Green, and working in both Lewisham and
central London, and regularly being in Tooting, Finchley, and other
parts of the capital, I can't think of anywhere that experiences the
type of damage you claim is happening in Bexley. Perhaps your area is
so uniquely lawless that it is beyond any remedial measures?
--
Nick Cooper

Thanks for that Nick ;-)

Seriously, though, I agree with your observations about Wood Green,
Finchley, etc, they just don't have the problem. Seems to be a strange
Eltham/Bexley/Dartford phenomenon, though the Met claim they have similar
such problems in Sutton also on the suburban fringes. From my observations,
parts of Bromley have this problem at a lower level, but when you get out of
the immediate public transport catchment area (ie over the river to
Havering/Thurrock, or further out into Kent in Sevenoaks/Tonbridge), the
problem does seem to vanish.

Somehow it's become fashionable for (small numbers of) teenagers to go
around etching all public transport infrastructure from the train windows,
bus windows (upper deck so defaced you can barely see out of the windows)
and bus stops. I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find any bus stop in the
borough that wasn't etched or had graffiti scrawled on it, and this is a
damning indictment of TfL. The problem is out of control I think, but it
would appear to be so difficult to catch these mindless morons in the act
unless you patrol every bus stop and bus every second of the day. Week
after week, poor quality CCTV pictures of kids are published in the local
paper caught on camera defacing busses, but to be truthful these pictures
aren't that great though I do think some get caught.

It is distressing and somewhat embarrassing when visitors come to Bexley for
all this damage to be on show. Similarly you'll see similar problems in
Eltham to the west and Dartford to east. All these areas share bus routes
and indeed rail services. Of course, it wasn't always like this, and I
remember a time when there was virtually no damage to anything around here;
the problem started slowly but nothing was done to combat it; occasional
damage was left unattended to, and the problem grew from there.

Southeasterm (the local rail company) is now finally doing something about
the problem with refurbished trains with sacrificial film which they seem
reasonably efficient at keeping in good condition (though some of the
unrefurbished trains are in a shocking state), but the same can't be said of
the busses.

I may easily be wrong since I have no experience of Bexley (nearest
experience is Bromley) but this sounds more like a crime problem than a
TfL problem. If TfL were to keep replacing bus shelters and fixing up
buses just for them to be vandalised the next day, at some point it
becomes a waste of money if the police and the local council aren't
going to tackle the underlying problem.

Of course, that doesn't explain poor bus reliability; perhaps this is
related to a particular garage. The performance figures for Bexley don't
seem to be out of the ordinary in comparison to some other outer
boroughs like Sutton or Barnet (and in fact seem to have improved
slightly over the last year) but some areas may bear the brunt of
delays. The performance for Bexley is he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/about/pe...k/bexleyq4.pdf
Other boroughs' are available from he
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/about/pe...ugh-report.asp

I can't say I've experienced the same sort of problems you describe in
other outer London boroughs such as Harrow or Barnet. My experience in
my own borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (which has probably seen a lot
more money) is excellent, my main complaint being overcrowding on some
services at the height of the peaks.

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

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

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

I may easily be wrong since I have no experience of Bexley (nearest
experience is Bromley) but this sounds more like a crime problem than a
TfL problem. If TfL were to keep replacing bus shelters and fixing up
buses just for them to be vandalised the next day, at some point it
becomes a waste of money if the police and the local council aren't going
to tackle the underlying problem.

I understand what you're saying, but do you think they'd ever dare adopt
this approach in, say, Westminster? Never in a million years, it's only
because it's Bexley (where Ken doesn't get many votes) and tucked away out
on sight on the Kent borders that things have got this bad.

Our main problem is actually opening a meaningful dialogue with TfL about
it. I can tell you from a local policing PoV, that they're an almost
impossible organisation to deal with. My impression is that they do
whatever they please and don't seem to be answerable to anyone. Maintenance
of bus stops, for example, seems to be at the whim of Adshell or one of
their other contractors, and talking to them about the problem is also next
to impossible.

I know many of you reading this probably think I'm exagerating the
situation, but I can't describe how bad the bus infrastructure is in Bexley.
Over the next few weeks I'll take some pictures of what I mean, post them on
a website somwhere, and you can see for yourselves...

Nick

Ken Livingstone Polluting the Planet
 

In message , Nick
writes
I know many of you reading this probably think I'm exagerating the
situation, but I can't describe how bad the bus infrastructure is in Bexley.
Over the next few weeks I'll take some pictures of what I mean, post them on
a website somwhere, and you can see for yourselves...

Well, for one lone voice I tend to agree to you. TfL seem to have grown
big enough that they regard themselves a law unto themselves (not enough
checks, control and balances?). There were certainly no local
consultation regarding major detrimental changes to bus services and
there seems to have been a lack of forethought about the effects of
their other policies, which might look good on paper but impact current
users (e.g. "free buses of school kids; lets not increase bus service
provision, which is already fully used"). I don't know whether it's
just the Bus department at TfL which seems to be particularly affected
by this "higher than thou" attitude.

Correspondence with TfL over a range of issues (not just the above)
always ends up with them alluding to "service performance criteria",
which they don't reveal so you can't go back and point out where it is
lacking or inconsistent.

I certainly understand that my local council find dealing with TfL Buses
to be similar to talking to a brick wall, despite them funding TfL and
being best placed to comment on local services!

--
Paul G
Typing from Barking