In message .com,
writes
I thought it was the British Transport *Officers* Guild. Seems LUL
didn't even know who they were talking too. Btw it was it bit
misleading for LU to say TSSA and BTOG had accepted the deal leaving
ASLEF and RMT out in the cold, thus implying 50% of the workforce were
in agreement. Does anyone actually know a member of BTOG? Isn't it
just the Chairman and his dog? Plus TSSA would never dare stand up to
TfL management, or at least haven't done in living memory. Also the
later running affects all members of LU's operating staff yet only
drivers were offered the extra days off. If the latter are the only
people involved, as LU seems to suggest, they why have the rest of
LU's staff been denied a pay rise since April 2005!?

Station and other staff had already agreed to later working with their
2005 pay award. Nothing was added for drivers at that time hence the
retention of the existing framework agreements for them. The 3 days
leave is now an attempt to resolve this. The issue I personally have is
LUL trying to force through changes to long discussed and established
agreements on the back of the 2006 pay agreement. These matters should
have been discussed separately IMO. Bearing in mind that taking odd
days leave now is difficult enough for us, as they never seem to have
enough cover to let us have any day off requested, these days would also
be a struggle to take and personally, I would have just preferred the
money - which then opens a whole other bag of worms.

For me, I don't care much if I work an extra half hour on odd nights or
not, after all I was one of those to volunteer to work through the night
NYE. As a passenger, though I would much prefer that service is
provided for those who need to get to work and/or airports and the like,
than a later service which is mainly to benefit those who are travelling
optionally and could quite easily, like I do, get a night bus home.
There are places covered by the tube that don't have a night bus, but
I'm sure it would be much cheaper and easier to provide service to these
extra bits.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:





On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:

On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:

It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.

(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)

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

John's right here, and MIG is talking border-line nonsence. The
consultation was very clear that the time would be shifted; that
services would start later on Saturday morning. This was because the
first consultation, where services would run an hour later on Friday
and Saturday, produced a result in favour of the change but with a
significant majority worrying about, particulalry, the Sunday morning
service starting an hour later - hence the change to half and hour
later on Friday and Saturday nights, and the hour later start only
occuring on Saturday morning.

The consultation was incredibly fair and even handed, and went to
considerable lengths to ensure both sides of the argument were
presented and that people could respond

I took part in the consultation. The questions were on the lines of
"if they ran later, would you be likely to use them?". "how often
would you be likely to use them?" etc.

The fact that I would use them and would probably use them more often
than early morning services was not actually asking my opinion about
whether I thought the late night services were more important than
retaining the early morning ones.

I would use them if they were there, but I don't particularly mind
using a bus if I stay out later: I'm only going to bed after all. I
do mind if there's no early service on the less frequent occasions
when I really need it for something urgent.

There was opportunity to express general comments and concerns (which
I did), but any objective figures were to do with whether or not one
would use the services if they were there. You cannot possibly deduce
whether people were in favour of the change.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are we talking about the same consultation - see page four of this
PDF:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/initiative...0documents.pdf

And I quote, question 4A: "Do you support or oppose running the
Underground an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, if that means
starting the Underground an hour later on Saturday and Sunday
mornings?"

Could that be any clearer? I think you're being unfair here, MIG, for
no good reason.

On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:





On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:

On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:

On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:

It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.

(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)

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

John's right here, and MIG is talking border-line nonsence. The
consultation was very clear that the time would be shifted; that
services would start later on Saturday morning. This was because the
first consultation, where services would run an hour later on Friday
and Saturday, produced a result in favour of the change but with a
significant majority worrying about, particulalry, the Sunday morning
service starting an hour later - hence the change to half and hour
later on Friday and Saturday nights, and the hour later start only
occuring on Saturday morning.

The consultation was incredibly fair and even handed, and went to
considerable lengths to ensure both sides of the argument were
presented and that people could respond

I took part in the consultation. The questions were on the lines of
"if they ran later, would you be likely to use them?". "how often
would you be likely to use them?" etc.

The fact that I would use them and would probably use them more often
than early morning services was not actually asking my opinion about
whether I thought the late night services were more important than
retaining the early morning ones.

I would use them if they were there, but I don't particularly mind
using a bus if I stay out later: I'm only going to bed after all. I
do mind if there's no early service on the less frequent occasions
when I really need it for something urgent.

There was opportunity to express general comments and concerns (which
I did), but any objective figures were to do with whether or not one
would use the services if they were there. You cannot possibly deduce
whether people were in favour of the change.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are we talking about the same consultation - see page four of this
PDF:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/initiative...ater/pdf/Consu...

And I quote, question 4A: "Do you support or oppose running the
Underground an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, if that means
starting the Underground an hour later on Saturday and Sunday
mornings?"

Could that be any clearer? I think you're being unfair here, MIG, for
no good reason.


I don't remember that precise question in what I completed; sorry if I
missed it.

Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given
as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people
need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts.

I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL
has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to
take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do
a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent
buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc.

MIG wrote:

I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority.

I've heard this sort of thing before but it's hard for me to understand.
People work late hours as well as early.

TfL has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to
take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do
a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent
buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc.

That is not a zero-sum game in the same way. It is possible for TfL to
make all of their buses accessible. It's not possible for them to, say,
make all of the tube stations accessible, and there's been no move to
close the ones that aren't.
--
Michael Hoffman

On 7 Feb, 16:35, "MIG" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote:



On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:

On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:

On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:

On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:

It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.

Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

A bit like being offered gravy and then having your meat taken away.

Not really. The public consultation specifically offered the plan
that's just been cancelled, and found that it was overwhelmingly more
popular than the status quo.

(and if any low-paid workers are actually using the Tube early on a
Saturday or Sunday morning, they're throwing their money away - buses
would be just as effective given the absence of traffic...)

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

John's right here, and MIG is talking border-line nonsence. The
consultation was very clear that the time would be shifted; that
services would start later on Saturday morning. This was because the
first consultation, where services would run an hour later on Friday
and Saturday, produced a result in favour of the change but with a
significant majority worrying about, particulalry, the Sunday morning
service starting an hour later - hence the change to half and hour
later on Friday and Saturday nights, and the hour later start only
occuring on Saturday morning.

The consultation was incredibly fair and even handed, and went to
considerable lengths to ensure both sides of the argument were
presented and that people could respond

I took part in the consultation. The questions were on the lines of
"if they ran later, would you be likely to use them?". "how often
would you be likely to use them?" etc.

The fact that I would use them and would probably use them more often
than early morning services was not actually asking my opinion about
whether I thought the late night services were more important than
retaining the early morning ones.

I would use them if they were there, but I don't particularly mind
using a bus if I stay out later: I'm only going to bed after all. I
do mind if there's no early service on the less frequent occasions
when I really need it for something urgent.

There was opportunity to express general comments and concerns (which
I did), but any objective figures were to do with whether or not one
would use the services if they were there. You cannot possibly deduce
whether people were in favour of the change.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are we talking about the same consultation - see page four of this
PDF:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/initiative...ater/pdf/Consu...

And I quote, question 4A: "Do you support or oppose running the
Underground an hour later on Friday and Saturday nights, if that means
starting the Underground an hour later on Saturday and Sunday
mornings?"

Could that be any clearer? I think you're being unfair here, MIG, for
no good reason.

I don't remember that precise question in what I completed; sorry if I
missed it.

Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given
as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people
need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts.

I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL
has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to
take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do
a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent
buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc.

Not to stretch this out too far, but this is still not a fair critque
consultation. The short leaflet said "We are proposing to start trains
one hour later and finish them one hour later: first trains would
arrive at Central London stations at around 7am on Saturdays and
8:30am on Sundays; last trains would depart from the West End on
Friday and Saturday nights at around 1:30am." - again, this is far
from ambiguous, and is on the page before the questions start. Just in
case one couldn't be bothered to read that, question 3A then said "Do
you ever travel before 7:00 am on Saturday or 8:30 am on Sunday?", re-
enforcing the fact, along with the previously quoted question 4A, that
this wasn't an extension of hours, merely a re-allocation.

And before you get into what looks like an anti-PC diatribe it's worth
realising that the reason the original proposal (runs an hour later on
Friday and Sat nights, starts an hour later Sat and Sun morning) was
rejected, despite a majority being in favour, was *because it would
disadvantage a minority*. The proposal was then changed so that Sunday
hours would be unaltered, and the tube would run half an hour later on
Friday and Saturday nights, while starting an hour later on Sat
morning. Two thirds of those disadvantaged by the original scheme
would now not be disadvantaged by the revised scheme - TfL attempted
to minimise the impact on an even smaller minority while providing a
service requested by the majority.

I take issue with your accessibility point - partly because low-floor
buses benefit everyone who board buses, partly because in the long-run
we would be forced by law to change to low floor vehicles anyway but
mostly because there's a large difference between not being able to
use public transport at all (before low-floor buses a person using a
wheelchair would have little chance with the tube and no chance with
buses) and havign to switch from tube to buses (which will be the case
for those disadvantage by the hour-later start on Saturday mornings.
To further complicate things, I'm almost certain London Buses have, in
the past, conducted willingness-to-pay surveys with low-floor buses
one of the features that people were asked to pair off with others to
determine the customer benefit of bus alterations.

Tom

I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL
has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to
take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do
a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent
buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc.

I never understand why it is always assumed that low paid people don't
also need to travel home late at the weekend - bar staff, restaurant
staff, thatre/cinema staff etc. I don't think it's as simple as
leisure usage (Sat Night) vs worker usage (Sun Morning), which it is
often portrayed as being.

lots of stuff cut


I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism. TfL
has a very different attitude to disabled access etc, where it has to
take a clear stand on providing for minorities. They wouldn't dare do
a consultation asking whether most people would favour more frequent
buses if that meant that most weren't accessible etc.

Not to stretch this out too far, but this is still not a fair critque
consultation. The short leaflet said "We are proposing to start trains
one hour later and finish them one hour later: first trains would
arrive at Central London stations at around 7am on Saturdays and
8:30am on Sundays; last trains would depart from the West End on
Friday and Saturday nights at around 1:30am." - again, this is far
from ambiguous, and is on the page before the questions start. Just in
case one couldn't be bothered to read that, question 3A then said "Do
you ever travel before 7:00 am on Saturday or 8:30 am on Sunday?", re-
enforcing the fact, along with the previously quoted question 4A, that
this wasn't an extension of hours, merely a re-allocation.

And before you get into what looks like an anti-PC diatribe it's worth
realising that the reason the original proposal (runs an hour later on
Friday and Sat nights, starts an hour later Sat and Sun morning) was
rejected, despite a majority being in favour, was *because it would
disadvantage a minority*. The proposal was then changed so that Sunday
hours would be unaltered, and the tube would run half an hour later on
Friday and Saturday nights, while starting an hour later on Sat
morning. Two thirds of those disadvantaged by the original scheme
would now not be disadvantaged by the revised scheme - TfL attempted
to minimise the impact on an even smaller minority while providing a
service requested by the majority.

I take issue with your accessibility point - partly because low-floor
buses benefit everyone who board buses, partly because in the long-run
we would be forced by law to change to low floor vehicles anyway but
mostly because there's a large difference between not being able to
use public transport at all (before low-floor buses a person using a
wheelchair would have little chance with the tube and no chance with
buses) and havign to switch from tube to buses (which will be the case
for those disadvantage by the hour-later start on Saturday mornings.
To further complicate things, I'm almost certain London Buses have, in
the past, conducted willingness-to-pay surveys with low-floor buses
one of the features that people were asked to pair off with others to
determine the customer benefit of bus alterations.

Tom


Possibly a bit of a misunderstanding here. I wasn't being anti PC. I
think all buses and stations should be accessible and that there
should be no tradeoff.

I accept that I've misremembered parts of the consultation (although I
still question whether the proposal should ever have been made), but
there's something bugging me about TfL's inconsistent attitude to
majorities and minorities.

It seems that when they are required to, as with disabled access, they
correctly ensure that the minority is provided for. There are strict
rules about ensuring that buses must have their ramps in working
order. I am not sure what the latest decision is, but there was a
time when it was said that bus must be taken out of service rather
than run without a working ramp. On one hand this would disadvantage
a majority, who wouldn't get any bus at all, but without such a rule,
operators would probably not bother to fix them in a hurry.

But on other issues their attitude is totally different. I've
witnessed open meetings with TfL where it's been pointed out that the
introduction of cashless buses may leave tourists and occasional
visitors to London standing in the rain because they didn't get their
ticket in advance. The response has been that it makes bus travel
easier for 80% of users, so it's just tough luck for the rest. (I've
actually seen someone left in the rain at about 0200 by a night bus
driver because they couldn't make the machine work.)

And look at how Tourists and occasional visitors can lose out with
Oyster.

Either attitude can have arguments in favour of it, but I'm saying
that it's inconsistent in balancing the ease of the majority and the
needs of a minority. I suggest that the late Undeground proposal is
more like the latter of the scenarios above, and it's interesting that
it was the users who, from what you say, seem to have been more
considerate of the public service aspect.

MIG wrote:
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:





On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:
It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.
Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

Which you now know was not the case.


Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given
as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people
need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts.

Indeed, so they would not be affected then would they.

If you answered the consultation as a self-appointed spokesman for
others then your comments would rightly be ignored. Consultations do not
work like that.

I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism.

Populisms - sound a bit like soundbites. The tube is a massively
expensive network that should be used to it full - the minority being
well catered for too.

Okay you have some problem with the tube being run later, it does not
affect you, you respond to consultations when it does not affect you and
you reinvent history. Why?

Station and other staff had already agreed to later working with their
2005 pay award. Nothing was added for drivers at that time hence the
retention of the existing framework agreements for them. The 3 days
leave is now an attempt to resolve this. The issue I personally have is
LUL trying to force through changes to long discussed and established
agreements on the back of the 2006 pay agreement. These matters should
have been discussed separately IMO.

Absolutely! And why should the rest of us have our pay award delayed
by management trying to get an agreement for drivers? As you say
station staff already have an agreement in place for later working,
and for those of us in service control (yes we're a much smaller group
of staff than stations or trains but you won't get much of a service
without us!) our shift times won't actually be affected so there is no
need for new agreements (AFAIK).

On Feb 7, 8:25 pm, stevo wrote:
MIG wrote:
On 7 Feb, 16:02, "Tom Page" wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, "MIG" wrote:

On 7 Feb, 10:11, "Tom Page" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 10:02, "John B" wrote:
On 7 Feb, 08:34, "MIG" wrote:
It seems to me like the right thing for the wrong reason. I am not
sure how popular it really was. People said that like it to run
later, and that was all.
Then they were told "OK, you can have the extra service that makes it
slightly easier to get home after a night out. By the way, to give
you that we're going to take away the much more important morning
service you depend on to get to the airport or that many low-paid
workers use to get to work."

Which you now know was not the case.

Perhaps if specific start and finish times had been stated (or given
as options) it would have given a clearer picture of what people
need? Many probably didn't know what time it normally starts.

Indeed, so they would not be affected then would they.

If you answered the consultation as a self-appointed spokesman for
others then your comments would rightly be ignored. Consultations do not
work like that.

I still question whether the leisure of the majority should override
the crucial needs of the minority. Seems a bit like populism.

Populisms - sound a bit like soundbites. The tube is a massively
expensive network that should be used to it full - the minority being
well catered for too.

Okay you have some problem with the tube being run later, it does not
affect you, you respond to consultations when it does not affect you and
you reinvent history. Why


I said that I would probably use it a number of times if it ran late,
but I don't think it's important for me to be able to do so, and I
would most likely be heading home, with no specific train/plane to
catch or job to get to, so slower bus alternatives would be fine (in
fact, buses come into their own at night when the traffic is less).

I would use if less often if it ran early, but when I do it is likely
to be very important and time-constrained.

Therefore, for my own personal travel, I would rather that it didn't
start later on Saturday mornings, whatever the cost in terms of
getting home on Friday. That's how it affects me.