Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Greetings from West Thamesmead.
Which if the Evening Standard gets its way will fade into isolation as a hamlet, disconnected from the rest of London. For those whose geography is a bit rusty, we're about 1.5miles downstream from the Woolwich Ferry, facing the the bend in the river. [Nearest landmark, Belmarsh prison - we're between that and the river] A lot of people living here commute into Central London or Canary Wharf - and many of us want to use the JLE from N Greenwich. Sadly, that involves a local bus [244 or 380], then change to a high frequency service such as 422 or 472 either at Plumstead Garage or Woolwich town centre. All these routes are packed in the rush hour, including lots of mums with buggies who frequently ignore driver requests to fold - and trust me, 3 or 4 buggies on a bus which is already at capacity ain't pretty. Sometimes changing to the 422/472 means letting 2 or 3 full buses pass before you can board. The answer to our prayers is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit - with dedicated busways or bus lanes linking N Greenwich / Charlton / Woolwich / West Thamesmead and Thamesmead. However Andrew Gilligan of the Evening Standard has decided that it is too expensive and "a vanity project" for TfL. See http://tinyurl.com/6qlw8f Yes, maybe there are savings to be found - but the bottom line is: We need a better link to London now! What can we do to counter the Gillgan campaign Ken |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 17 Jun, 06:47, Bearded wrote:
The answer to our prayers is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit - with dedicated busways or bus lanes linking N Greenwich / Charlton / Woolwich / West Thamesmead and Thamesmead. However Andrew Gilligan of the Evening Standard has decided that it is too expensive and "a vanity project" for TfL. See http://tinyurl.com/6qlw8f Yes, maybe there are savings to be found - but the bottom line is: We need a better link to London now! What can we do to counter the Gillgan campaign The problem is, you lot in Thamesmead aren't rich, you don't drive 4x4s or Porsches, you didn't vote Tory and your constituency never will. So for the next four years, you can go and get bent as far as the Mayor (and hence TfL's investment priorities) is concerned... [is this reminder of their true priorities going to stop people voting Tory in the next election? Don't be silly.] -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, John B wrote:
On 17 Jun, 06:47, Bearded wrote: The answer to our prayers is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit - with dedicated busways or bus lanes linking N Greenwich / Charlton / Woolwich / West Thamesmead and Thamesmead. However Andrew Gilligan of the Evening Standard has decided that it is too expensive and "a vanity project" for TfL. See http://tinyurl.com/6qlw8f Yes, maybe there are savings to be found - but the bottom line is: We need a better link to London now! What can we do to counter the Gillgan campaign I doubt you need to do anything. The people who make the decisions aren't going to be influenced by a passing remark in one article from one local hack. The best thing you can do is keep your local authority, MLAs and MPs focused on the mission, and keep an eye out for potential local opposition. The thing which killed the West London Tram was just that - a number of the local hard-of-thinking who didn't like the idea of a lane being taken away from their precious cars. The problem is, you lot in Thamesmead aren't rich, you don't drive 4x4s or Porsches, you didn't vote Tory and your constituency never will. So for the next four years, you can go and get bent as far as the Mayor (and hence TfL's investment priorities) is concerned... [is this reminder of their true priorities going to stop people voting Tory in the next election? Don't be silly.] As you pointed out, Thamesmead mostly didn't vote tory. The people who did are doubtless only too pleased to hear that their rates aren't going to be spent on omnibuses for some half-Kentish plebeians. tom -- Miscellaneous Terrorists: Ducks | Bird Flu | Avian flu | Jimbo Wales | Backstreet Boys | The Al Queda Network | Tesco -- Uncyclopedia |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:33:22 -0700 (PDT), John B
wrote: The problem is, you lot in Thamesmead aren't rich, you don't drive 4x4s or Porsches, you didn't vote Tory and your constituency never will. So for the next four years, you can go and get bent as far as the Mayor (and hence TfL's investment priorities) is concerned... Pathetic. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:47:16 +0100, Bearded
wrote: A lot of people living here commute into Central London or Canary Wharf - and many of us want to use the JLE from N Greenwich. Sadly, that involves a local bus [244 or 380], then change to a high frequency service such as 422 or 472 either at Plumstead Garage or Woolwich town centre. All these routes are packed in the rush hour, including lots of mums with buggies who frequently ignore driver requests to fold - and trust me, 3 or 4 buggies on a bus which is already at capacity ain't pretty. Sometimes changing to the 422/472 means letting 2 or 3 full buses pass before you can board. The answer to our prayers is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit - with dedicated busways or bus lanes linking N Greenwich / Charlton / Woolwich / West Thamesmead and Thamesmead. So the solution to packed buses is... packed buses. Great. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008, James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:47:16 +0100, Bearded wrote: A lot of people living here commute into Central London or Canary Wharf - and many of us want to use the JLE from N Greenwich. Sadly, that involves a local bus [244 or 380], then change to a high frequency service such as 422 or 472 either at Plumstead Garage or Woolwich town centre. All these routes are packed in the rush hour, including lots of mums with buggies who frequently ignore driver requests to fold - and trust me, 3 or 4 buggies on a bus which is already at capacity ain't pretty. Sometimes changing to the 422/472 means letting 2 or 3 full buses pass before you can board. The answer to our prayers is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit - with dedicated busways or bus lanes linking N Greenwich / Charlton / Woolwich / West Thamesmead and Thamesmead. So the solution to packed buses is... packed buses. Great. I think the plan is that the new buses will not be packed, due to being more frequent, due to having dedicated routes. Yes, a tram or railway would be better. But we won't see the money for that any time soon. tom -- VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!! |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:47:16 +0100, Bearded
wrote: Greetings from West Thamesmead. [snip] The answer to our prayers is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit - with dedicated busways or bus lanes linking N Greenwich / Charlton / Woolwich / West Thamesmead and Thamesmead. However Andrew Gilligan of the Evening Standard has decided that it is too expensive and "a vanity project" for TfL. See http://tinyurl.com/6qlw8f Yes, maybe there are savings to be found - but the bottom line is: We need a better link to London now! What can we do to counter the Gillgan campaign I saw that article today. I thought it was so very generous of Mr Gilligan, the Evening Standard and Associated Newspapers to believe that they had been elected and they had any say in what TfL spends its money on. Strangely I don't recall seeing them as candidates on my ballot paper. I was also intrigued that Mr Gilligan has also supplanted the TfL Business Case Handbook by being able to declare on the spot that some projects are simply not worth doing. Still as long we all get "value for money" [1] and a reduced Mayoral precept we'll all be dancing in the streets. [1] that great well defined concept that we all know and love. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "James Farrar" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:33:22 -0700 (PDT), John B wrote: The problem is, you lot in Thamesmead aren't rich, you don't drive 4x4s or Porsches, you didn't vote Tory and your constituency never will. So for the next four years, you can go and get bent as far as the Mayor (and hence TfL's investment priorities) is concerned... Pathetic. Presumably, the answer is to go with the tide and VOTE Tory next time, thereby earning brownie points and interest in "your" scheme (if that's what you believe dictates these things). MaxB |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:47:16 +0100, Bearded wrote: Greetings from West Thamesmead. [snip] The answer to our prayers is the Greenwich Waterfront Transit - with dedicated busways or bus lanes linking N Greenwich / Charlton / Woolwich / West Thamesmead and Thamesmead. However Andrew Gilligan of the Evening Standard has decided that it is too expensive and "a vanity project" for TfL. See http://tinyurl.com/6qlw8f Yes, maybe there are savings to be found - but the bottom line is: We need a better link to London now! What can we do to counter the Gillgan campaign I saw that article today. I thought it was so very generous of Mr Gilligan, the Evening Standard and Associated Newspapers to believe that they had been elected and they had any say in what TfL spends its money on. Strangely I don't recall seeing them as candidates on my ballot paper. Though saying opinions only count if someone gets elected is a rather dangerous road to go down, at least with the current party system. Just as one can argue that the Standard has not been elected, one could say that if you don't like it, it is up to you to produce your own newspaper. It is probably easier than getting elected! -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Corfield wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/6qlw8f I saw that article today. I thought it was so very generous of Mr Gilligan, the Evening Standard and Associated Newspapers to believe that they had been elected and they had any say in what TfL spends its money on. Strangely I don't recall seeing them as candidates on my ballot paper. A curious argument, Paul, since not only do you believe the media should be banned from having opinions, you also believe the man who actually won the election should be banned from having opinions. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
London Campaign for Better Transport | London Transport | |||
Mayor launches new Crossrail campaign | London Transport News | |||
Local paper "Save Our Seats" (Met) campaign | London Transport | |||
Discrimination against central London residents | London Transport | |||
T&G defends London bus drivers against rise in complaints | London Transport |