On 12 Nov, 10:18, John B wrote:
On 12 Nov, 11:02, Boltar wrote:

Not to mention a complete waste of time and money. What exactly is the
difference between TfL and LT apart from the name? Nothing. Just
another pointless rebranding exercise that threw away 70 odd years of
history.

TfL's embrace of the roundel is indicative of an organisation that has
done anything but throw away it's history.


No - LT was an organisation firmly steeped in running Tube trains and
buses, whereas TfL is an organisation which also manages roads, rail
across London, trams/boats/etc and the strategic planning of London's
transport needs. The rebranding is essential to convey that it's no
longer the same company doing the same thing...

I'm minded to agree, though I can also see that the new organisation
could perhaps have taken on the name 'London Transport'. But you're
absolutely right to say that TfL is about so much more than LT was -
and LT certainly had something of a parochial attitude.

Incidentally before anyone blames this all on Mr Livingstone I don't
think the 'Transport for London' name had anything to do with him - it
was a decision made before the first Mayoral election, presumably by
the GLA civil service implementation team (or whatever they were
called), and thus presumably approved by the then Minister for London.