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

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

"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

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

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!)

"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

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/