Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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.

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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.

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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!!

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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!

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

"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

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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

Greenwich Waterfront Transit - campaign against
 

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.