|
|
Post by Chris W on Sept 22, 2014 22:17:11 GMT
Ok... after a few posts recently, I've decided to come out of the closet... I'm a Guardian reader !!! There, that's said  ! I don't know haw many reader/visitors are also of my persuasion, however has anyone raised an eyebrow to this Guardian piece today: Looming London transport crisis 'risks sparking riots', says TfL chiefIn it, Sir Peter Hendy, raises some important points re the inflation being felt by everyday users/commuters.... combined by overcrowding, lack of alternatives etc. etc. However I can't help feel that the ultimate finger is being pointed at Government over lack of funding and Sir Peter's frustration of lack of investment and the reliance of the commuter to self-fund improvements. Whilst that can be achieved to a certain extent, it largely depends of TfL taking a hefty hit should it seek funding commercially, which in turn it will need to pass onto the commuter further inflating prices and anger/resentment... especially when the odd bit of concrete comes loose from a sub-surface tunnel roof or a station is closed due to over-crowding. The Randomly London blog post gives a good look as to the potential look of London's transport network in 2050. Perhaps it is time for a funding rethink before demand further outstrips supply ?? Thoughts  |
|
|
|
Post by Indefatigable on Sept 22, 2014 22:45:12 GMT
I shall also come out the closet and say I read the Rodong Sinmun and the The Pyongyang Times... So you are not alone in odd reading choices.
That being said, speaking as someone not in London I think it should continue to get public funding and still get commercial funding in a limited way
If they want to increase the amount of money, why not run some trips out of Charing X and back via a raffle and put the money into the kitty? £50,000 a ticket from a business or rich person on a 1996 stock makes £93,800,000 - monetary shortfall problem solved!
From a point of over crowding, the station I fear when trying to get on or off is Oxford Circus, but there is not much they can do for most stations as when they open the barriers again people surge through - causing the same problem again.
I have to agree that it looks as if CG is getting the lion's share of the blame for not investing, and maybe that is partially correct. However, there are a lot of things that need the money more then the tube. Would you, for example, like to explain to little Timmy why his life saving cancer treatment op was cancelled so the money could be spent on improving the track at Kings Cross?
Little danger of rioting, but I can foresee some massive arguments coming up
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 23, 2014 0:02:42 GMT
I think Sir Peter, if quoted accurately, has gone a bit too far by citing riots as a possibility. The Brits tend not to riot about things like fares - they grumble and moan instead.
I think there are several issues "in play".
- massive cuts to the revenue grant imperil TfL's ability to run the volume of service that London needs. This is felt most strongly on the bus network where patronage growth has continued almost unabated but capacity growth has lagged behind and is forecast to continue to do so for years to come. That is not sustainable for the most flexible public vehicular mode in London. It's just a shame that it has take 6 years for Sir Peter to say current policies don't work for bus passengers. It's even worse that we have a Mayor who is not really interested in buses as a mode.
- the revenue grant cuts make it impossible for TfL to expand things like Overground service levels. It also means that rail modes are being pushed to be "profitable" at an operating level so as to part fund some investment and also, for Crossrail, to generate a surplus to repay part of the borrowing. By 2020 the LU and Rail surplus will be hundreds of millions of pounds. Sir Peter must know that that is not really sustainable long term if we want / need to expand service volume on all modes and add things like the Night Tube.
- the forecast demand for travel means all the currently planned schemes will see capacity used up within a short period. Therefore to cater for the growth you need long programme of funded schemes to create a pipeline of work to keep specialist skills busy and to maintain a supply chain which gives affordable prices for volume purchases.
- changes to population and the housing / welfare issues means there is a shift in population. Local councillors noted earlier this year that lower paid people are being booted out of inner London boroughs to outer areas. This creates changes in travel patterns - especially on buses. It means you lose demand in well provided for inner areas which usually have high service levels to outer areas where service level / capacity is lower. The very high fares on the rail network at peak times for longer trips means some people cannot afford to travel so they have to go by bus and may face three or four changes. This is time inefficient for the individuals but is suboptimal for TfL because rail is better at shifting high volumes. Adding bus capacity can be done quickly but is expensive because the subsidy goes up. This gets us back to the problems of no budget for such expansion unless policies change. Given the solution to all this mess is more housing and lots of it plus reform to rents / welfare then we are talking 8-10 years before anything of any substance happens. The transport network has to somehow cope for those 8-10 years and current policies will not do it.
- the fares issue is a bit odd. Only recently Sir Peter was defending the TfL budget position of RPI+1% being necessary to keep funding investment. This was when the RPI only increase was announced by the Mayor / Chancellor. He was careful to say fares are a matter for the Mayor but I can't really see why he seems to have changed his mind. He has been repeatedly critical of any demands for fare freezes or fare cuts when these have been raised by London Assembly members.
In broad terms Sir Peter is in "lobby mode" for the Party Conferences. That's understandable given the general election next year and Boris's departure in 2016. There is a lot at stake and poor decision making by the politicians could land London will a massive mess to try to handle even with a lot of positive things happening between now and 2019. Beyond that who knows what will happen?
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 23, 2014 6:23:24 GMT
I think Sir Peter, if quoted accurately, has gone a bit too far by citing riots as a possibility. The Brits tend not to riot about things like fares - I don't think Hendy was suggesting a direct link: more the civil unrest triggered by social deprivation caused by unemployment, exacerbated by it being impossible to get work within an affordable commuting distance (what is an affordable distance is in inverse proportion to the fares) |
|
|
|
Post by sawb on Sept 23, 2014 7:44:50 GMT
The problem here is that we have both Boris and Central Government wanting to fund expensive vanity projects, Boris with cycling superhighways that will never happen and the emirates air line that nearly everyone seems to agree on is only a temporary fix, and HS2 on the Central Government side that I think most people agree is nothing but a white elephant even now.
No tax payer funding for transport = high fares = low usage = higher fares = even lower usage...and so on!
|
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Sept 23, 2014 10:03:12 GMT
Historically, a considerable number of poor people (probably over 250,000) were decanted from their living 'accomodation'(not just from their place of work) when the main line termini were built. As a result, in 1877, Parliament had to pass legislation making the railway companies rehouse the poor AND offer cheap fares in the form of workmen's tickets-some companies only put a cursory one or two on at sort of 04:45 times, others like the original GER through to Walthamstow ran 6 or 7 an hour for 3 hours. In the meantime, most of London's middle-class and artisan working population had decanted from the Square Mile to Inner London and beyond towards what was then Metropolitan Kent etc. So, it's all happened before & no riots. Let's hope, though, people actually use Crossrail, and not just the suits to Canary Wharf. Otherwise, people might just start to question what is going on. I've no doubt this being Party Conference, instead of this type of Party, time:  journos everywhere will be striving to pluck at the heartstrings of their readers, in their own inimitable fashion. We should bear in mind, to be fair, there are 73 constituencies in Greater London, and quite probably over 100 if you include those where 10% or more of workers travel to London as well. So, whatever the answer is, it may indeed matter next May. And I usually read---------------- without my reading glasses-pure vanity, I'm afraid! |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Sept 23, 2014 12:56:03 GMT
Historically, a considerable number of poor people (probably over 250,000) were decanted from their living 'accomodation'(not just from their place of work) when the main line termini were built. As a result, in 1877, Parliament had to pass legislation making the railway companies rehouse the poor AND offer cheap fares in the form of workmen's tickets-some companies only put a cursory one or two on at sort of 04:45 times, others like the original GER through to Walthamstow ran 6 or 7 an hour for 3 hours. In the meantime, most of London's middle-class and artisan working population had decanted from the Square Mile to Inner London and beyond towards what was then Metropolitan Kent etc. So, it's all happened before & no riots. Let's hope, though, people actually use Crossrail, and not just the suits to Canary Wharf. Otherwise, people might just start to question what is going on. I've no doubt this being Party Conference, instead of this type of Party, time: journos everywhere will be striving to pluck at the heartstrings of their readers, in their own inimitable fashion. We should bear in mind, to be fair, there are 73 constituencies in Greater London, and quite probably over 100 if you include those where 10% or more of workers travel to London as well. So, whatever the answer is, it may indeed matter next May. And I usually read---------------- without my reading glasses-pure vanity, I'm afraid! It wasn't 1877. It was the Great Eastern Railway (Metropolitan Station and Railways) Act 1864. Very few of the people actually displaced from the slums of Shoreditch or Norton Folgate actually moved to Walthamstow - they just made the slums that were left even more overcrowded. But rather better off clerks and artisans did use the 2d and half-fare trains. The difference now is that the rich have colonised working-class suburbs such as Lambeth and Hackney, so the poor are finding cheaper rented accommodation in the more outlying suburbs. And those who want to buy are having to find houses and flats in such places as the Hainault and Debden estates, and if they work in Inner London, pay zone 5-6 fares... |
|
|
|
Post by whistlekiller2000 on Sept 23, 2014 15:30:25 GMT
The problem is, and I've said this before, no matter what they have to spend on new hardware and software and no matter how many new lines or extensions to existing lines they build I can't see how they'll ever keep up with the population expansion in the London area which is already rising faster than the transport systems can accommodate. I include car, bus, tram and train in this equally.
A better approach would be to encourage business and industry to move elsewhere. I don't pretend to have any solution on how this can be achieved but unless somebody else does, I suspect 2050 will be far worse for gridlock in London than we can ever conceive right now, regardless of what they're planning in these documents - and even taking into account all the fanciful lists of proposed stations currently available in RIPAS. It'll be like a sticking plaster over a 12 inch sword wound. Enough to stop a bit of bleeding, but not much and not for very long.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724 
|
Post by class411 on Sept 23, 2014 16:56:55 GMT
People seem to be oddly lemming like where lack of capacity and expense is concerned.
The price of petrol rises and rises, overcrowding on the roads gets worse and worse and journey times get longer and longer.
So what does the general population do?
Well, they buy ever more cars and make ever more journeys, of course
London get more and more crowded. The roads and trains get ever more congested and housing gets ever more unaffordable.
So what do people do?
Well, the move to London, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by melikepie on Sept 23, 2014 18:28:17 GMT
I would just say in this thread that whilst people are complaining about expensive fares and lack of transport in London, let me point out that it is much better in London than the rest of the country and indeed many towns. Fares in London are £1.45 flat fare whereas e.g. Hertfordshire they could be as much as £6 return. I am not saying things are cheap or not a problem, I am just saying look at other perspectives.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Sept 23, 2014 21:05:13 GMT
Very few of the people actually displaced from the slums of Shoreditch or Norton Folgate actually moved to Walthamstow - they just made the slums that were left even more overcrowded. This was largely because compensation was paid not to the people who lived in the slums removed by the railway, but to their landlords |
|
!
