TFL, National Disaster

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2
Thursday 9 July 2009 8.59am
So many of the subjects which come up on the Forum relate to the uselessness of TFL. WHAT, if anything, can anyone do about the preposterous inefficiency and foot dragging of TFL? I saw the MD on SouthEast News last night frankly refusing to answer the question as to why all the businesses on the routes of TFL works are not getting any compensation while their shops/studios/whatever are isolated and inaccessible because of the over runs of TFL projects.

WHO, in the end, has any jurisdiction over TFL? The Mayor? The Prime Minister? It seems that TFL is a law unto itself and no one can say boo to it. Where does this particular buck stop?
Thursday 9 July 2009 12.12pm
The Mayor

TfL has to be the biggest farce about these days. They are meant to run transpodt in London for the benefit of ALL LONDONERS not just their preffered groups, and The Mayor should ensure that they do this or sack the people who are failing to do so.
Thursday 9 July 2009 1.20pm
They do have a wonderful journey planner function on their website, though. Check out the wizard on the pdf maps once you've established a route.

http://journeyplanner.tfl.gov.uk/user/XSLT_TRIP_REQUEST2?language=en
Thursday 9 July 2009 1.25pm
I don't see why they should get compensation? On that logic, if a business was to benefit from being near a station should a proportion of their profits go back to TFL?
Thursday 9 July 2009 2.45pm
Jonathan K wrote:
I don't see why they should get compensation? On that logic, if a business was to benefit from being near a station should a proportion of their profits go back to TFL?
Business leases for high-footfall areas (i.e. near a station) will recognise those benefits, and will be let at higher rates than if they weren't near a station.

So, if I was paying extra because of the supposed high volumes of passing trade, only to find that TfL works were preventing that trade getting to my shop, then, yes, I would want some sort of compensation.

...if you press it, they will come.
Thursday 9 July 2009 3.56pm
Ivanhoe wrote:
Jonathan K wrote:
I don't see why they should get compensation? On that logic, if a business was to benefit from being near a station should a proportion of their profits go back to TFL?
Business leases for high-footfall areas (i.e. near a station) will recognise those benefits, and will be let at higher rates than if they weren't near a station.

So, if I was paying extra because of the supposed high volumes of passing trade, only to find that TfL works were preventing that trade getting to my shop, then, yes, I would want some sort of compensation.

If the lease specified such a situation then yes. But otherwise?

I don't agree that taxpayers should pay for the effects of reduced footfall for 2 days a week due to works that are going to lead to greater footfall, as well as wider benefits for the rest of us.
Thursday 9 July 2009 5.40pm
A lease would never specify in the way you mention. All I'm saying is that leases in busy areas are more expensive than those in not-so-busy areas. Ergo, lessees on stations pay more than those on backroads.

And if the station becomes busier, as you mention, then leases go up again.

It's just supply and demand.

So, again, yes: if I was paying rent based on a lot of footfall, and then someone acted to prevent that footfall, I wouldn't see it as illogical that I sought compensation for the loss of footfall.

Try the same argument, but substitute rent payments for your salary (i.e. imagine you've been given a job in one of these shops, but you're now facing being laid off because there aren't enough customers to pay your wages).

...if you press it, they will come.
Thursday 9 July 2009 10.04pm
I find it deliciously ironic that TFL are moving to an office on the Greenwich Peninsula soon, so will have to endure the pain and suffering of the Jubilee Line on a daily basis...

Or perhaps they'll only move there once the engineering work is finally complete. Or perpahps they'll get their own boat.
Thursday 9 July 2009 10.31pm
MentalDental wrote:
I find it deliciously ironic that TFL are moving to an office on the Greenwich Peninsula soon, so will have to endure the pain and suffering of the Jubilee Line on a daily basis...
Or perhaps they'll only move there once the engineering work is finally complete. Or perpahps they'll get their own boat.

Absolute rubbish. Surface Transport moved to Southwark last year (vacating a large number of different offices in Victoria) and have a long term lease on that building. They are already on the Jubilee and are not moving.

Its a bit unfair to pick on TfL having to provide compensation for their works. What about Thames Water, EDF, British Gas, Councils etc? They are just as bad and with the utility suppliers, often leave the road or pavement absolutely ruined rather than provide any improvements to the area.
Friday 10 July 2009 8.04am
I'm astonished at the coochy coo attitude of some of the posters. TFL has held the whole Elephant Regeneration Scheme single handed (I mention this since it concerns the readers of this Forum). My introduction to this thread was not discuss TFL's compensation policies, but the refusal of the CEO to answer questions directly. TFL is cumbersome, seemingly over staffed and over funded, allowing for interminable "discussions" "reviews" "consultations" or whatever you like to call treading water and other delaying tactics. THAT's what I'm on about!
Pages:  1 2 Next
Current: 1 of 2

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from: