London SE1 community website

Simon Hughes for Mayor!!!

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 3 of 5
Friday 30 April 2004 12.33pm
IMO Canary Wharf works because on an almost blamk sheet. Lots of high building together can work well together, dotting them in every little nook and cranny that you can amongst a mish mash of other building doesn't (or at least does not always work)

I do think also think that we have yet to see if more than a few people reallly want to live high rise we could be producing a lot of affordable homes that no one wants.

As for buses rm says that if we want good public services we have to pay for them, I say if you do not want people to use their cars you have to provide a good and cheap alternative mode of transport.

Incidently under 11s can now travel free on the buses, great perhaps less people will use the car for school runs oh except hardly anyone knows about this and that includes the bus drivers!
Friday 30 April 2004 1.01pm
'Note that even when occupancy is calculated over a full day, this still gives an average of 14.5 people on every single bus - the equivalent of 10-12 cars-worth.'

IIRC, and no doubt somebody can google an answer, a bus has to have something like 30 people on it in order to become more efficient than cars. It's certainly more than 14.5 - I was astonished by the number.
Friday 30 April 2004 1.25pm
The CC was not the panecea it claimed it was going to be. I know there is a lot of support for it on this forum, but as far as I know there is not another city that is now actively implementing a similar charge, and a petition signed by 29,000 residents and commercial users was handed into the Mayors office yesterday to try and stop the extension of the zone westwards. I supported the mayor in trying to sort out the congestion in central London, I have become extremely critical of the Mayor because the continuous propoganda pushed out in favour of the CC by Transport for London, seems to be a distortion of the truth for political reasons, rather than a real investigation into the benefits or otherwise of a unique experiment.

I also feel that the legal challenges the Mayor made with our money to prevent the private companies taking over part of the London Undergrounds work was more to do with a deep seated political belief in public ownership rather than a pragmatic approach to give us the best possible tube system. And since London Underground vies with The Royal Mail for The Crown for what can go wrong with companies in public ownership, I feel it showed a fundamental blindness to reality caused perhaps by a dogmatic idealism ( and before I'm shouted down, theres nothing wrong with idealism when imposed on a simplistic world, but London is not so simple)

And I also agree with Maurits, - Ken Livingstone has rejoined a Labour Party that used deception to get support for a war with Iraq. No chance of support from me there then.
Friday 30 April 2004 1.36pm
because our privatised train network is fantastic.
Friday 30 April 2004 1.40pm
<<a bus has to have something like 30 people on it in order to become more efficient than cars.>>

I imagine "efficient" here is based on emissions. Surely it can't be a claim that it's better in terms of road congestion?

I think that the interesting point is the one Luke made above (current policy is to make the buses an attractive option to people who currently don't use them). Whilst this shouldn't be some sort of charter for running scores of empty buses round London for the next 5 years, if we are following such a policy (and I would support it because I think London can't support everyone driving cars and so good mass transport must be a priority) then there has to be a stage on the way where the buses are there but the potential passengers haven't started using them yet.

Maybe we have to work harder to make buses an attractive option, but we shouldn't stop working to do that because IMO if we don't get transport sorted then London will get a lot worse to live in and to visit.

...there's plenty more c**** in the cup.
Friday 30 April 2004 2.09pm
Right Thermales. Now remember the bright days of the new millennium.
Friday 30 April 2004 2.21pm
They should never have got rid of the trams.
Saturday 1 May 2004 9.17am
I know Simon's a nice bloke: I've a lot of time for him. But if you've tangled with him on a substantive issue, you will have discovered he ain't no pussy-cat either. He's ok for me...
Sunday 2 May 2004 1.35am
Enough about Hughsey. What about Vauxhall's Kate. Is there any truth in the rumour - now heard from more than one source - that she is destined for the Countryside Agency and thus about to vacate a much sought after Labour seat........

Linked to this is are tales that Vauxhall Labour have become worried about the 'Bermondsey' phenominum spreading west, particularly as the Lib Dems did well in North Lambeth in the last Council elections and have a strong candidate for the general election. Hence a call for new blood.

All of this comes from second hand sources.....suspect Vauxhall Labour wouldn't have me as a member even if I wanted to join.....but I do like a bit of gossip!
Tuesday 4 May 2004 12.31pm
Sorry if I'm being dense but what exactly is the "Bermondsey phenomenon?

&quot;I knew I was cured&quot;
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 3 of 5

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions