I also don't think posting insulting comments then deleting them, but only after a fair few people have had a chance to look at them first is exactly in the spirit of "peace and fair play."

You wish

I'm going to take a wild stab here, it was probably pretty offensive. I didn't click on it in the first place and I'm increasingly glad I didn't.

Oh well. I guess you have to live in a place with no mass transit at all to appreciate London's service. I'm sure it could be improved and cheaper, but I live in KLF's dream world of all cars and it. Sucks.

It's totally offensive. No doubt about it!

Joiniecrumpet.Thats exactally what i've been saying that about the immigration situation in London for the last few years.Would you be in favour of polices that disperse ethic communities around Britain,as you are in favour of dispersing the business community around Britain.How about offering immigrants increased income support or a higher minimum wage if they live in rural areas.As a rural resident,would you be in favour of such a policy.

whoa there girls and boys... the off topic police are on their way!

I thought I heard alarms going off..... Who called the cops?

[OT]

one more response, Uncle Nev, and then i'm pulling my head in. KLF, your post deliberately misunderstands what I'm saying. Firstly, there already are immigrants in other cities - London is hardly the only urban landscape in Britain affected by immigration; secondly, if the industry is dispersed and regional economies become stronger, it is likely that new immigrants will indeed follow the money - just like everybody else. Thirdly, your suggestion about immigrants living in rural areas is completely irrelevant to this issue, and just a cheap shot. And FYI, the lowest income area in Britain, and one of the lowest in Europe, isn't in one of your hard-done-by cities where immigrants have done everyone out of their jobs and homes - it's Cumbria.

[/OT]

You say that if jobs were dispersed, immigrants would follow those jobs ? Didn't you say yesterday that businesses leaving London would create MORE jobs for the lower paid and immigrants IN London (as more low-brow companies take over office space vacated by blue chip companies).

Also,its not a cheap shot to suggest that the one place that doesn't have its fair share of immigrants is rural areas. So how about offering big incentives(to both business and immigrants) and moving 'low brow' factories and companies currently in London, to rural areas.That way you would disperse some of the 'London business' overcrowding and immigrants could follow those jobs and populate those rural areas.Job done.Two bird's with one stone and all that.You would ease business and immigataion congestion in London by offering both parties big benifits to rellocate to currently under populated rural areas. (under populated in regard to both business and people).

Surely you couldn't argue with that ???

Sorry Joanie - I wasn't directing that at you, just joking with Mata really!

I think the thing with that song is that it isn't anti worker, just anti LU staff and I tend to agree with it (as someone who has to suffer the Victoria Line everyday!)

I know that driving a tube on the delapidated network probably does have its risks but the fact that the guys who work upstairs in the ticket hall earn £5K more than I do and can start that job with no training or qualifications whatsoever (what do they do apart from open the gate if it is shut?) is beyond me.

It is offensive (uses the c word and everything!) but sometimes you need something like that and if you get the Tube every day then you can relate to pretty much all of it!
It is good to be able to laugh at things like the Tube occasionally - it doesn't stop me supporting the Tube and it doesn't stop me getting on it everyday.

I like a moan about things I can't do anything about but I like a laugh to - this covers both.

I'm not defending this because I'm defending Mata, but because essentially I posted it and the reaction from people is as if it makes me anti "mass transit" and anti worker which isn't the case.

Jeez...

Once again you're being disingenuous, KLF. Industry should go where it's needed. There could be regional centres for various industries in different parts of britain - yes, there might be impact on some rural areas, but gratutiously despoiling the countryside would obviously serve no one's interests.


No, i didn't suggest that immigrants would take whatever lowbrow jobs were left in London - because unlike you, and as an immigrant myself, i don't assume that all immigrants are poorly educated and only capable of filling low-level jobs. People will go where the work is at the end of the day, and if someone is going to work in a lower-level industry, be they immigrant or British national, surely they'd prefer to do that in a place where the cost of living is more affordable. So yes, they'd be more drawn to Liverpool or Newcastle than to London.


No offense taken, Sarah.

SL, you are not anti-worker! And if my comments sounded like I thought so, I deeply apologize. I know better than that.

Unfortunately, I don't have audio capacity at work, but I can certainly see how the lyrics "They're all greedy cunts I want to shoot them all with a rifle" might cause some to chortle; especially with they're accompanied by the proper rhythm and melody.

Absolutely. It is horrifically offensive. Vile. Very, very offensive.

One transport union negotiated its workers 52 days off a year a few months ago. Four tube lines and Southern trains all had severe delays during rush hour this morning. It was 32 degrees farhenheit. It was sleeting as we stood on the train platform. To get my attention when I was next in line waiting to buy my ticket, a train worker slammed his fist against the bulletproof glass separating us...

And that song is very, very offensive.....

I bet it wouldn't.

But you're saying the impact on my HomeTown and having MY Town spoilt by big business and immigration IS worth the effort and IS in everyones interest, just because its nearer a big city? Heaven forbid we spoilt YOUR view out of YOUR window.You want ideolistic and unrealisitic social policies, but only when the 'negatives' of those policies don't affect yourself.Why should i have my community,my way of life,and infrastructure of my Town adversely affected by modern business and immigration policy..etc,but not your place of residents?? Because your town/village is a place of natural beauty??? My Town was a place of natural beauty in years gone by.Not know.I'm glad your way of life is still in tact,and i understand you not wanting it changed.


Joiniecrumpet.I'm addressing 'rural comminities' in general rather than attacking you personally,but you get my drift.

wah wah wah.

I did say some rural areas would be affected. But that it wouldn't make any sense to GRATUITOUSLY fuck up the countryside - if you want a sound economic reason, think about the economic impact of tourism on the national economy. That's one of the reasons why we build on brownfield sites, not greenfield ones. Rural tourism is one British industry that's working.

You're making vast and erroneous assumptions. I'm not suggesting huge factories should be re-sited in small towns. Let's face it, we don't have any big factories anymore. Most "industry" is office-based. You really mean to tell me that regional centres in Britain, particularly places which have languished since the demise of traditional industry, would resist inward investment, and would see an increase in jobs and wealth as a bad thing?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, Mata, but your commute to and from work, regardless of form, function, and geographical location will, in all likelihood, always be an un-enjoyable experience. On a happier note, I hear that Fantasy Land has a 100% privately funded and free system made up entirely of water slides.

No no, Zippy. Bad man made Mata unhappy! Train bad!


Back on topic, everything I have read about Ken points to a man with a hell of a huge job doing his best and sticking to his principles.

Hoorah! An on topic post!

Nevski, go see Ted Leo this week - he's a pal of Lizzie's and an awesome rocker.


It's on topic, just not this topic

it was funny, but only because of the swearing. Going Undergound is one of my fave songs by one of my fave groups, that's what I thought was rotten.

As for the NHS, applaud and cherish it, compared to the healthcare we've witnessed in Oz - which does have a few good points like buying prescriptive medicine over the counter without prescription - it's brilliant, although in the spirit of generalising that's probably more down to the doctors we've seen as opposed to the stuff we've had to see them about.

Ken's like Ed Koch -- a better mayor in principle than in practice. He should do London's PR. And its union negotiations. And its newt management.





Now we're getting somewhere. Great idea.

My fantasy commute: Log ride. To work. Every day.



Update for those of you keeping score at home: My trip home? Totally uneventful. Didn't wait in the cold for anything. All the delays were on other people's lines. No complaints here.




*edited because I got all my its wrong!*

Koch endorsed Bush for President. If Ken's to ever be London's PR rep, I doubt he'd do it like Koch.

That's not the first time you've got on somebody's "its"...

I don't get it(s), Braggtopia!.

(.)(.)

Thanks for raising the off topic bar/bra, oh wise one.

my fantasy commute is on camel back.

My fantasy commute is running...










...my fingers up and down Kate Beckinsale's spine

you can get kate beckinsale rubber dolls in oz?

Only on eBay

:press release: Kate Beckinsale was unable to be contacted for any comment regarding the above allegations at this present time :end press release:

He hardly has Koch's politics. I just don't see how you can argue that he's not been a good mayor in practice. Had anyone of the other candidates have been elected first time around, there would be no congestion charge. Last time there would be no extension of the charge. You've admitted yourself that there has been noone better so far and that you don't have any good alternatives to his transport plans. To be a good mayor, what does he have to do exactly?

Drive Mata to work?

and have a good ear to listen to her bitch and moan constantly.

I have a good alternative to Kens transport policy:




1. Concentrate most future public transport investment towards the rail and train networks.Any improvements in that area will only benifit users.Increasing the capacity of buses has the effect of hindering and slowing down other forms of transport.

2. Reduce the number of buses on over subscribed routes,but improve bus stops with electronic information about 'bus times and 'next arrival'..etc.Only about 5-10% of bus stops currently have electronic information signs.I would increase this dramatically.

3. At any given time it has been estimated that at least 10% of all the car drivers in London traffic are LOST and driving aimlessly looking for signs and directions.I would totally overhaul,update and improve road signs. This propasal was on the table when Ken became mayor,but he scrapped the project because it would cost a fair ammount of money,and encourage more people to travel in London if it became easier to get about. You couldn't make it up.

4. 8% of all London traffic at any given time are looking for a parking place.So i would scrap all yellow lines and resticted parking areas that were not totally necessary.Thus freeing up thousands of parking spaces.Which would make life much easier for motorists,reduce traffic by up to 8%,and increase business to traders and shops.i would also be much stricter on issuing licenses to wheel clamp companies,and the monitoring of those companies.

5. I would scrap the vast majority of bus lanes,which are discrminatory to the general traveller,inefficient,and congestion causing.Of those essential bus lanes left to remain,i would restrict Taxi use to certain times only.This would not adversly effect Bus or taxi travel,it would just mean (with my other propasals) that ALL traffic would be freed up and faster flowing,benifiting car AND bus users.

6. I would invest in refazing traffic lights to ensure maximum efficency and traffic flow.

7. Yes ,i would scrap the congestion charge alltogether(or reduce it a much smaller area of the centre),with the effect of easing congestion on all the currently clogged up ring-roads.I would also improve and speed up roads such as the North/south circulars (A406/A205),thus giving drivers less incentive to cut through cental London in the first place.

8. I would also employ an operation to take the 20% of uninsured/untaxed/un MOTed/baned drivers off the roads,with an advanced joint police/computerchip/camera scheme.This would cut the general levels of car use by a good amount.

Combine all this and you have a scheme where ALL forms of transport would be moving quicker.Less traffic in London, and an efficient public transport service WITHOUT the need to penalise other people.

and that would cost how much?

don't you think scrapping yellow lines would only add to conjestion?

It certainly wouldn't cost 500 million.Thats the estimate of the cost of congestion to the ecomony every year in London alone.It probably wouldn't cost more that the congestion charge and would be much more effective.

Most yellow lines are in place just out of complacency or to discourage people from parking for no other reason that to 'discourage people from parking'.I would only keep yellow lines,where it could be proved that by parking there a car would block, hinder or slow down traffic.

How to decide which yellow lines are unnecessary? they all went through planning procedure at which point any objections would have been raised and the current existance of a yellow line shows that the objection was found insufficient and the line was necessary.... often because having cars parked on teh side of the road takes up most of 1 lane and worsens traffic congestion.

Obviously it's important to ensure investment in rail and the underground, but increasing capacity there will not happen for a number of years. If we impeaded the growth of busses (see below) then we'd actually see a decline in public transport capacity for the next five or ten years.

If you reduce the number of bus services you will inevitably reduce the number of bus passenger journeys. By doing that you would put unbearable pressure on the Underground and force more people back into cars.


I think I'm not the first person to ask you to quote your sources. Please do! New roadsigns, as you admit, will cost more money. That would have to come from investment in public transport presumably. I'm not convinced that this would have a serious impact on traffic. Let's say your figures are true (evidence please) perhaps new road signs would make a difference to 10% or 20% of people who are lost? so you might get a small reduction in journey time to a small proportion of drivers for a great expense.

SOURCES KLF! So, if we accept your figures, getting rid of yellow lines might make more places available. It's far from clear what effect the extra places would have on the number of drivers looking for a parking place at a given time. People would continue to look for that better spot and how may people within that 8% (and really, where did you get that from?) are in the act of parking, which in today's Chelsea tractors can take an age in an urban setting.

Take away from any questionable advantage gained from the extra spaces, the fact that more parking will obstruct many roads. The parking restrictions outside my flat keep the traffic flowing. Plus, more parking spaces, more drivers, more traffic, more congestion. Even if, despite all that I've mentioned, you got an increase in road traffic (I really doubt that), any advantage would soon be lost as more congestion is generated by the extra traffic.


This would futher reduce the only element of public transport that can be expanded at the moment, force more people back into cars and therefore cause more congestion. I don't see how you can assert that this wouldn't affect busses, of course it would. it would make bus journeys slower - therefore less people would use them.


expensive? I would have thought so. Useful? I haven't seen evidence that there is a problem with traffic light phasing. Even if there is, once again you hit the problem that you make it easier to drive, you get more traffic, you get more congestion.


In one act, you've made your point 1 impossible. You've cut one of the major sources of income. You would also make congestion in central london much worse - the problem's not people using c. london as a cut through, it's commuters going to work using cars, creating congestion.

I used to live by the North Circular Road, and I've seen my area cut in half by the last expansion. Since that expansion, in a couple of years congestion has gone way beyond the level it had reached previously. Road widening will not work on the circular roads, it will destroy communities and generate more traffic.

Actually, I think that does make sense.


No. you have a scheme that might make it easier to drive a car round London in the short term. In the medium term (say 3 to 4 years) it would clog up the city and eventually achieve grid lock. It would starve public transport of necessary investment and increase polution and all the diseases that go along with that.

It's a catch 22: If you improve the traffic flow, the amount of traffic will increase to the point where it's congested again. That's how it works.
The only solution is to invest and create alternatives.

Who decides that yellow lines or speed humps are necessary??? Namby-pamby local council officers.The current laws which require local councils to use up all their allocated 'traffic control' expendeture by the 1st of April every year (or lose it) doesn't help.Which is why you get a spate of unnecessary road 'reconfiguring' in the first few months of every new year.

No,i would take decisions on whether new yellowl lines/humps should be installed out of the hands of local busy bodies and have an independant commitee to ajudicate,with strict criteria's to be met and reassuances given before they could legally place yellow lines or humps.I would also have an independent commitee to access ALL the current yellow lines and humps already in place.Again strict criteria would be used and any deemed not totally necessary would be removed.

Well, what does any city government do to be considered good? Lower crime, improve city services, maintain and improve transport, operate an open and accessible government, keep taxes at a reasonable level that balances the city's needs with the public's willingness (and ability to pay), focus on quality of life issues (litter, graffitti, non-violent anti-social offenses).

Leontien,who told you that? Its a myth.

For example.The A13 heading towards central London used to be a nightmare a few years ago.Slow,congested..etc.That was until a new big underpass was constructed at the bussiest junction.Now traffic flows along the A13 majestically.The amount of traffic has increased a lot since BUT it all flows very well BECAUSE there is nothing to slow it down anymore.

Also,as i've said before,by the analogy of 'if we build more roads,they will just get full again'.Does that also apply to other situations? Situations such as housing.'If we bulid more homes they will just get filled up' Shall we encourage more people to use 'alternative' housing such as caravans and tents because 'if we build houses people will want to use them'.

If governments allow a countries population to increase by a significant amount,they MUST (as a bare minimum) improve the road infrastucure to cope with that increased demand BEFORE they even talk about finding alternatives.To fail to do so and hiding behind the green banner is a cop out and a failure on behalf of that government.

Well, I think he does pretty well by those criteria.

Lower crime - has put more police on the streets and crime has gone down in most important areas

Improve city services - I think it's fair to say he's done that in the areas in which he has power - mostly transport - in most other areas he has strategic responsibilities rather than direct responsibility for delivery - that power is still retained by the boroughs.

Accessible government - you could have gone to mayor's question time last week and asked him a question. Can you think of another high profile politician who does that on a regular basis? I can't.

Taxes - most of the council tax goes to the boroughs. Some people have bitched about the precept, but I don't have a problem paying that.

Quality of life? Fancy going to Capital Woman this Saturday? Anti-social behaviour, graffitti etc is something that the police and local authorities have power over rather than the Mayor, but some of the things you mention are dealt with here.

Even 'anti-car ken' has conceeded that the A406 needs to be widened and improved,but typically he has fudged and bottled financing a scheme approved by all four London boroughs affected by A406 gridlock and he has ignored the advice and proposals for a £800 million pound project to create a three lane stretch at the roads bussiest section at Bounds Green.Instead he has announced a plan for a heavily watered down £27 million two lane scheme,with the new lane being a bus/cycle lane.AAAAAAAAHHHH.The mans an absolute menace.He's only agreed to the scheme to partially appease the four local councils who have argued for many years for improved traffic flow,but he has ensured traffic will not move any fast by making the extra lane inaccessable to cars/lorries/vans.He will also spend £4 million blocking up rat-runs near the Bounds Green section ensuring even more traffic will be stuck there.

Here's Ken pretending to consider the approved A406 widening scheme in 2003
http://www.barnet.gov.uk/barnet_life/news/index.php3?go=812



Here's the political wing of the Livingstone bandwagon 'the TFL' giving the first indication last year that they had gone back on their promise and had no intention of helping traffic on the A406.
http://www.thisishertfordshire.co.uk/misc/...hp?artid=519991



Here's the response of local residents after Ken finally ignored a wide scale consulation and decided to do a quick fix on the cheap.
http://www.roadalert.org.uk/index.php?name...=viewtopic&t=22



And Here's Ken about to spend many millions renovating the hundreds of condemed buildings (that have been empty for years awaitng demolision for the 'three lane road') but admiting that his plan is 'short term' and they may have to be knocked down in the future .

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/displ...ed_response.php



Finally, this will tell you all you need to know about the TFL.Taken from adb.org.uk

TfL Director is anti-car campaigner

TfL's Director of Borough Partnerships is non other than Ben Plowden, better known as the former director of 'Living Streets' (formerly the Pedestrian's Association), a well known anti-car group whose website is full of vitriolic rubbish about how terrible cars and lorries are. Seems to be a blatant case of cronyism on Ken's part.

I think "it depends".

What Leontien is saying is more the US experience...and isn't directly applicable to Europe as development there is more controlled (less "sprawl") and there are transit options which dont exist in most of the US.

all the links you have indicated come back to one source, KLF.

this is local london.

if you are going to dismiss my transport 2000 survey because 'they would say that wouldn't they', i am going to dismiss all of your recent anti ken and anti TFL links for the same reason.

just search their database. all the articles they publish seem to be anti TFL... TFL grant 'second class', 'people power stalls tfl' , 'TfL is not listening' , 'Funding crisis looms for TfL', 'TfL's bid to to slash pee-er group ' (banal story about bus drivers taking a leak), 'Commuters see red over bendy bus change ', 'Bus lane ‘will add to car congestion’ '...

yawn. pro car propoganda...