Forum Topic

The unions will tell you that they have modified.  One of the things that they have been striking against is the attempt to reduce the number of staff on trains - it makes them cheaper - and even cheaper if there are no staff at all.  This makes it difficult for those who need help getting on and off let alone those who need a ramp to get on.  During the London Olympics a lot of effort was made to make London really accessible for everyone yet once it was over all those ramps they had to make it more accessible together with the help seemed to disappear. I've stood on a platform and shouted for help when I've been trying to help a mother with a toddler, baby and pushchair off a train - and wanted to make sure that I could get back on because it wasn't my stop.  I saw somebody help her get on initially but when she wanted to get off and was trying to gather everything together and hang onto the kids nobody moved except me.  I opened the door but it swung shut again and I had to ask a teenager leaning near it to help by keeping it open as I helped them get out and down onto the platform.In fact on another occasion on another line as we arrived at a station I gave myself a fright because as I leaned out of the window to turn the handle to open the door because of the camber it immediately swung straight out with me still hanging onto it before I could get back in. Designed by tall people for tall people perhaps? I think they've changed the doors to sliding ones now on that route!

Philippa Bond ● 453d

Richard, I guess what we're really talking about is culture change. If one looks at how that's achieved in business; for example, in Health and Safety, Cyber/Information Security, etc, it really combines a mixture of education, leadership, "stick and carrot" combined with clear, coherent strategies and policies plus some pragmatism. It's difficult to persued people to use trains when they're so unreliable and the PM chooses to fly short distance; however, leaders could try and make more use of trains to set an example - that might give them an incentive to make them more efficient and reliable! I know there may be security issues where specific threats have been issued to public figures so perhaps, being pragmatic, tube and bus services aren't always feasible for some. Cheap, reliable, safe and available public transport would provide a carrot for many. The "sticks" of LTNs and ULEZ can help but perhaps do need to be seen as fair? LTNs might become more acceptable if minicabs and taxis had full exemptions, and car shares could use them - perhaps for a small fee? ULEZ might be more acceptable if charges started low and were gradually ramped up; I know ex-colleagues near the new M25 boundary whose complaint is they don't have comparable public transport to central London; perhaps that needs to be fixed first? Perhaps residents' parking should better reflect the cost of roadspace with discounts or exemptions for blue badge holders and key public service workers who can't use public transport?Surely, the fragmentation of the transport networks must be fixed before this is going to be fair and effective? In London TfL runs buses, tubes, the DLR, and the Overground while suburban train services are operated by several franchises under government control, while I believe there's split responsibility for roads between borough councils, TfL and National Highways. That's surely a recipe for disaster? (And London's relatively good: some parts of the country - Suffolk - seem to have erratic bus services or minicabs that need to be booked a day in advance!)Getting back to education: should there be more campaigns on the effects of pollution, climate change and time lost in traffic congestion, and the benefits of public transport: at least if a train's late one can often work, study or play games? Then, of course, there's the health benefits of walking and, if they can be separated from cars and lorries, cycling.That's just a brain dump to start discussions!

Michael Ixer ● 454d