Search questions

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

With the North London Line, if you were just able to extend the platform that would give us longer trains and you would then be able to deal with the overcrowding.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

If I can go back to Silverlink for a moment, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA), as was, rejected the proposal of a commuter rail authority. Your priorities, or the benefits you saw were things like greater efficiency, more frequent services, integrating fares using Oyster and better station facilities. If you do get Silverlink Metro, how many of those benefits would we see soon? The Islington stations, for instance, on the North London Line desperately need modernising and to be made safer for passengers. The same can be said at Queens Park Station on the Watford line. You say you are...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Then it seems we can be optimistic. What about the upgrade of the stations in Queens Park on the Watford line and the Islington stations on the North London Line because they are critical in those negotiations? Can you give any assurance on that?

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

I think it was March 2004 when you launched TfL's bid for a London Regional Rail Authority, which the Liberal Democrats support. If I were to ask you for a progress report on the extent of the negotiations so far with Silverlink - How far has the agenda reached and what discussions are taking place?

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Continuing with the theme that they will do the right thing, which we hope they will, what benefits will my constituents, who rely on the North London Line, be able to see once TfL takes responsibility for this part of the network? Can you re-affirm your commitment to the 'turn-up-and-go' way of operating that I read was one of your ambitions?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Therefore you are actually putting it up to help fill a deficit. ... To balance the books. As the penalty revenue falls you are predicting a deficit.

• Question by: Jennette Arnold OBE
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

You told us earlier about the constraints of funding and how much the infrastructure improvement is dependent on that, which I think we all understand. However, in terms of raising future revenues, do you agree with the quote in the Evening Standard, a couple of days ago I think, from your board colleague, Professor Stephen Glaister that, `In future years Congesting Charging has to be a key revenue generator'?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Staying on the subject of revenue from Congestion Charging - is not the problem for TfL that they foresee a huge drop in the amount of revenue from Congestion Charging as people learn to manoeuvre themselves through the rather Byzantine payment system, whereby you will be getting less penalty money? Is not the whole point of jacking it up from £5 to £8 actually to make a start on filling the deficit that TfL has actually prophesied itself?

• Question by: Damian Hockney
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

On your own admission just now, you have made clear that the transport system is not ideal. We have a situation here where people are being asked to pay not only a 60% increase, but with the western extension, TfL's own economic impact assessment makes clear that there will be a reduction in lunch-time customers for restaurants, shift-workers such as cleaners will suffer, `retailers may close down', `retailers may relocate', and delivery costs will be passed to customers. Are you not at all concerned about the disastrous impact of the Congestion Charge and the western extension over the next few...

• Question by: Bob Neill
• Meeting date: 06 April 2005

Does Professor Glaister's comment accurately reflect the view of the TfL board as far as Congestion Charging is concerned in its purpose?