Search questions

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

So you would consider that to be a rather unattractive option?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

Are any traffic lights being sped up as a result or are they all being put on to red for longer? Or, are you going the other way with some traffic lights and putting them on to green for longer?

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

You just said you have cut the volume of traffic.

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

I am surprised you suggested you were going to take Parcelforce to task because they had benefited from doing extra deliveries. You will recall the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), when Mary Reilly came to give evidence as the London representative of the CBI, said they had withdrawn their support from the Congestion Charge precisely because they were not getting an extra delivery time in because the congestion had not been sufficiently reduced - many would argue it is as bad as it always was - and therefore there was no extra delivery time that would have made it beneficial...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

I am pointing out that the CBI made it quite clear that they were not impressed that there was no extra delivery time. It is not me saying it, Mr Hendy, that is what the CBI gave as evidence to the Transport Committee. Let me go on to talk about additional costs on businesses. The GLA's own Economic Report did say that if any businesses had been hurt, it was the small retailer inside the Congestion Charge Zone. If you look at the figures you will see that 87% of all retailers are small retailers and therefore it would be...

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

We have the contract which many people said in the beginning was not going to work and did not have teeth. Would it be fair, from your perspective, to say that those people that said all those things were right in the first place?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

To summarise what you have said about Metronet, we could say that the performance is bad but not bad enough. Here we have a contract which relies upon a mutual partnership, effectively, but it all seems to be one way traffic. The thing we want to hear is what you are going to do about getting continuous performance improvements from Metronet?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

If, as you say, it would be unrealistic to publish in your glossy brochure the things that you cannot do, why does your glossy brochure not have health warnings written over it to say: `All of this is dependant on the Government bailing us out. All of this is dependant on us getting the extra fares'? Would that not have been a more honest way of coming to Londoners, rather than presenting this glossy document? Why is one of the things in your 2025 document not an undertaking to get rid of all the fare paying evasion that takes place...

• Question by: Angie Bray
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

But the costs are going to be higher for the tram, probably higher than they are at the moment, so it would still be the same case would it not, that with these expensive infrastructure projects, the costs outweigh the benefits? He is making that claim.

• Question by: Elizabeth Howlett
• Meeting date: 06 December 2006

I did hear in your briefing that you mentioned an expansion or enhancement of three tube lines. Can I give you the opportunity now to expand on that? I am particularly interested in capacity on the District Line and whether, in fact, you have managed to separate the Northern Line, and whether this is going to be done under PPP or under some other financial arrangement. p