Search questions

• Reference: 2003/0177
• Question by: Valerie Shawcross
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I notice that 'Tube lines' programme of station rebuilds and major refurbishments is heavily biased away from South London stations. Did you discuss the priority order of these schemes with Tube Lines and if so can you justify only working on 3 south London stations in the next 5 years? Do you think there is scope for reviewing these priorities when TfL takes over LUL? .

• Reference: 2003/0178
• Question by: Toby Harris
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

What priority will you give to raising tube stations to the Secure Stations standard? .

• Reference: 2003/0180
• Question by: Meg Hillier
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

What potential does Mr O'Toole see for improved integration of single-journey ticketing between London Underground and the overland suburban rail network? Does he see this as a priority? What will he be doing to move this forward? .

• Reference: 2003/0182
• Question by: John Biggs
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

Is the Underground under or overstaffed? .

• Reference: 2003/0203
• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

How confident are you that you will be able to minimise industrial disputes on the Underground once the system is transferred? .

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I hear what you are saying and I understand. You have three pieces of work: you must manage the contracts, manage the Tube running, and this third piece of work I am nagging you about. You do not want to raise expectations and you want to see that you do those first two pieces of work. I want to test you in two areas. The closure of the Central Line was one. I am looking at flexibility within the contract. You do agree there may be flexibility for negotiation within the contract, either along those lines or indeed along what...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I am not saying `rush', but you must understand that for three years I and others, including Bob Kiley, have said that PPP is not going to deliver for London. Therefore, while you are doing what you can with the PPP and with London Underground, I am asking for a commitment that you look for flexibility in the contract and will look for add ons, perhaps not in the first year but the work surely has to start now in looking for where you can deliver more for London than the Government has saddled us with.

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

I understand where you are coming from on that, but I have to say I thought the Government did a terrible job in negotiating the PPP. Do you think your skills will be better than the Government's?

• Question by: Roger Evans
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

As a user of the Central Line, I just want to assure you that there was actually no positive element to the Chancery Lane incident. My constituency in Redbridge were absolutely outraged when the decision was made to close down the Hainault loop for further engineering work, after the rest of the Line had reopened. We really did wonder why that work could not have been done during the time that the rest of the Line was closed. I am a bit surprised that Lynne is suggesting this and I would like your assurance that you will not take this...

• Question by: Lynne Featherstone
• Meeting date: 11 June 2003

When the London Underground surveyed Tube users, they found that what really mattered to Londoners were things like: the squash factor, how overcrowded they were; the waiting factor, how long they had to wait for a train; the `Oh God I am going to be late because there has been a delay or a breakdown'; or `Am I going to die of heat in this tunnel?" Those are the major factors. My contention is that we need that to be recognisable. Do you accept the five factors I have put forward " or that others have put forward " that...