Search questions

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 20 July 2011

I want to ask you about the bunting as well. Originally that was the only thing that was being proposed by you that I received with unalloyed joy because I thought, 'Here we are, outer London is actually going to get something. We are actually going to be able to celebrate something'. Now I hear it is some vast advertising campaign for the sponsors of the Olympics.

• Reference: 2009/0302-1
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 09 December 2009

What criteria does TfL apply for decommissioning bus stops?

• Reference: 2009/0303-1
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 09 December 2009

Will TfL decommission stops which are little used?

• Reference: 2009/0301-1
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 09 December 2009

How many school buses and journeys are wholly funded by TfL? What are the criteria for such funding?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 09 December 2009

Yes. Speaking as a bourgeois NIMBY, could I please have clarity as to who it is who is going to take the final decision on bus stops? You have told me, Mr Mayor, when I have raised this matter in the past that if the boroughs do not support the relocation of a bus stop, that is the end of the matter. Indeed, I have recent correspondence relating to particular bus stops which are being installed one stop away from the terminus of a bus route, so who on earth do they think is going to get on the bus...

• Reference: 2009/0010
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 June 2009

Bearing in mind the number of level crossings on its route, what would be the effect on highway traffic in Richmond Upon Thames and elsewhere of the introduction of AirTrack?

• Reference: 2009/0011
• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 14 June 2009

With regard to the decision on Stage 1 of Regal House in Twickenham, why does TfL believe that this 111 bedroom hotel does not need any car parking provision?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

We are referring to the programmes which the boroughs have already subscribed to, which was not the 50% target. I need only refer you to those boroughs which said that they did not want 50% - that said they wanted 40% - and those boroughs provided, in their 40%, infinitely more houses than the total. I merely refer you to a borough like Richmond which produced 300% more than the target.

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

I think we are going to be able to explore all of that. We have given you a long opportunity for a publicity stunt! Can I first of all congratulate the person who wrote this report; I think it was Alan Benson (Head of Housing and Homelessness, GLA). It is an extremely readable report, but probably it is readable because the plot is a work of fiction. We take the view that the central targets, contrary to what you have said, are unlikely to be met. We say this because of your track record. There has only been one year...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 24 October 2007

That is entirely wrong because you have not addressed the central part of the thesis. 50% of 500 houses is infinitely less than 30% of 2000 houses, so, if the only way they have been able to meet their affordable housing target is by reducing the overall quantum of houses built, it suggests that the policy is an entire failure but you are able to meet your statistical figure.