Tube services to go 24 hours

[bubblegun]

Originally Posted by Stephen

Glasgow has the clockwork orange. The third oldest subway service in the world.

I use it a lot.

Sorry, but you're a bit slow with this post as I have posted above.

[Stephen]

Slow!!

I replied to a post. Am not slow.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

http://www.itv.com/news/london/story...s-than-a-year/

I always find it strange how local authorities find the money when, when something is about to happen.

Soon coming to Twickenham, we have the Rugby World Cup. And all of a sudden, roads are being worked on to improve them. And the area being 'smartened and spruced up

That's been an ongoing programme for years.

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/serv...ction_plan.htm
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/whitton_uplift.htm

The borough is pretty well funded by council tax. I believe you are across the 'border' in Hounslow however if you have a look at LBRUT accounts you'll see they receive pretty minimal central government funding and have a fair amount of cash in the bank. They were able to spend millions on a Catholic school in the wrong area at the wrong time easily enough to satisfy their own dogma.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

I have lived in the Twickenham area for the past 28 years, and everything asked for, the answer is 'where is the money coming from'

Twickenham is served by ONE railway station which is small compared to Wembley. When rugby is one, living in the area of the stadium is a nightmare.

And parking attendants cant be seen until the game is on.

Lucky you living in the area for so long - I was priced out of it.

The money for the improvements locally is coming from the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, the Mayor of London's Out London London Fund, the proceeds from the Solum development of Twickenham station when it happens, and the RFU.

One railway station? If you're five minutes from the stadium you surely must've noticed Whitton Station, which is getting an upgrade and renovation?

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/...tation-7046870
http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/...pgrade-7455807

St Margarets is also not all that far away, and both are used by the savvier rugby goers both to have a few in between the station and the stadium and to avoid the crush at Twickenham.

Facts are our friends.....

[sollp]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't have tube services at all. In view of the reinvigorated faith in devolution and sharing wealth fairly, will the funding to create a 'normal', never mind 24/7, tube service (or other viable and effective inner-city transport system) be provided for the 'other' Capital cities of the UK?

Well, we know that isn't going to happen. But couldn't you Londoners just be happy with something you've already got instead of sucking up more funding so your lives are even cushier?

Think you'll find he most of Britain doesn't have the same infrastructure as many large cities. Let alone an underground tube network. England should have been on your list

[Osem]

Given it's size and population density, London is bound to require huge funding for such infrastructure.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland don't have tube services at all. In view of the reinvigorated faith in devolution and sharing wealth fairly, will the funding to create a 'normal', never mind 24/7, tube service (or other viable and effective inner-city transport system) be provided for the 'other' Capital cities of the UK?

I believe said systems are in London because they are needed, not because it's the capital. Were it not the capital a city of that size would still need a mass-transit system of that kind.

I'm afraid the 'capitals' would have to join the queue behind Birmingham (population at last census 1.074 million), Leeds (751,000), etc.

---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Facts are our friends.....

They can be our friends or our worst enemies, what they can't be is changed to suit our needs.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by bubblegun

Erm, Glasgow has the 3rd oldest underground railway system in the world after London and Budapest. So not exactly what you posted.

What about New York?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Osem

Given it's size and population density, London is bound to require huge funding for such infrastructure.

If you keep feeding the beast, it will just continue to get bigger.

Originally Posted by sollp

Think you'll find he most of Britain doesn't have the same infrastructure as many large cities. Let alone an underground tube network. England should have been on your list

England is on the list; London is in England. And the focus is on Capital cities.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I believe said systems are in London because they are needed, not because it's the capital. Were it not the capital a city of that size would still need a mass-transit system of that kind.

I'm afraid the 'capitals' would have to join the queue behind Birmingham (population at last census 1.074 million), Leeds (751,000), etc.

My comment was made in the wake of the Scottish referendum and the perceived view by millions of people that London and the south east gets the lion's share of investment already. The point you make about populations is notable but doesn't take account of the politics. You might feel that politics should not come before practicality, in which case why don't Brum and Leeds have devolved governments?

If London keeps receiving, it won't assuage the emotions of those in the sticks IMHO. Investment in other countries in the uk will help them develop.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Kursk

You might feel that politics should not come before practicality, in which case why don't Brum and Leeds have devolved governments?

If London keeps receiving, it won't assuage the emotions of those in the sticks IMHO. Investment in other countries in the uk will help them develop.

I entirely support devolution within England and have told my MP so. Leeds can run Yorkshire better than Westminster can, as Westminster's view of the world seems to get extremely hazy at the M25.

We have the most unbalanced country in the first world as far as having a single city that dominates as London does, this is a fact and does need addressing.

Sadly none of the main 3 parties are really that bothered I think.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I entirely support devolution within England and have told my MP so. Leeds can run Yorkshire better than Westminster can, as Westminster's view of the world seems to get extremely hazy at the M25.

We have the most unbalanced country in the first world as far as having a single city that dominates as London does, this is a fact and does need addressing.

Sadly none of the main 3 parties are really that bothered I think.

I agree but unless someone becomes bothered we're on a rocky slope of nationalism...

It's as if the Scottish vote never occurred. There are none so blind as those who will not see or rather there are none so blind as those who do not care.

[Ignitionnet]

Hey Arthur, how does this sound?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/...-redevelopment

Chelsea open talks over temporary move to Twickenham
• Chelsea keen on move during development of Stamford Bridge
• Rugby Football Union confirm ‘inquiry’ from the club

[Stop It]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I entirely support devolution within England and have told my MP so. Leeds can run Yorkshire better than Westminster can, as Westminster's view of the world seems to get extremely hazy at the M25. We have the most unbalanced country in the first world as far as having a single city that dominates as London does, this is a fact and does need addressing. Sadly none of the main 3 parties are really that bothered I think.

Indeed, agreed on all points.

However the majority (In the North East anyway) decided they didn't want London style devolved government back in 2004. It wasn't even close either (75%+ voted no to a North East regional assembly).

Now, Scottish devolution has been ongoing for decades, and London has been seen as being far too powerful for just as long. As far as I know, there has always been the appetite for more powers to the regions, so why the hell did the people reject it when given the chance?

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Hey Arthur, how does this sound? http://www.theguardian.com/football/...-redevelopment

Sounds like trouble. Rugger supporters know how to behave so fans mix together and locals (mostly) don't have to worry too much. (And most soccer fans are the same, just the few who shouldn't be let out of their cages.)

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Stop It

As far as I know, there has always been the appetite for more powers to the regions, so why the hell did the people reject it when given the chance?

Well, they didn't. They took the offer of more devolved powers but not separation.