to come, writes TESSA VAN GELDEREN, if recent proposals presently under discussion by the Greater London Council are implemented.
Committee have spent a great deal of time and energy preparing reports on how much capital expenditure there can be in light of the Law Lords ruling. If implemented London Transport would be reduced to a hollow shell.
of its resources by organising a massive campaign in the labour movement, the reports give a foretaste of what may be in store if the Law Lords' decision is not overturned.
BECAUSE of the about future demand, and fare and agues une London Transport Executive, the JUsIliUlI regard capital expenditure is still totally confused.' have been raised about the legality of all investment projects.
'As a result, the GLC has stopped approving any London Transport investment projects Many would not be needed or would be extensively modified London Transport were to plan to break even overall.' Hence only those projects are consistent both the execulve s exisuing plans and with a plan for break-even future appear likely to be approved and implemented.
The report goes on to calculate how, over the next Tew years, 'break even' can be achieved. It are going this is ope doing this halving the volume of hus services and by raising the fares bv between 25 per cent and 50 per cent underground demand would be about quarters of today's level.
Having, gone through this exercise, the report States that the GiC mar regard such a core network profound concern and inter alia would wish Socialist Challenge 22 April 1982 London Transport and the GLC Transport Although the GLC could make better use to look at ways of reducing the scale of these changes.
This year London Transport received only a 12 per cent subsidy; 88 per cent has to be financed through fare increases and huge cut-backs in services and jobs. Such facts give little optimism for the proposals in these documents seing shelved.
The best way the GLC can do that is to take on Lords and the lead in the fight five a in the fight transport system that the needs of the working. people don, and not five 'vandals an crane ble, in the extreme, the report continues, *to close an annual gap of £260m by a combination of massive SCI VICC CuLs substantia further real fare increases, the closure of several sta. tions and the reduction of train frequencies...
Hae the report l this trouble then states that 'such a package of changes would not be a sensible ana reasonable approach to transport in Lonaon..
The GLC Transport Committee takes this same schizoid approach. In sonsidering a 'core network' which "truncated transport system for Greater London costs and revenues have #LT 428 At least 20 bus garages are under threat been brought into balance', the committee argues that this is not 'adequate to meet the needs of London but grim prospect which must be contemplated in the present legal circumstances.
The report goes on to argue the best estimate at this stage of the break even situation would imply by the late 1980; • that fares would be 50 per cent higher in real Hackney Dalston Bank Molborn terms than at present:
cent lower post March 1982 levels on buse:
and 17 per cent lower on rail. 100m bus miles scneauled ana yum bus miles would operate (com pared to 174m budgeted in and which was exceeded by some ½ million miles);
on the underground, train miles would be reduced to 26m train miles (compared to 30.5m ir 1981)
Reduction in service levels on the buses would be by:
*at least 20 out of a total bus garages to close *reducing peak hour frequencies on main routes in line with falling demand Assemble бpm, *thinning out and withdrawal routes parallel continued *reduction of evening and Sunday services *thinning out of the less busy routes and removal of some of the more circuitous routes.
Demonstrate 22 April - the eve of the second reading of Jay's Private Member's Bill which aims to make 'Fares Fair' legal again.
Temple tube, march to Covent Garden. Bring TU banners. Organised by Fares Fight Lobby 23 April during the second reading of Jay's Bill.
1lam onwards at the House of Commons.
Camden Town Finsbury, Park CLapton Hackney HACKNEY CENTRAL SIN On the underground 'the following is already clear' *route withdrawals would be confined to branch lines more lightly used outer sections #station closures would number about 25
The Social Democratic Party is never Labour Party activists, especially at election time. Two new pamphlets on the SDP have just been minds LONDOS ON THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS SDP refreshes of the right-wing out.
Labour une due union vurcataly nal democracy which has forced sections But the real base of leadership and pro-capitalist politics is, and always has been Third World Voices Third World
----- pull-quotes -----
Cuts GM COOKSON It would thus be possi-
Piccadilly Chelsea HACKNEY STN