TfL....Still Totally Failing London : A Must Watch Video From Sean Paul.

Pulling no punches again, Sean Paul give it to Peter Blake, Peter Anderson and Leon Daniels.

    

  

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1MiqB15
via IFTTT

Another day, another 5yr delay & £900m budget deficit courtesy of inept management at TfL

Mind the £900m Gap

• TfL spent £85m to get out of a failed signalling contract
• It now has almost £900 million less to spend on transport improvements
• Tube upgrade programme is five years behind schedule

Today the London Assembly Budget and Performance Committee releases the report “Transport for London’s Signal Failure” – which examines the circumstances behind the appointment of Bombardier Transport to upgrade signalling on the District, Circle, Metropolitan and Hammersmith & City lines.

Transport for London (TfL) ultimately paid £85 million to cancel the contract with Bombardier Transport in 2013, two years after appointment, but the ramifications of the deal are still being felt.   The Sub-Surface Upgrade Programme (SSUP) is now five years behind schedule and is forecast to cost nearly £900 million more than originally expected. 

A culmination of nearly three years’ work scrutinising TfL’s Sub-Surface Upgrade Programme, the report highlights how poor commercial expertise and a lack of IT procurement skills left TfL ill-prepared to appoint a suitable contractor for the project, and vulnerable enough to be duped into a contract which Bombardier was never able to deliver.

It draws attention to a culture at TfL which meant that management was only interested in presenting good news and was in denial about the progress and effectiveness of the programme, allowing it to continue for much longer than it should have.

Appointing Bombardier and then waiting over two years to end the contract has bigger long term costs for TfL and Londoners.  Eleven million fewer journeys than expected will take place on the underground per year between 2017 and 2023: which is estimated will cost TfL another £271 million in lost fares.  

John Biggs AM, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Committee, said: 

“This is nothing short of a disaster for London.  Neither TfL nor Bombardier’s management teams were up to the task of managing the programme, but it is Londoners that will ultimately pay the price in travel delays and inefficiencies.”

What is most remarkable about this affair is that no-one in TfL has been held to account, and the Mayor, who chairs its board, serenely and indifferently acts as if a £900 million increase to the budget isn’t an issue.  In government, heads – political or official – would roll after such financial mismanagement.  At TfL the key players have been promoted and nobody was to blame. It is a scandal. ”

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1UbvrF5
via IFTTT

Italian Taxi Driver Groups, Taking Note Of London Taxi Action, Are Planning To Gridlock Rome.

The Italian taxi drivers are back on the warpath and promise to block Rome on March 18, when they will strike against the government and Uber. 

The scheme, now, is repeated identically across Europe from London to Paris where Uber has a license. The American company is always in the news with its controversial online application – via smartphone or iPad – offering users a new way of using cars: You only pay by credit card and drivers receive get to rate you. Giving the impression of a computer game.

Traditional taxi drivers have attempted to replicate, but for the time being continue to denounce as unfair competition from Uber. 

In Rome Taxi orgs promise to introduce more than ten thousand drivers from all Italian cities to protest against the deregulation of their sectors, explain the national leaders of the taxi drivers’ unions. Amendments to the law 21/92 (the standard framework of public transport, ed) would favor oligopolies and multinationals, at the expense of the public service “. 

The goal is to gridlock the city, which recently happened in London, where over 8000 Black Cab London paralyzed Whitehall. 

Also, in Paris, just 1500 cars managed to block access to the airports of Charles de Gaulle and Orly, sparking an urban guerrilla war scenario with burning tires and tear gas. 

Taxi groups in Italy, have long been calling for stricter regulation in regards to Uber.

Previously in December last year, the government would had to intervene with the approval of the decree milleproroghe, but then on Christmas Eve, they decided to postpone everything for a year. 

In January, then, the senator of the Democratic Party, Linda Lanzillotta, tabled an amendment to the bill in which she asks to make recording of all journeys on platforms required (including Uber) and the identification “of requirements and obligations for drivers in order to ensure road safety and the safety of passengers. Both with reference to the efficiency of the cars and the suitability of drivers, including adequate insurance coverage for the transport of persons. Plus an intervention that would serve to regulate the service by preventing  anyone who is simply entitled to drive, but does not have a license for hire and reward. 

Simultaneously, the amendment provides for an amendment to the obligations of the car drivers, to have a garage in the municipality which issued the authorisation licence, in short, no cross boarder hirings. 

Taxi drivers protests have been strong enough to push the Democratic Party to reflect deeply. It is expected, that the government will back this. This is a trial of intention, as the government and the speakers have not yet fully announced their intentions.

Uber however, is not expecting any intervention says Senator Salvatore Tomaselli, “the amendments are part of the free, autonomous initiative of parliamentarians. As soon as the issue is ripe, we will present, our proposals are the result of the comparison with the associations of the representatives of the taxi drivers. 

He went on to say: "No one wants to deregulate or impoverish the sector of public service provided by taxi drivers, which is critical. Another thing is to modernize the entire public transport sector, non-scheduled with the aim of creating a more efficient market and better services to consumers."

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1WkldjP
via IFTTT

EXCITING NEW TAXI TRADE POLITICAL GROUP : DADS DEFENDING DAUGHTERS (3D)

DADS DEFENDING DAUGHTERS IS A STRANGE NAME FOR A POLITICAL GROUP

Especially since it has female members, fathers without daughters, people without children, and a whole diversity of life.

3D came to life through two Licensed London Taxi Driving Grandfathers, who had five daughters. Their concern was for the welfare of their loved ones travelling in cabs.
A fight against a government supported conglomerate 'Uber', brought to light the danger of a poorly regulated system, where rape, sexual assault and physical assaults had gone through the roof, at the behest of those who stand to gain financially from deregulation.

We live on the edge of Greater London, were Private Hire is more prevalent than Black Taxis.
The more we looked into the poorly regulated system, the more we knew we had no choice but to take the fight to the enemy. A powerful enemy, worth billions of dollars, with many governments in their pockets.

It is our opinion that the general public are our strength.
Why would they care about cab law, meters, plying for hire, or even hire and reward insurance?
But like my co conspirator and myself, they do care greatly about the safety and wellbeing of their loved ones.
We are fathers first - taxi drivers second.

#dadsdefendingdaughters

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1TXPR5c
via IFTTT

UCG Press Release : Rumours, Smears and Dud Bullets...

I have seen recently a carefully crafted smear campaign that has someone’s fingerprints all over it. I can’t be controlled and I won’t walk into any obvious traps. So when you can’t beat someone with honest debate and reasoning, “Smear them”

So let's look at what’s being said. I am accused of applying for a senior role in TfL, this is absolutely TRUE. Over a year ago the role of Head of Compliance was advertised on the TfL website. This ultimately was the job that Matt Bell got.

Yes I applied for it, I met the necessary criteria for the initial paper sift and I was invited for interview. I wasn’t good enough on the day and the job was given to Matt Bell an "ex" very senior policeman. We know he has since resigned and left leaving a vacuum of speculation.

But this is being spread around as if it were yesterday or indeed that I should be ashamed or in some way regret this…. The only thing I regret is not being good enough on the day to get the job.

My reasoning for applying for that role is that I really believe I could have made a difference, I will not shy away from what I believe is right… I always follow my conscience. I wanted so much to do that job, a “night man” of nine years, I have seen so much and know what is going on out there at night.

Who among you wouldn’t relish the chance of actually sorting out the touts that are stealing our livelihoods? Would you rather a bureaucrat who has never driven a Taxi or PHV vehicle in their life, who understands nothing about our trade head-up the compliance team? Or a “night man” who lives with the consequence of light touch enforcement and compliance?

No, my regret isn’t that I applied, it’s that I wasn’t given the chance to try to fix it from within TfL instead of the wall of silence we are met with by our regulator.

So for the record, YES I did apply for head of compliance, YES I did get an interview, NO I wasn’t a good enough candidate on the day…. That is my regret…. that I let down the trade by not getting the job and trying my best to fix the problems we face.

I make this promise: I would have worked like a dog to fix this mess.

So....If you could apply because you had the right qualifications, would you stand back and let a bureaucrat get the job without even trying to get that job if you met the criteria? and how would you reconcile knowing that you could have done something but instead done nothing?

The committee of the day (This was over a year ago, not the current committee) were fully aware and informed I had applied and was to be interviewed BEFORE The interview not afterwards, I met each one individually and explained my reasoning for applying, I met no objections.

My regret….. I wasn’t good enough on the day. 

And why has this been raised now? Because I won’t go along with them over tariff reviews? Credit card mandating and the issues this has raised? Because I won’t have the wool pulled over my eyes?

When they can’t control you, they will instead try to control how others see you………..

My job is to stay focused on challenging TfL and pushing back with the resources I have, so I say this, do your worst, leak personal information about me, the more you leak, the more I know I’m on the right track and getting under your skin. (but beware, I will not hesitate in reporting data protection issues to the information commissioner, and someone will be removed from office)

360 years of history doesn’t stop because overpaid jobsworth bureaucrats can’t do their job properly…. The battle continues....

FOOTNOTE

I have been informed this morning that a TfL employee (Enforcement officer) is walking along ranks telling people that I applied for the Head of compliance, firstly this was over a year ago when the political landscape was very different. And secondly, I don't believe an enforcement officer would have known.TfL either deliberately or otherwise are leaking personal information. If this leak is an employee releasing personal data to discredit individuals, that's a very serious offence. 

If it is an authorised leak by TfL senior management then it is criminal and a vexatious leak of personal information that is punishable with a fine of up to £500,000. You want them telling who ever they want about personal information about you ? Someone released my response to City AM about the credit card consultation fiasco before the consultation ended to discredit me and now this. They think this is a game?

TfL think the ICO won't come after them? The ICO was set up to go after people like them! Today I am registering a formal complaint with the ICO. If it's going to get dirty then I am happy to play by whatever rules they choose.

Len Martin

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1TDJvY2
via IFTTT

More than 40 men arrested as taxi driver protest against Uber turns violent

Private Hire Requirements Consultation Receives Over 20,000 Responses.

New regulations to modernise and improve the private hire industry will be considered by the Transport for London (TfL) Board next week. 

The measures, which follow an extensive consultation process have attracted over 20,000 responses and are aimed at making travelling by private hire safer and more convenient for customers.

The changes the TfL board is being asked to agree include increased insurance requirements making sure a policy is in place for the duration of the vehicle license. The ease in which "anyone" can get a fully TfL plated vehicle (even without Hire and Reward insurance) has recently been highlighted by an investigation carried out by a reporter from LBC.

An understanding of the English language will also be a requirement. Last year TfL closed 15 testing centres, when it was found applicants were being allowed to sit tests in their own native langue and were also given the answers alongside the questions. After a sample of 200 applicants were made to take a retest, less than 30% actually passed. 

There will also be a requirement of advanced fare estimates and operatorswill have to keep improved records for enforcement purposes (not a new requirement, just unenforced by TfL compliance at present)

Private hire operators will also be required to ensure customers can speak to someone in the event of a problem with their journey (although Uber office staff, presently only work office hours of 9-5)

These changes, represent the first significant amendments to the private hire regulations since they were first introduced in 1998 and follow an unprecedented increase in private hire driver and vehicle numbers.  

The number of private hire drivers has increased from 59,000 in April 2010 to around 100,000 today and is increasing at a rate of over 700 per week, contributing to issues such as congestion, pollution and illegal parking.

The Mayor believes more action must be taken to address the impacts of these increasing numbers, particularly on congestion and air quality.  

The Government has been reluctant to introduce legislation to allow TfL to restrict the number of drivers and vehicles on the roads in London (although many areas outside London have successfully capped their PH and Hackney Taxis numbers, using a supply and demand initiative).  

In response, the Mayor has instructed TfL to investigate the potential effects of removing the Congestion Charge exemption currently given to private hire drivers fulfilling a booking, in order to see whether this may make a difference in those areas of concern. Big talk from Boris who is about to leave office. None of the leading Mayoral candidates have the removal of this concession on their manifesto.

TfL estimates that the number of private hire vehicles operating within the central London Congestion Charge zone has increased by over 50 per cent in the last two years.  This means that during the day, 1 in 10 vehicles entering the zone is now a private hire vehicle. This situation changes dramatically on weekend nights when London's WestEnd and City are swamped with minicabs bringing the roads to near complete gridlock. 

Garrett Emmerson, TfL’s Chief Operating Officer for Surface Transport (pictured), said, during the consultation process, Londoners, made clear the improvements they want to see in the private hire industry. 

The package of changes being taken to the Board includes more robust insurance requirements when vehicles are licensed and a formal English language requirement for drivers. Both of these requirements should have been firmly in place when the act of 1998 was first put together.

Also customers should receive quotes for before their journeys. How this will apply to Uber is anyone's guess as they use a Taxi meter based on time and distance which in most cases results in the fare having no relationship to the estimate. 

All operators will need an easier process for customers to complain if they need to. This requirement is already in place when first applying for an operators licence, but was somehow dropped unexplainable when Uber and RD2 both first applied for their licenses back in 2012.

It's hoped that these new(ish) requirements will help ensure a modern, flourishing and safer private hire industry, and will provide choice for customers alongside London’s iconic and world-class taxi service.

from Taxi Leaks http://ift.tt/1WgsXmI
via IFTTT