Keep ticket offices open at tube stations

Please campaign against the proposal by Transport for London to completely close the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East stations on the Northern Line as part of the closure of 40 ticket offices across London.

Any savings will be outweighed by a large fall in revenues from those stations, I believe. In addition, difficulties in buying a ticket are likely to cause many people to switch to alternative travel methods, while a heightened feeling of insecurity when no staff are around may put people off travelling by Underground, they say.

Revenues will fall at the three local stations because some people will be deterred from using the Northern Line and others will take advantage of the lack of supervision to travel without paying.

Around 40 pct of underground travellers still use paper tickets, according to TfL's own figures, and many of these are tourists and other infrequent travellers who are quite likely to need assistance.

In any case, TfL's claim that ticket offices are not needed at the three stations because most people use Oyster cards does not hold water, since the offices are not just used by people buying traditional paper tickets. Even Oyster users will need the ticket office from time to time, when they are having problems with the machine or if they have lost their card and need a replacement.

If, as TfL insists, staff will be redeployed elsewhere on the three stations, there is no reason why duty employees should not open up the ticket office as and when requested by travellers. Instead, even before the official closure date, staff are barred from selling tickets through the window outside the already-restricted opening hours.

The ticket office is the obvious place for anyone to go to if they want help with buying a ticket or need assistance reaching the platforms because of infirmity or disability. Similarly, if someone sees something suspicious, feels threatened or is actually being threatened or attacked, he or she will receive help much more quickly if there is someone visible at the station to appeal to, rather than use the communications devices which are being installed on local stations.

"The closure of the ticket offices at Totteridge and Whetstone, West Finchley and Mill Hill East is likely to have a gradual and cumulative effect on the number of people using those stations. People who have a bad experience once may decide not to use the tube on future occasions when they might otherwise have done so," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green Party speaker on the environment.

For more detailts or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com

To make your own protest contact:

Customer Service Centre

London Underground

55 Broadway

London

SW1H 0BD

tel: 0845 330 9880

Set 20 mph limit near homes

All residential streets should have a 20 mph speed limit, along the lines of the plan agreed by Portsmouth City Council.
The limit could be a new safety measure or could be a replacement where road humps or other traffic calming installations have been removed.
Emergency vehicles such as fire engines and ambulances are already exempt from speed limits so their journeys would not be hampered in any way.
Another advantage of a 20 mph limit is that much less petrol is needed to drive at a steady 20 than to keep slowing and accelerating, as many drivers do on roads with speed humps.
At a time when many children are being prevented from playing outside because their parents fear the potenial dangers, we should consider anything which can make the streets safer for our children to enjoy fresh air and get much-needed exercise.

Keep your beer miles low

Last Thursday I had a excellent pint of Adnams Bitter in the Cherry Tree in Woodbridge, Suffolk. I followed it with a delicious pint of Broadside and a superb pint of Oyster Stout, a rare treat. However, I kept off the Explorer. Why? Beer miles.

Explorer is made with imported hops - that is one of the marketing points. Evidence of climate change is increasing daily and cask ale brewers should be highlighting the fact that their beers involve less transport and therefore cause fewer greenhouse gas emissions than imported lagers or than beers made in Britain with imported ingredients.

There is much talk about the need to insulate your home and everyone is conscious of the environmental impact of cars and aeroplanes, but we should also take note that around one third of the average person's carbon footprint comes from the food and drink that he or she consumes. To help reduce our personal contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere we should all eat and drink only British products as far as possible.

Drink real ale to (help) save the planet!

Greens see red over Brown

Barnet Green party members say that Chancellor Gordon Brown's plan to increase tax on the most polluting cars to 400 pounds next April is nothing like enough to deter the owners of the gaz guzzlers which throng Barnet's roads.

When local people are paying upwards of 50,000 pounds for one of these environmentally-extremely-unfriendly vehicles, an extra 400 pounds for tax is hardly likely to make them think again.

A survey last year showed that 8,716 Band G vehicles were sold to Barnet residents in the five years to 2006, more than than to residents of any other London borough. "Never mind 400 pounds, the tax needs to be 4X400 pounds if it is to prompt a reduction in the number of these huge and menacing cars on our local roads," said Andrew Newby, Barnet Green party speaker on transport.

For more details or to comment contact: andrewnewby1@gmail.com

Brent Cross plan needs improvement, say Greens

Barnet Green Party is calling for major improvements to the developers' proposals for the Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration Area.

The party has submitted these recommendations in response to the developers' consultation exercise:

1. All commercial and residential buildings should be carbon neutral. Micro-generation projects should be included in both residential and commercial developments so that as little electricity and gas as possible should be drawn from the grid system. The maximum possible energy conservation measures should be included.
Carbon neutral buildings will be more expensive to construct but will be considerably cheaper to occupy.

2. The improved bus station and the new bus station are welcome. Access for pedestrians, cyclists and buses should be prioritised over cars. Customers of Brent Cross should be encouraged to go there by foot, cycle, bus or train. The new railway station needs to be easily accessible and convenient for local people and shoppers.
Thought should be given to improving pedestrian and cycling access from adjoining residential and neighbourhood shopping areas, and also to pedestrian access from Brent Cross tube station to the shopping centre, which is almost impossible at the moment. The best solution would be a closer tube station with direct pedestrian access.

3. Nothing should be done that might have a harmful impact on existing neighbourhood shopping centres. Panels should be set up inside Brent Cross shopping centre promoting nearby shopping centres and giving directions to services which are available at those centres and not at Brent Cross, eg banks, post offices, libraries, internet cafes, public houses.

4. The parks and open spaces should be laid out in the way described, either before or at least at the same time as any other work begins on the development. They must not be delayed or forgotten about. There is a chance to enhance the Brent river as it passes through the development area and the upgrade must be carried out in such a way as to be attractive to people and beneficial to wildlife. A nature reserve should be set aside where plants, birds and animals can live undisturbed.

5. New allotments should be provided, for occupants of the new residential developments. The allotment site should be big enough to have a trading hut and to be self-managed by a volunteer committee.
For further details or to comment contact andrewnewby1@gmail.com
To find out more about the developers' plans go to: http://www.brentcrosscricklewood.com/

What US spending on Iraq war would have bought

The New York Times says the money spent by the US government on the war in Iraq would have paid for universal healthcare in the US, nursery education for all three and four-year-olds in the country, immunisation for children round the world against a host of diseases, and still leave about half of the money left over.

Bush increasing defence spending, cutting welfare

In the US federal budget for the year to September 2008, George W Bush is proposing to an increase of 49 billion dollars or 11.3 per cent in the defence budget, to 481.4 billion dollars excluding the cost of the occupation of Iraq and the broad war on terror.

Including Iraq and the war in terror, the president is asking for a total of 716.5 billion dollars for defence in the coming financial year, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Given that the US already spends a greater proportion of national income on defence than any other country, next year's US defence budget therefore includes at least 284.1 billion dollars in unnecessary spending on defence.

In the same budget, Bush wants to slash 95.9 billion dollars from major benefit programs including Medicare, the federal healthcare programme for the elderly and disabled.

Needless to say, Bush want to continue with tax cuts for the wealthy which he introduced at the start of his presidency.