That same lobby also endorsed the idea that transit should be governed by the city, not the national government, an idea that was overwhelmingly passed by referendum in 1998. That’s what TfL got, and that’s what TfL needed Nicole Badstuber, University College London “That is important because you not only had a business lobby and a developer lobby starting to say, ‘We need to invest in transport,’ but also, you now have a separate level of clientele that’s using the network, and has certain expectations.” You need a large amount of capital investment in the system.
“There was no way could get this amount of workers without having mass transit,” says Badstuber. The same year, ‘a state of emergency’ was declared over the city’s ageing subway.
Suddenly British developers were convinced of transport’s role in expanding wealth generation.Ī 2017 transport protest in New York in 2017. The new pressure resulted in two new high-tech arteries to serve Canary Wharf: the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and the Jubilee Line tube extension. So, too, was image: the Thatcher era saw London’s new role as global banking capital find its home in the London Docklands, where the towers of Canary Wharf were rising. The fire was an explicit message that new cash was needed immediately. “Basically since the end of the second world war, there was no investment” in the London transit system, she says. The story of how the two most important metros in the western world, serving cities with such similar pressures of population (between 8 and 9 million, and growing) and hyper-development, diverged so drastically is a story of many things – but chiefly, says Nicole Badstuber, an expert who studies transport governance at University College London and once worked for Transport for London (TfL), it is “a story of maintenance”. The burnt-out remains of the ticket hall following the Kings Cross fire in 1987.
0 kommentar(er)
