HISTORY OF THE TUBE
Public transport has been a
perennial need of up and coming cities. Specifically, it was
of transport that would not compromise the land area of the city. There was a
lack of direct rail services (railroad lines which connected with each other to
give a passenger direct access to his destination); the solution to this
problem was the idea for a succession of main line stations linked by an
underground railway. Charles Pearson, the City Corporation’s Solicitor for
London , first suggested
this idea in the 1830s. (Ladart, 1999) As overseer of the city's corporations,
he recognized the desperate need for a new type of railway. A railway with up
to eight tracks running under the New
Road
economic and social advantages. The demand for this type of transportation was
so great that there was no need to doubt its financial value. Traffic in the
inner city would be relieved, all markets would experience an increase in
business because they could be more easily reached by the public, and it fit in
with the city's improvement scheme by clearing out the unsanitary slum areas
with railway lines. However, the proposal failed. It could not get the
necessary financial backing and was refused by Parliament. In 1818, Marc
Isambard Brunel patented a method of tunneling through the ground using a
shield. This shield went through many transformations until J. H. Greathead
perfected the design. It was circular in shape with a diaphragm within which
the cast iron tunnel segments were bolted up. It advanced hydraulically. As it
advanced, a void was left in between the excavation and the lining, but pumping
a cement grout into the gap solved this problem. Sir Benjamin Baker, a partner
of the Metropolitan Railway Company, summed up the great engineering experience
of the construction by listing at least twelve feats of engineering which were
perfected by the crew without having ever been instructed in such procedures.
Those problems had been solved for the first time during the construction of
the Underground, and the principles of their solutions have been used since
then in engineering and construction.
Road
happened without much input from the public. (Ladart, 1999) Because of the
great demand for direct line services within the city of
project was one the public was anxious to see in progress. This was absolutely
the case. In spite of the great danger and fear of going underground, die loss
of the few open spaces in the already crowded city, the incredible demolition
of London, and the horrible injustice to the poor (without any consideration or
reparation, many of the poor had their homes destroyed in order to clear the
way for the lines) all caused or furthered by the introduction of the
Underground, the public loved it. It was there and they used it. There would
have been an immense of loss of comfort and convenience without it. Not only
would the Victorian public have lost a method of transportation, but also
future generations would have been denied references to a metaphor of motion,
which fascinated the Victorians and permeated their art and literature. They
would also have lost out on the unbelievable advancements made in engineering
through the Underground's construction, and the first real allowances for the
poor made through transportation which would lead to a number of other types of
regulated standards for the less fortunate.
38,000 people rode the Underground its first day in operation and thousands
more waited in line. The crowd was described as "the crush at the doors of
a theatre on the first night of a pantomime." (Ladart, 1999) The trains
were overstuffed to accommodate those who absolutely had to experience the
Underground on the first day. At 12:00 noon, there were enough people waiting
to fill four trains in succession and for an hour, no further tickets were sold
in order to decrease the crowds. The London Times described the
experience of the Underground as, on the whole, pleasant. The underground lines
were free from the annoyances usually experienced in railway tunnels. The
engine drivers paid greater attention to the working of the engines, and they
were very careful in the management of their fires. However, it was admitted
that there was a very small amount of sulfurous fumes given off, and because
the condensing tanks below the engines were really too small to accommodate the
amount of steam given off, some steam had to be discharged into the tunnels-but
it was also a small amount and condensed very quickly.
Underground continued to grow as well. It began at only 3.75 miles long and
today has over 250 route miles. (Ladart, 1999) During the Victorian period it
had profound economic and social effects. Its construction, and all railway
construction, increased the demand for coal, iron, bricks and other building
materials. Large companies backed the railways and made them into huge
financial investments -- huge profit producing corporations.
B.
CONSUMER PERCEPTION
the project was not able to acquire all smiles from the public. Very notable
sectors of the
community were pessimistic on the said construction of the tube. In fact, a
different source described the atmosphere in the tunnels as extremely bad and
said breathing the sulfurous fumes was "much like the inhalation of gas
preparatory to having a tooth drawn ... By the time we reached the Gower
Street, I was coughing and spluttering like a boy with his first cigar!"
(Ladart, 1999) And still another observer found the problems of the Underground
to be significant, complaining of "the darkness of the tunnels, the heat
of the gas-lighted carriages in the summer, the sulphurous odor down in the
stations, and the fear of unknown and indefinite dangers."
the extensive demolition and area shutdowns caused by the Underground were also
a highly debated topic. One very critical editorial in The London
Times likened the map of the Metropolitan railways to "an anatomical
drawing with endless filaments of blue and red veins running from one blotchy
center to another." (Ladart, 1999) In this article we are told that no
space is safe from the intrusion of the "iron monsters." There was a
great fear in many of the Victorians that the simplicity in life which they
highly valued and the element of nature which was extremely important was being
destroyed by this fast-paced progress, just as the earth was being raped by the
men and machinery constructing the Underground.
addition, many felt that all of the railway lines added to the squalor and
unhealthiness of the city. While the Underground was constructed under the
premise that it was to relieve traffic, its construction led to even further
blockage of roads. Timber, mud, stone, bricks, sand, tools, etc. made foot
pavements impassable and roadways were blocked with men, machinery, earth, and
the tunnels themselves. The Underground was to have increased business, but at
first it succeeded only in driving people away from lodgings and shops. There
was also a great interference with drainage and other underground pipelines. In
spite of careful attempts to avoid these lines in the excavation of the earth,
many lines were hit and damaged or destroyed. One of the reasons behind the
delay of the Underground's scheduled opening was an accidental breakage into
the sewerage line, which ran parallel to the railway line. As the pipelines
below the earth were being destroyed and the city above was being demolished,
dwindled away. If there were any places that were not already overcrowded with
people, pollution, and buildings, they were soon filled up with the confusion
of construction and/or railway lines.
the Ladart (1999) provided an analysis on the negative reaction of the people of
Firstly, the resentment and the problems were felt and seen by an extremely
small percentage of people. There was never any more than editorial comments
made on the disadvantages of the railway; never was any train boycotted, not
for a day, not even for a single run. It was a necessity and a convenience-not
something the public was likely to give up. The Underground and the railways of
the people. They put the spectacle of speed and motion in front of the people's
lives and it was intoxicating to them. Nature was conquered and now there was a
way also to conquer space and time! The art and literature of the era reflect
these feelings. Railway metaphors popped up in many literary works. Dickens
used them frequently. R. L. Stevenson's famous poem "From a Railway
Carriage" is another example: "All of the sights of the hill and the
plain, fly as thick as driving rain, and ever again in the wink of an eye,
painted stations whistle by." (Ladart, 1999) The railways also appeared in
literature in a negative light. William Morris describes the Underground as
"that vapour-bath of hurried and discontented humanity."
the most important consequence of the creation of the London Underground is the
contribution it made to the regulation of standardized assistance to the poor.
(Ladart, 1999) Charles Pearson, the creator of the plan for an underground
railway service knew that the service would cater greatly to the working class
traveling to work each day. He also realized the serious expense such railroad
trips would be to the poor. He had hoped for a standard low fare for the
working class, but died before this goal was achieved. By 1865 between 1,800
and 2,000 workmen were using the Underground every day. Because of the huge
injustice done to the poor in the construction of the railway, the return rate
for the workers was lowered to 3 d. Although this does not sound like a
significant discount, and while we realize that this in no way solved or helped
the problem of homelessness (except in a very abstract way), the Metropolitan
Railway was the first ever to offer such a compensation to the poor
C.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRATEGIES
The Tube is crucial to
London 's role as a great,
modern metropolis. It has helped give London
a unique transport system, supporting business, tourism and leisure activity.
And its impact goes beyond London
(Dept. of Transport) It is the oldest underground railway in the world. Its
age, and the past under-investment, means that it does not provide a modern
service fit for a 21st century capital. This fact provides anxiety to the
consumers of the said transport with regards on the proper maintenance of the
Tube. Nonetheless, the Government is committed to modernize the Underground.
Thus, the government pursued the Public Private Partnership (PPP). It is a
process wherein the Tube stays in the public sector while private companies fix
the infrastructure.
The PPP proposals combine public
sector control of trains and stations with the best of private sector expertise
in maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure. It will continue to deliver a
single integrated service for passengers and a modern, safe, reliable Tube. It
will drive investment of £13 billion over 15 years, with £8.7 billion spent on
enhancements, and £4.3 billion on maintenance - higher sustained investment
than ever before. (Dept. of Transport) Moreover, the PPP promises to be better
value for money than the present system, and is designed to satisfy the
rigorous safety checks of the independent Health and Safety Executive. In
addition, services will be faster and more frequent - for
example, a 20% increase
in capacity on the Victoria Line. There
will be fewer breakdowns and delays and more reliable services.
The PPP will update technology - around half of all cancellations today are
caused by equipment failures. The
public sector will co-ordinate works - so you would not see,
for example, the Northern and Victoria
lines closed for upgrades at the same time.
On the other hand, safety and
security will be improved. London Underground will remain
The independent Health and Safety Executive will continue to ensure Underground
safety. Many more stations will have security cameras.
(Dept. of Transport) Likewise, fares
will continue to be set by the elected Greater London Authority under the Mayor
- the PPP does not require fares to
rise faster than inflation.
For decades London Underground has not been properly funded. Moreover,
Government funding was chopped and
changed from year to year, so Tube managers could not invest
effectively. From 1979 to 1997 average core investment was United Kingdom ’s
Department of Transport, by 1997 there was a
1997 core investment in London Underground has increased to around £530m a
year - better than before, but still
not enough. With
economic growth and increased tourism, overcrowding is now a
daily problem. Passenger numbers rose above 1 billion passengers last year for
the first time. Likewise, the Ten Year Transport Plan will deliver £180 billion
of investment, with over £50 billion coming from the private sector. PPPs are
boosting investment in National Air
Traffic Services, the Channel
Tunnel Rail Link and modern
tram schemes up and down the country. These schemes have one
thing in common - without partnership
with the private sector they would still be promises, not actual projects.
Moreover, London Underground is
already working in partnership with the private sector to
deliver modern communications, reliable power supplies, and a new ticketing
system. A forerunner of the PPP is already working on the Northern Line, where
trains are far more reliable thanks to a new maintenance regime operated
jointly by LU and its private sector partners. On the
million PPP delivered the Lewisham link two
months early and on budget in 1999. Another PPP is planned to
link the DLR to London
City Airport
(Dept. of Transport) Furthermore, the
PPP proposals bring in the first committed long-term investment programme (£13
billion over 15 years) for the Underground, with higher public sector support
than ever before. PPP companies will be paid by results, and charged for poor
performance. To reduce risk and avoid penalties, the companies
therefore invest as early as possible in the most reliable systems and
technology.
In addition, London Underground is a transport operator, not a construction
and maintenance specialist. Management improvements to existing systems might
be promised, but executive control and mayoral policies would inevitably change
frequently over future decades with all the consequent uncertainty.
systems London Underground projects are often late and suffer large cost
overruns. The Jubilee Line Extension was 2
years late, and is still not running at full capacity despite a
cost overrun of £1400 million. The Central Line resignalling work is
by an average of 20% more than budget.
Even allowing for a lower overspend on simple
maintenance works, this would amount to some
D.
IMPACT ON TOURISM
According to James (2001) the Tube is one of the key
ingredients in boosting tourism in
Moreover, CBI Chairman Digby Jones, the first chairman of Tourism Alliance –
the new voice of the industry – yesterday revealed the need to embrace the
benefits of private finance for the Underground. According to him, both
will benefit from better transport links across the capital – with most
visitors coming into
through
In the alliance’s five-year vision for
privately financed, publicly run Tube is a cornerstone of keeping the capital
on the move. (James, 2001) James noted that
significant improvements to keep it on the move. Likewise, political
in-fighting over the past two years has let
action has been required. And it adds that congestion charging ‘if not
implemented effectively, could cause lasting damage to
Specifically, tourism is
financial services. (James, 2001) It involves almost 700,000 people. Tourism is
valued at almost £10 Billion, the industry represents 8 per cent of
in 2001,
attracted more than 183m visitors. In addition,
accounts for 75 per cent of all international arrivals in the
Sources:
Department
for Transport.
Underground: Public Private Partnership, The Offer to Londoners. In
Accessed [01/27/03]
James,
Tom.Tourism’s lifeline: Transport crying out for private cash says CBI chief.
2001. In http://www.thetube.com. Accessed
[01/27/03]
Samantha. The
Underground. 1999. In http://www.loyno.edu. Accessed
[01/27/03]
No comments:
Post a Comment