tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30327407.post4435470305262622346..comments2023-10-15T14:03:20.394+01:00Comments on Forest Hill Society: Access to Forest Hill Station gets worseUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30327407.post-67321923982570467242008-07-02T16:24:00.000+01:002008-07-02T16:24:00.000+01:00Why do we have to be so apologetic about this and ...Why do we have to be so apologetic about this and hide our concerns behind a special needs accessibility agendum? – has it really reached the point in Britain today that the only way we can expect to get an efficient, practical, useful result from bodies such as TfL is by either being over 80 or in a wheelchair? Yes, indeed, for such users accessibility is a serious issue on which FH station falls seriously behind acceptable standards (acceptable in this case meaning that there is a set up that actually works), but why does this have to be our entire argument? For ANYBODY who used the station and who lives on the Perry Vale side, the closure of the Perry Vale gate entrance for most of the day will be an inconvenience. And why shouldn’t we oppose inconvenience simply for its own sake?<BR/><BR/>The argument here should be about levels of service. This year we’ve seen train fares rise considerably (far in excess of the rate of inflation) and yet have received no visible increase in the quality of service. Shutting the gate increases our inconvenience (and therefore diminishes the service provided) with no refund or rebate. In the private sector we wouldn’t stand for this – and so, for a regulated monopolist we in effect face here, it is to the regulator that we should complain. <BR/><BR/>This move, to deny us the use of the gate, reduces the quality of service provided to us, purely to save the cost of someone to monitor the gate outside of fixed limited hours. This then is a service provider who is happy to provide a reduced quality of service without reducing cost. <BR/><BR/>What a total joke.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com