rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > An entire quarter of London is reliant almost exclusively on > trains and buses and as a result, when things go > wrong on the former, there is carnage on the > latter, leaving people with few options. So you think every area of London should be served by at least three forms of transport, as a contingency measure? Don't get me wrong, I'd prefer a tube too... but I don't get the argument that carrying on without it is some sort of great burden. The current situation, while painful, is not permanent.