Talk:London Underground

Shortest distance

I've just undone this edit in the grounds that the ref states "Shortest distance between stations Piccadilly line - Leicester Square to Covent Garden - 0.26km (0.161 miles)". This got me investigating, so I checked

• Yonge, John (November 2008) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald. ed. 5: Southern & TfL. Railway Track Diagrams (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. figs. 39B,41B,45C. ISBN 978 0 9549866 4 3. 

where we find:

Line	Stations				Figure
Piccadilly	Leicester Square	40.84 km	Covent Garden	40.58 km	45C
Northern	Charing Cross	37.03 km	Embankment	36.77 km	39B
Bakerloo	Charing Cross	43.28 km	Embankment	42.91 km	41B

Those station kilometrages may be given in articles and refd to that book, no problem there. Now, if I were to do the subtraction and compare them (and do so for all other pairs of stations) to find the shortest, this would count as WP:OR, so is not admissable:

Line	Stations				distance
Piccadilly	Leicester Square	40.84 km	Covent Garden	40.58 km	0.26 km (0.16 mi)
Northern	Charing Cross	37.03 km	Embankment	36.77 km	0.26 km (0.16 mi)
Bakerloo	Charing Cross	43.28 km	Embankment	42.91 km	0.37 km (0.23 mi)

That is to say, my WP:OR shows that the IP editor was correct in pointing out the Northern line, but incorrect in both his method of so doing and in his distance. However, this raises the question "why would LUL give only one pair of stations, excluding the other"? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Autochthony humbly suggests - an answer to the question "why would LUL give only one pair of stations, excluding the other?" might - only might, I stress - be that LUL actually knows the distances between stations [end of platform to end of platform, I guess, but don't know]; and knows that although, per table, each is 0.26 Kilometres, one distance is actually shorter than the other. Hey - "0.26 Km" is actually betwen about 265 and 255 metres, if the original points are dead on the 0.01 Km mark, otherwise it si approaching 269.9m to 251.1m. And the dfference between those two measurements is the length of a cricket pitch (more or less)! Autochthony humbly suggested - 2047z 02.04.2011. 81.132.188.132 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If they are identical to the metre (which is unlikely) they could be highlighting the Piccadilly Line as Covent Garden station is significantly more overcrowded than either Charring Cross or Embankment, so it would suit them to highlight this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Date of birth of "London Underground"

When did "London Underground", as opposed to such terms as "the London Underground", become a designation for the tube operation? Several WP articles use "London Underground" about long past events, even in reference to the system before the LPTB came into existence. I trawled WP desultorily and unsuccessfully for a definitive date, era, or epoch. Was the creation of London Underground Ltd. the origin?

Should the article "London Underground" be "The London Underground"? It's such an overblown article with despite its "Main article" is "This" and "That" its own virtual reams about This and That that it is just about unreadable and unscannable by eye for a particular detail.--SilasW (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Underground" as a brand for most of the system was first used in 1908. "London" in connection with "Underground" as a name can at least be dated to the Underground Electric Railways Company of London (UERL), established in 1902. With regard to whether the definite article should be included in the article name, the manual of style says not. --DavidCane (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

See Day, John R.; Reed, John (2008) [1963]. The Story of London's Underground (10th ed.). Harrow: Capital Transport. pp. 78-79. ISBN 978 1 85414 316 7. ; it seems that a February 1908 meeting of the London Passenger Traffic Conference agreed to use "Underground", as more accurate than "Tube", and to officially drop the latter. By about 1913 it had become "UndergrounD". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear enough. I asked when the very term "London Underground", which is used in hundreds of WP articles for the present entity which owns/controls/dictates about an easily definable set of railway operations became official (and parenthetcally I would point out could be abolished, as it was created, at the whim of our political overlords).
I see a clear difference between it (that is "London Underground" with or w/o "Ltd.") and, no matter what WP guidelines have about definite articles, "The London Underground" meaning the network itself. I did not ask when "Underground" became a brand. though I note that the book given as settling the matter (whose quoted extract is not relevant) is titled "London's Underground".
WP go to "London Underground Ltd" redirects to "London Underground" (possibly erroneously by comparison with the grossly lengthy History section which would have you go to a separate History article). "London Underground" starts "The London Underground is a rapid transit system serving ...."--SilasW (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Served/ Owned/ Managed

270 Served and 260 owned? What are the ten stations that aren't owned. Please include as a list/ separate article AsparagusTips (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

London Underground serves and owns 260 stations according to their official facts and figures page [1] Hugahoody (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Richmond and Wimbledon aren't owned by LUL. So that's 262 served at the very least. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Likewise Kew Gardens, Gunnersbury, Barking, Upminster, Stratford, West Ruislip and Bakerloo Line stations between Queens' Park and Harrow and Wealdstone are owned by Network Rail, which would make the total 277 stations served by my maths (assuming the 260 owned figure is correct) so something doesn't tally. Could it be related to the East London Line stations' ownsership being transferred to a different part of TfL? Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

London Underground hits 3.4 billion?

According to the London Evening Standard, 3.4 billion people used the Tube last year! I'm wary of adding this to the article as LU/TfL haven't put this on their website. Likelife (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Its a WP:RS so why not? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be clarified that the 3.4 billion is for all London's public transport. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:London Underground/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's get cracking. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go and note issues below (also check my edit summaries for possible explanations as I go): Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

...now the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan lines (lead) - I'd link the lines here.

The Underground serves 270 stations and 402 kilometres (250 mi) of track... - "serves the stations" ok, though not fond of the verb, but "serves the track"?? I think this needs rewording. Nothing is jumping out at me though.... Maybe the answer is to shift the number of stations to the next sentence which actually discusses station-count.

In history section, first para, I presume ref 10 references the lot. What I often do here is add a commented out text after the ref noting the ref covers the whole para or previous 'x' sentences (In case of splitting or adding other material later)

In The first underground railways, second para uncited.

actually looking at that paragraph, the material concerning Pearson looks to be a little repetitive and somewhat convoluted. I think it could be folded down a bit. I am happy to have a go at this if you can't see it.

In The first underground railways, third para has only one cite, and some interesting stuff there which'd be good to reference.

In The first underground railways, fourth para uncited. I am not sure "the District" needs bolding (should be generally restricted to the lead)

In The first underground railways, fifth para has only one cite.

This caused widespread disruption and required the demolition of several properties on the surface - only several? that doesn't sound like much - do you mean several significant or historic ones?

In The first underground railways, sixth, seventh and eighths paras need more cites.

In the First tube lines bit, first para uncited.

Integration section - paras 1,2, and 3 uncited.

last four or five paras of the Integration section are a bit listy in terms of what happened. Any ability to add overall demand or other themes to make it tie together would be good.

London Transport all uncited.

The books from which pages are cited in the references section should not be in a further reading section as they are integral to the previous section. I generally call them Cited texts but that is my personal preference as it is the least ambiguous term I have found. I am not too fussed what you call them as long as it is made clear they are some form of reference. For any remaining, it'd be good to state a reason why they are needed in the article at all (I am open minded here)

More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay here's the thing - the article pretty comprehensive (I can't see any glaring omissions) and the structure and prose are pretty good. One thing I find is that on these articles you find information is wrong surprisingly frequently when you start checking even obvious things - hence I really think it is necessary to have it ship-shape with inlined references. This is one of the problems with nominating an article you haven't worked on. I think I'll ping several contributors who've supplied material over the years and see if we get any luck. If no-one replies I might have to fail it (this is no big deal, it can be renominated any time...and will get picked up quickly to be reviewed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments having been pinged:

• One of the reasons that this has not been nominated previously by one of the Wikiproject London Transport participants is that it needs some balancing of the text to ensure that repetitions and duplications with articles such as History of the London Underground, Metropolitan Railway and Underground Electric Railways Company of London are removed.
• The references are in need of work, some of the formatting is inconsistent in style (contrast 3 and 4 with 17 and 18) or broken (10 and 11). Others are incomplete, needing publishers or access dates, and some have a full book cite whilst most are short form. There are a number of blogs used as sources. These aren't usually acceptable.
• The "Integration" section needs a Main article: link to Underground Electric Railways Company of London .
• There is currently no mention of the two most important people in the Underground's history: Lord Ashfield and Frank Pick. Other people needing a mention include Edward Watkin, Edgar Speyer and James Henry Greathead.

--DavidCane (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I picked this up as the reviewer. As this would be an important article to do well and get right, I am happy to loosen the time criteria and leave open for a while. If it sounds like there is just too much to do, then I can just fail it now and see if folks move to address these issues at their own pace, and re-nominate at their leisure. I am happy to do either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

• Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail: Look, I think alot of good work's been done on this article, but I am acknowledging David Cane's comments above.

Essentially:

1. . Large swathes need referencing.
2. . Historical figures noted above should be discussed

Anyway, at least this GA review has provided a game plan toward GA status, which someone can work on without a strict time limit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Became a single entity in 1985"?

The lead says "The underground network became a single entity in 1985, when the UK Government created London Underground Limited (LUL)". I find this a surprising statement, and it is not backed by the source cited at the end of that sentence. I should have thought the "single entity" dates from 1933 when all the companies were brought under the control of the new LPTB. Any views? -- Alarics (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing a legal entity with a unified system. AFAIK, in 1933, all the underground rail lines, trams, trolleybuses, buses and coaches were brought together as London Transport, with the underground lines forming one or more divisions of the LPTB. My guess is that as part of the abolition of the GLC (and also other Mets and bus deregulation), London Transport was split between the Underground and Buses (and others?). It appears that neither Boris nor Ken have attempted any re-merger of LU with other legal entities (such as LO, DLR, buses), and so it remains a single entity.

So, it isn't wrong, but it is a bit misleading. The source says that London Underground was formed in 1985, so why not rephrase that sentence as: "In 1985, the UK Government formed London Underground Limited (LUL) as a separate entity." Tim PF (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "separate entity" makes a lot more sense than "single entity". -- Alarics (talk)

Fixed accordingly. -- Alarics (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead lacks any mention of the serious problems with the underground

Apparently adding any mention of problems in the lead lacks 'popular support' - not something that I thought wikipedia was about. Still - I'm sure the 95.2% of passengers who are regularly impacted would support some mention of overcrowding and other issues in the lead. Why is this something 'we' would want to push down ? It's like having no mention of the life shortening properties of Cigarettes in the lead. Megapixie (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Those are things that are fixed properties of cigarettes and part of their fundamental characteristics. The overcrowding problems on the Tube are not of that order. They are temporary difficulties, observed for the most part at peak hours only, and they are being tackled through the ongoing upgrade programme to increase capacity, which inevitably is taking several years. One can argue about how well the programme has been managed, but that is a separate issue. Also, keep a sense of proportion: peak-hour commuting is rarely a pleasant experience on any big-city rapid transit system: that is the nature of the beast. -- Alarics (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Well track and stations and history are properties of all railway lines - perhaps we shouldn't mention them in the lead either? Actually, I've commuted in Tokyo for several years, and despite it's reputation for being crowded - I would take a 10 minute ride on the busiest rush hour line in central Tokyo over a 10 minute ride on the tube for the following reasons: The trains have air-conditioning, they actually ventilate the stations (which also have somewhat ineffectual air conditioning as well), and the trains run like clockwork. On the Central line I would be baked (or melted) - stuck in a tunnel for 20 minutes (yes that 10 minute journey just turned into a 30 minute one), forced to breath air worse than second-hand cigarette smoke, only to discover that when I reach my station - it's been closed due to overcrowding. That isn't a once off experience - that's _every day_. It's not just me either - as the linked report shows - the vast majority of passengers have exactly the same (terrible) experience of the London underground. What I'm trying to say - if it was just hot, or just crowded, or just unreliable, or just had air you could see and taste it would be bearable. But it isn't _just_ one - it's all of them, and there is no meaningful plan to deal with any of them.

The London Underground is the worst mass transit system I've ever experienced in the 'first-world', and it is the 'just live with it' attitude that keeps it that way. It is unfit for purpose. As such it needs to be pointed out in the lead. Megapixie (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I use LU frequently and it is not usually as bad as that. And it is not true that there is no meaningful plan to deal with the problems. But none of that is really the point. The point is that you are trying to push a line, and that is not what WP is for. We should just describe the facts, as they may be verified via reliable sources, in as objective a manner as possible. The overcrowding is already mentioned in the article. -- Alarics (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The London Underground doesn't have 20 minute delays every day... And basically all metro systems are overcrowded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It might be fair to mention the lack of AC. That is generally common. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And it is not true that there is no meaningful plan to deal with the problems ^{[citation needed]}. Well everything I've presented comes from independent, non-agenda driven research, which I provided citations for. Megapixie (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the citations you provided showed that there were no plans to deal with the problems. Conversely, the article itself mentions that upgrades are under way to improve capacity, the fact that the new S stock trains on the subsurface lines do have air-conditioning, and that a new generation of deep-level tube stock is to be developed that will have some form of air-conditioning. Some parts of the capacity upgrade plan have already been finished (extra carriage on all Jubilee line trains) or are well under way (resignalling to increase trains per hour on Jubilee, Northern, Victoria) so it is quite ridiculous to try to claim that nothing is being done. Meanwhile, as mentioned in the article, the Central Line, about which you are particularly complaining, will be greatly relieved by Crossrail when that opens in 2018. -- Alarics (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The capacity increases you mention are at best a 25% increase. If enacted today - they would reduce passenger density to merely extremely crowded, however most of them won't hit for several years, by which time demand will have, once again, greatly outstripped supply. Crossrail will not significantly increase capacity, as the timetables they are presenting are totally unrealistic. As usual a gradual climbdown will happen as we draw nearer to 2015 (or whenever the contractors involved have finished lining their pockets). I welcome the addition of air-conditioning, but without spending more money on forced air ventilation (which they don't want to do, because it's expensive) in the deep tunnels you are just going to melt the track. Will the tube still be terrible in 2020 ? You betcha.

You are quite right that the citations don't state their is 'no meaningful plan', and that's not what I added to the article. I added only a series of cited facts about the majority of passenger experiences on the underground - at the end of the lead. If you drew the conclusion that I'm painting a negative picture - then perhaps the facts speak for themselves. The experience itself certainly does. Megapixie (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly grinding an axe here, and that is not what WP is for. If you can cite reliable sources for a considered argument that the upgrades under way and planned will be seriously inadequate to match the scale of the problem, fine. I haven't myself seen that case made in the serious press. Meanwhile, just pushing your own POV is a complete waste of time. Your assertions about Crossrail are pure speculation and have no place here. I think most people well know that big-city peak-time commuting is pretty well always, more or less by definition, hell on wheels. I have 45 years' experience of it, in London and several other cities around the world. -- Alarics (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not addressing what I want to add. Here is what I added. Note that I focus on four points: Overcrowding, temperature during summer, poor air quality and unreliability. All four things have citations provided. Sure I have a POV - so do you. I added neutral facts you and several others removed them (I might suggest reflecting your non-neutral POV). You don't appear to disagree that the tube is overcrowded, hot, stuffy and unreliable, and that is the majority experience - it appears you just want to push those facts down the article so it doesn't appear so prominently (and embarrassingly). Why I am a POV pusher for wanting to introduce these prominent facts prominently ? You don't need to lecture me on WP:NOT - I've been here a while. Megapixie (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think mentioning the closures as a way of getting improvements and mentioning the lack of AC (as well as the plans to add it) seem like a reasonable compromise. If you want to complain about air quality find something from the last 2 years or so, rather than from 2002.

With regards to overcrowding, welcome to urban transport. If you want to include it a comparison study which covers other major world metros would be the only good way to do it.

With regards to a plan - see this on the TFL website - I found it in 10 seconds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was very interesting (warning RTF), also this (archive.org) Megapixie (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Something eight years old, and something ten years old? Not quite within the last two years timeframe Eraserhead1 suggested.... Nick Cooper (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I said 'I thought it was interesting' not 'eat this and die suckers'. Megapixie (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I just clarify something - Nick - If I can find something within the last 'few' years indicating dangerous levels of dust in the tube tunnels, you would be supportive of adding it to the lead ? Megapixie (talk) 07:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

FOI requests are in (don't bother sending them an e-mail apparently the associated addresses are ignored). Health and Safety law requires them to conduct regular risk reviews, I've requested these along with all related information on dust and gas levels in the tunnels since 2002. 20 days and counting. Megapixie (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Article out of date? PPP

In the history London_Underground#Public_Private_Partnership - shouldn't there be a new section eg http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/management/1580.aspx says "The acquisition of Tube Lines by Transport for London (TfL) effectively ended the Public Private Partnership (PPP)." The article currently only seems to go to the period before this acqusistion.

Some example news items bbc other wolmar in guardian -seem to have happened 2009/10Mddkpp (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake - some idiot had put a news story from 2004 at the end of the section so I assumed that the history ran only to 2004, naively assuming that the article would be in some semblance of chronological order.Mddkpp (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The PMF Methodology

This section was discussed at Project UK Railways and it was agreed to remove it. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Underground. There is a clear consensus that verbiage about the minutiae of project-management issues within LUL, especially when written in management-speak jargon, is not appropriate for inclusion in this important article. -- Alarics (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I can add to that - having read some of the links - it is clear that LUL's project management skills were "abysmal" or "non-existant" (my words) prior to recent times - as shown by the score of "under 1" (in 2007 http://www.railpro.co.uk/news/?idArticles=912) -this is similar to that of a slime mold, or amoebal blob.

the current score - 3 is average (management exists) the scale goes up to five. I've also said that if included the write up should give real world figures - like the saving of £400m.

If it can be written in an understandable form, including explaining that there were real project management issues before then it might be worthy of inclusion. But nobody is going to agree to the inclusion a near nonsensical bulleted list in marketting speak resembling a dictat from bullshit castle. One sentence should be enough - not a whole section. But it realy really should written in a form understandable at a simple level without having to read several (contextless) pdfs.Mddkpp (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Alarics. This is twice I've explained this to you now. There is a team of 15 people working hard within LUL to roll out the PMF methodology across 20,000 employees. I can't see how you can make a decision on a whim to delete the piece of work referenced here. You don't even work for LU. Not sure what your job is (if you have one) but you already have my LU email address so you should feel free to email me and we can talk about the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When you say to me "You don't even work for LU", that shows that you have still not taken on board how Wikipedia works. It is a DISadvantage, and in general frowned upon, to be working for the organisation you are writing about on WP. Other editors who are not involved can be more objective. See WP:COI. I don't suppose Mddkpp works for LU either; see his/her comments above. It is not only I who object to this "internal" stuff being included, and this is not "on a whim": there is agreement between several editors. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Underground. -- Alarics (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Just two editors doesn't make it several. And in any case how can you express opinion since you don't even know what the project is about? I'm happy to explain the details if you're happy to listen and learn but you seem not to be willing to do either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.79.208.20 (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Not two but six editors so far oppose you on this, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#London_Underground. A single sentence stating that LU was reported to have saved £400m by improving project management, citing the June article in Rail Professional, might be acceptable. Anything more than that would be WP:UNDUE. -- Alarics (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

To add my two-pennyworth, I think the relevant sections are much too obscure for a general encyclopaedia entry. They might have a place on an internal London Underground staff wiki, but they aren't useful here. A sentence or two, properly sourced, on previous project management systems and their improvement (or otherwise) would be sufficient. IxK85 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Sir/Madam (User:80.79.208.20), please don't edit war , see Wikipedia:Edit warring. Also please see WP:Conflict of interest - you appear to be saying that you are involved with the project. Please also read the rest of this article and other articles - and note how much coverage is given to individual topics, and how it is presented. Even if the subject you are adding should be included the way you are adding it goes into too much detail, is not written in an encyclopedic way, fails to give background and key details. Did you understand anything that was written about what you added being written in "management bullshit speak"? Mddkpp (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at making a short inclusion of the topic - see here in very rough form:

Between 2007 and 2010 London Underground's project management was improved from an initial low level (informal or no management) to a situation where a central overview of project planning existed .ref2 (from below 1 to 3 as measured on the P3M3 scale.ref 1) - as a result LUL estimatesd a saving of 400million over 4 years on an annual budget of more than 1000million.ref3

If included I would probably just insert it into the history chronologically.

I still have reservations since the sources are very close to internal (or associate) rather than actually being reported by independant - as such the 400million figure hasn't really been subject to scrutiny. I still also note a lack of context (can anyone supply more information?) - ie the information is presented as fact but without evidence, examples etc.Mddkpp (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There are still ambiguities - ie in the period 2007-10 LUL was still using Bechtel/Amey PPP ? So what does this project management refer to? Wasn't the PPP responsible for this? Apologies if this is a stupid question - this isn't something I am expert on.Mddkpp (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)