London Banter - View Single Post - Why did the Metropolitan Railway go to Verney Junction?

Martin Edwards[_2_]

On 31/08/2012 09:17, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 31/08/2012 07:57, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/08/2012 13:27, Graeme Wall wrote:
On 30/08/2012 12:58, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:36:58 +0100, "Tim Roll-Pickering"
wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

Cities have a natural footprint limit. The generally accepted
limit
is that if it takes over an hour to travel from one side to the
other its expansion naturally tails off.

Explain supercities then.

London, New York, Tokyo might give you a clue. Keep looking.

Try getting across any of those in an hour.

London developed largely by expansion of its sattellite towns and
villages
in the commuter belt to the point that they fused into one another
before
the limits of the greenbelt were set,

Assembly"). The argument about whether the outer London zones are
"London"
usually boils down to the Royal Mail policies, but the strong local
identity
in at least some of the suburbs and the history of absorption rather
than
straight on expansion makes it a more open question.

Red buses London, Green Buses Country seemed a fairly simple way.

As long as they were RTs.

Most of the RTs in Watford were green, as I remember, and I am fairly
sure it is a town.

But, at that time, not London.

Nor now.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman