|
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
In message , at 07:28:17
on Mon, 25 May 2015, remarked: I'm taking my definition of "London" as what's shown on TfL's map of "London rail and tube services" (see the thread title). Zones beyond 6 are only there to allow Oyster to work outside Greater London. Are you asking for Oyster zones all the way to Bishop's Stortford? No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map to be generally understood as being in London. -- Roland Perry |
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
In message , at 09:00:46
on Mon, 25 May 2015, remarked: I'm taking my definition of "London" as what's shown on TfL's map of "London rail and tube services" (see the thread title). Zones beyond 6 are only there to allow Oyster to work outside Greater London. Are you asking for Oyster zones all the way to Bishop's Stortford? No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map to be generally understood as being in London. You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire. The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might say anomalously so). http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...gbmapleaflet15 ..02.15.pdf -- Roland Perry |
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
|
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
"Roland Perry" wrote No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map to be generally understood as being in London. You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire. The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might say anomalously so). http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...gbmapleaflet15 ..02.15.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Green_Belt Goes out to Guildford, Windsor and more so Metropolitan-but outside-London -- Mike D |
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
In article , (Peter Smyth) wrote:
wrote: Given that the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland are perfectly capable of having cycle, tram and trolleybus infrastructure working alongside each other with little difficulty I don't think that's an issue. Of course the UK has little experience of such infrastructure and parallel modal working that we will imagine all sorts of risk, crises, accidents etc which is really a load of old ********. We decided that we didn't want to do that "continental rubbish" after the 1950s and 60s so we've wasted nigh on half a century wedding ourselves to the car when we could have achieved a better mix of modes. A further UK-only hazard is the 1870 Tramways Act which still makes tramway operators responsible for maintaining the highway around the tracks at their expense, in effect subsidising their opposition. That seems reasonable enough. I would assume in almost every case the road was there before the tram came along? The rest of the world doesn't expect the areas outside the tracks to be maintained as well as those incidental to the actual tracks. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote: In message , at 09:00:46 on Mon, 25 May 2015, remarked: I'm taking my definition of "London" as what's shown on TfL's map of "London rail and tube services" (see the thread title). Zones beyond 6 are only there to allow Oyster to work outside Greater London. Are you asking for Oyster zones all the way to Bishop's Stortford? No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map to be generally understood as being in London. You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire. The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might say anomalously so). http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...leaflet15.02.1 5.pdf Hertford East and Bishop's Stortford? Doesn't look like it to me. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
wrote:
In article , (Peter Smyth) wrote: wrote: Given that the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland are perfectly capable of having cycle, tram and trolleybus infrastructure working alongside each other with little difficulty I don't think that's an issue. Of course the UK has little experience of such infrastructure and parallel modal working that we will imagine all sorts of risk, crises, accidents etc which is really a load of old ********. We decided that we didn't want to do that "continental rubbish" after the 1950s and 60s so we've wasted nigh on half a century wedding ourselves to the car when we could have achieved a better mix of modes. A further UK-only hazard is the 1870 Tramways Act which still makes tramway operators responsible for maintaining the highway around the tracks at their expense, in effect subsidising their opposition. That seems reasonable enough. I would assume in almost every case the road was there before the tram came along? The rest of the world doesn't expect the areas outside the tracks to be maintained as well as those incidental to the actual tracks. They are only required to maintain the road within 18 inches either side of the tracks. Peter Smyth |
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
In article , (Peter Smyth) wrote:
wrote: In article , (Peter Smyth) wrote: wrote: Given that the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland are perfectly capable of having cycle, tram and trolleybus infrastructure working alongside each other with little difficulty I don't think that's an issue. Of course the UK has little experience of such infrastructure and parallel modal working that we will imagine all sorts of risk, crises, accidents etc which is really a load of old ********. We decided that we didn't want to do that "continental rubbish" after the 1950s and 60s so we've wasted nigh on half a century wedding ourselves to the car when we could have achieved a better mix of modes. A further UK-only hazard is the 1870 Tramways Act which still makes tramway operators responsible for maintaining the highway around the tracks at their expense, in effect subsidising their opposition. That seems reasonable enough. I would assume in almost every case the road was there before the tram came along? The rest of the world doesn't expect the areas outside the tracks to be maintained as well as those incidental to the actual tracks. They are only required to maintain the road within 18 inches either side of the tracks. Exactly. Do they have to do that in Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland or Austria? I know that strict cost allocation helped cross-subsidise German tramways while we were ripping ours up. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
New 'London Connections' map with added LO and new family member,
In message , at 20:18:25 on Mon, 25
May 2015, Michael R N Dolbear remarked: "Roland Perry" wrote No, just for the stations on the "London rail and tube services" map to be generally understood as being in London. You say. I doubt they would agree with you in Hertfordshire. The stations in question are inside the green belt (although some might say anomalously so). http://londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk...gbmapleaflet15 .02.15.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Green_Belt Goes out to Guildford, Windsor and more so Metropolitan-but outside-London Did you look at the flyer I posted? It shows that the area adjacent to the railway line, all the way to Broxbourne, isn't designated green belt. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk