"Michael Bell" wrote in message
...
In article , Brimstone
wrote:

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

I live in the Borough of Lewisham but the boundary with Bromley is no
more than 200 yds away and there will be, of course, analagous places
close to Bexley but clearly in London.

If I cross the boundary into Bromley I do not see any material
difference,
not immediately and not for many miles. In broad terms the centre of
Bromley and the center of Lewisham are very similar (and very similar
to
many other 'town' centres, but that is a different topic).

London used to be a tiny area on the north bank of Thames and has
gradually
grown. It seems to me that where there is a continuous built up area
there
is one city (or Metropolitan Area if you want). By that standard,
Bexley,
Bromley, Croydon etc are already part London and have been for many
years.

People of the Black Country would seriously disagree with you as would
the
people of Salford.

I think of everything inside the M25 as "London", no matter what protests
there may be, and I don't think people from South Shields to Blaydon would
object to being told they live in "Newcastle" and certainly "on the Tyne"
would be acceptable.


How about Gateshead?

In article , (Nick)
wrote:

London heritage??? We have been part of Kent for generations, and
only sucked into the Greater London experiment so the Tories could
take control of London government (well, mostly). I am sure the
overwhelming majority of residents in Bexley describe, and want to
describe themselves as living in Kent (me included). Maybe those of
us in metropolitan Kent will one day escape from the clutches of
central London and determine our own affairs without inteference.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT.
We are part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all,
for all other purposes we are people of Kent. I know "Londoners"
find this hard to believe, but many of us don't wanty to be part of
your high-density overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

Nonetheless as far as buses are concerned the red ones of London
Transport penetrated as far as Dartford (trolleybuses before them)
and Farningham, and the green ones of London Transport country
area a lot further into Kent than that.

--
Peter Beale

In message , Nick
writes
"Ian Jelf" wrote in message
...
In message , Nick
writes
I know "Londoners" find this hard to believe, but many of us don't wanty
to be part of your high-density overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

But people there are probably happy with their co-ordinated public
transport and - when the time comes - Freedom Passes?

Whenever I have this debate about Bexley part of Greater London or not, the
biggest noise always seems to be made about the Freedom pass!
The same happens here in Birmingham when the Centro Senior Citizen pass
is used as justification for Sutton Coldfield being now part of
Birmingham. :-)

Arguably, I think the freedom pass is overkill anyway;
Well I don't but each to their own.

Co-ordinated local public transport? In Bexley, that just means running
buses with the NR network, and you don't need a massive Greater London body
to draw up a few bus timetables to match those of the NR network.
Try living outside the Greater London area [1] and compare transport
provision and co-ordination there and you'll see how LB Bexley *does*
have co-ordination.


[1] or whatever term you prefer for the area administered by the GLA
and Mayor and served by TfL.
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

"Nick" wrote in message
...


London heritage??? We have been part of Kent for generations, and only
sucked into the Greater London experiment so the Tories could take control
of London government (well, mostly). I am sure the overwhelming majority
of
residents in Bexley describe, and want to describe themselves as living in
Kent (me included). Maybe those of us in metropolitan Kent will one day
escape from the clutches of central London and determine our own affairs
without inteference.

I loathe Bexley being described as "south London", it really is NOT. We
are
part of the Greater London administrative area, that's all, for all other
purposes we are people of Kent. I know "Londoners" find this hard to
believe, but many of us don't wanty to be part of your high-density
overpopulated sprawling urban gloom.

Nick



Blimey, got home form work and found that I never got my original question
answered, but am glad to have kicked off such a lively debate!

I am afraid that I have to wade in and take issue with my fellow Bexley
person. The heritage in question is London's world-famous red buses. Their
expansion into Bexley did not occur with the creation of the GLC but has
existed as long as London's transport has been co-ordinated, whether by
LPTB, LT, TfL etc. Indeed, it predates centralisation and nationalisation of
bus services, as the private London General Omnibus Company opened Sidcup
garage with red buses in 1924.

So, Bexley was a part of London's transport network generations before the
GLC was created. Hence, taking our red buses away went against our local
heritage as a part of the London transport network.

(Note the Bexley was always going to be a part of the Greater London county
due to its location within the metropolitan built-up area, which was on the
cards from the 1930s as the LCC couldn't do a proper job when they only
collected rates from the poorer inner city and was unwinnable for the
Tories; the Tories did however try to elbow more of Surrey inside the GLC
boundary such as Epsom and Banstead to make it safer Tory ground, but those
areas resisted and hence the GLC became marginal.)

In terms of your general criticism that Bexley is not in London, can I put
the following forward (and much of this goes for other parts of outer
London):

1) The suburban sprawl across Bexley did not arise out of thin air, but
occurred solely as a result of the accessibility of cheap housing close to
the railways into London. The population of Bexley did not materialise out
of thin air, but people moved out from other parts of London where
conditions were poorer and more crowded. Thus demograpically in the 1920s
and 1930s the borough changed from a rural area where most people were
brought up locally to one with a population massively imported from outside
the area.

This distinguishes the population enormously from 'other' parts of Kent
outside the metropolis, where growth was slower and more organic, based more
upon the growing populaiton generally and drift towards the nearest
town/industry. Already you have a situation where not only is Bexley
physically joined to London (which should be sufficient in anyone's book to
make it a part of the metropolis) but there was by WW2 a cultural difference
between metropolitan Kent (Bexley, Bromley etc) which largely grew as a
result of an influx of polulation from the inner London and the rest of Kent
(i.e. outside Greater London today).

2) The 20 years up to WW2 both physically and culturally changed Bexley, so
much so that when the country's civil defences were being organised, Bexley
and Bromley were under the control of the London Civil Defence Region, not
the South Eastern Region which was responsible for the rest of Kent. One
reason for this was that Bexley and Bromley have always been a part of the
Metropolitan Police District, another generations-old distinction between
the heritage of the metropolitan and rural Kents which predates not only the
GLC but also the LCC.




You say that Bexley is a part of Kent for "all other purposes". What are
these purposes? As far as I can tell Bexley is in Kent for:

a- Postal address. Although as another poster pointed out, the county can be
omitted, or indeed London can be used provided the postcode is correct- this
precedent was established by the Royal Mail due to the number of county
changes that followed a decade after London in 1974 when a great many people
demanded the right to choose to use either the traditional or new county

b- Cricket. No county of (Greater) London exists, hence (broadly) SE London
is covered by Kent (who have had grounds in Blackheath, Catford and
Beckenham) , SW London by Surrey (The Oval), W and N London by Middlesex
(Lords, Southgate, Uxbridge) and E London by Essex (Ilford, Leyton).


Wheras I can count these for London:

a- Administration. London Borough of Bexley, Greater London Authority,
London Mayor, London Region European Constituency.

b- Civil organisations. Metropolitan Police, London Fire Brigade, London
Ambulance Service, NHS.

c- Transport (already waffled on about that above!).

d- Culturally. Yes, I'm sure some will raise eyebrows at that (!), but while
Bexley residents may not have much in common with the average resident of
inner city London, they certainly have more in common with fellow
commuterland residents of Bromley, or Sutton, or Finchley etc. than they do
with the countryfolk in the county of Kent across the M25. Indeed, as many
of the people who populated the thousands of new houses in the 1920s or
1930s as commuters came from inner London, many more have historic family
roots in inner London than in Kent whether they realise it or not, whereas
most residents of Kent itself can probably go back many generations in the
county.

e- Economically. Suburban Bexley is entirely dependent on the economy of
London, whereas Kent itself has a stronger relationship with agriculture in
the centre/south, tourism in the 'Garden of Kent', some traditional industry
(incl shipping) along the Thames and Channel coast and towns are
self-sufficient to a much larger extent. Bexley is a suburb, which has
little industry and sugnificantly fewer jobs than its population requires,
hence the dominance of commuting to the centre of London, which makes it a
suburb and not a distinct self-sufficient urban settlement.

f- Telecoms. Don't know about anyone else, but I think our FOOts Cray phone
number was replaced with an 01- code at the same point in the 1960s as
everyone else in London's. (I realise that due to the nature of the telecom
lines, this is not a very precise measure, with bits of Greater London still
outside 020 (Erith, Uxbridge etc) and bits outside within (Ewell, Loughton);
but clearly there's a very good match with the Greater London boundary.)

g- Geographically. Well, just look at a map- Bexley is a part of the
built-up area of London, which should really settle the issue regardless of
the above.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:43:54 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote:

I think of everything inside the M25 as "London", no matter what protests
there may be, and I don't think people from South Shields to Blaydon would
object to being told they live in "Newcastle" and certainly "on the Tyne"
would be acceptable.

Being an exiled Geordie I think people in Blaydon and South Shields most
definitely would object to being lumped into Newcastle. They really are
NOT part of Newcastle at all. They are all different places and are all
in different council areas. There are also loads of places and districts
between Newcastle and South Shields and Blaydon. You might as well say
Hexham is part of Tynemouth or Blyth is part of Sunderland.

I would imagine people in Blaydon could also object to being described
as being part of Gateshead - which they are for council / administrative
purposes.

I can recall people having a problem with the concept / reality of the
county of Tyne and Wear. A lot of people simply worked on Northumberland
being North of the Tyne and County Durham being south of the Tyne - as
was the case prior to the Met counties existing. I appreciate the old
distinction doesn't work as you head West of Newcastle.

I consider London to be represented by the old GLC / LCC area and the 32
Boroughs and the City. The M25 is not representative of London in my
view.

I appreciate my views about Newcastle and London "areas" are
inconsistent but they are different places with a different history and
culture and it is clear from a lot of the comments that it is these
things that define how people "recognise" an area and what county or
council area it is in.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

"Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message
...
Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London, something
which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm honest!) was the
taking
away of our red buses. This was particularly true where I lived at the
time
as even the route London Buses retained were transformed into the
horrendous
Bexlybus operation. It really felt like they were taking some of our
London
heritage away, which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells
everybody you live in Kent.

So, I was delighted when Ken reversed the livery requirement and was
wondering...

1) What percentage of routes are now red liveried?
2) How long until they are all red? If an existing non-red operator, such
as
Metrobus on the 161, has modern low-floor buses and retains the route with
existing vehicles, do they have to repaint or is it only on new bus
orders?

Thanks


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Wilson" a@a
Newsgroups: uk.transport.london
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 7:50 AM
Subject: Red buses


Of all the horrors of the early years of tendering in London, something
which really bugged me (out of all proportion if I'm honest!) was the
taking
away of our red buses. This was particularly true where I lived at the
time
as even the route London Buses retained were transformed into the
horrendous
Bexlybus operation. It really felt like they were taking some of our
London
heritage away, which is all the more sensitive when the Royal Mail tells
everybody you live in Kent.

So, I was delighted when Ken reversed the livery requirement and was
wondering...

1) What percentage of routes are now red liveried?
2) How long until they are all red? If an existing non-red operator, such
as
Metrobus on the 161, has modern low-floor buses and retains the route with
existing vehicles, do they have to repaint or is it only on new bus
orders?

Thanks


Broadly speaking I agree with your observations about red livery in London,
although there are a few cases where the blanket policy ought to be
questioned, Metrobus for instance, whose livery was part of the build up a
very strong and respected local image.

I don't believe however that LBSL have got it right in the way it is being
implemented - all over red needs some sort of relief even if it is just a
central band.

There were also some very attractive liveries lost, personally I think
London United had a very nice livery and would have liked to see this
adopted as the London standard! But that's down to personal taste.

I can't answer your question about percentages, but it should take no longer
than 7 years from the original policy decision to get to 100% red, based on
contract renewals and possible extensions under the Quality Incentive
regime. In reality probably most will have been done within 5 years. The
repainting of existing buses would always be negotiated as a contract
requirement for a renewal, and in any case no bus should go without a
repaint for more than 5 years which helps facilitate this.

Finally, you mention Bexleybus as an example - I agree with you about the
gruesome colour scheme however by far the worst thing that happened as a
result of Bexley and other similar "low cost" operations in the 80's was
what the staff were put through in terms of worsening of pay and conditions.

Rob L.

Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater
London?

No. The City of London is something quite separate and it continues to
have its own Lord Mayor.

He means a city as opposed to The City.

The Mayor of London's jurisdiction is laid down by Act of parliament
(principally the London boroughs). What do you mean by the "county of
Greater London" ?

The GLA area.

And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of
Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

It's a bit of an anomaly but I imagine Downe relies on Bromley
economically, so it's better in LB Bromley (and therefore ends up being
in "London") than elsewhere.

Being a relatively new Londoner, I'm quite happy with describing or
hearing Croydon, Romford, Uxbridge etc. as being in "London", taking it
by context to mean Greater London; if someone from those places talks
about "going into London", that makes sense too.

The way that conurbations work, it would seem silly for the outer
boroughs to be "returned" to their old counties; transport certainly
works better coordinated on a "London" basis, and that by itself
requires a Greater London authority.

Watford seems to be a case in point; an urban centre linked closely to
other Greater London urban centres with train, Tube and bus links,
requiring TfL to provide services quite a far way outside of their area
(both bus and Tube), and making it more difficult to provide the Croxley
Link. I know TfL provide other services outside their area, but Watford
seems particularly odd since it is served by TfL bus *and* Tube services
(and will be served by TfL Rail services if they take on management of
Silverlink Metro).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Rob Latchford" {rob}.latchford{@}ntlworld{.}[com] wrote
Broadly speaking I agree with your observations about red livery in
London,
although there are a few cases where the blanket policy ought to be
questioned, Metrobus for instance, whose livery was part of the build up a
very strong and respected local image.

I don't believe however that LBSL have got it right in the way it is being
implemented - all over red needs some sort of relief even if it is just a
central band.

There were also some very attractive liveries lost, personally I think
London United had a very nice livery and would have liked to see this
adopted as the London standard! But that's down to personal taste.

I can't answer your question about percentages, but it should take no
longer
than 7 years from the original policy decision to get to 100% red, based
on
contract renewals and possible extensions under the Quality Incentive
regime. In reality probably most will have been done within 5 years. The
repainting of existing buses would always be negotiated as a contract
requirement for a renewal, and in any case no bus should go without a
repaint for more than 5 years which helps facilitate this.

Finally, you mention Bexleybus as an example - I agree with you about the
gruesome colour scheme however by far the worst thing that happened as a
result of Bexley and other similar "low cost" operations in the 80's was
what the staff were put through in terms of worsening of pay and
conditions.

Rob L.


Thanks, glad someone read the actual question in my post!

Interesting point about the need to repaint every 5 years, didn't realise
they needed it that regularly. And I agree about London United; you'd think
that as that has a long London pedigree they might have got an exemption,
though I expect that others would complain.

And again, I agree about Bexleybus; as I said, the colour thing was
something which probably bugged me out of proportion, by which I mean that
there were more serious flaws than this. However thankfully the position of
pay and conditions for drivers has changed much for the better since then,
as has reliability!

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:43:54 +0000, Michael Bell
wrote:

I don't think people from South Shields to Blaydon would
object to being told they live in "Newcastle" and certainly "on the Tyne"
would be acceptable.

Have you tried that with someone from Gateshead? (Or even better,
someone from Sunderland?)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

"Stephen Osborn" wrote in message
...

De facto a continuous built up area is a single
_something_, the only question is what. The
phrase Metropolitan Area is used because these
somethings are relatively new and contain a
number of things already called cities.

Metropolis means *capital* city...

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes