|
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 |
Red buses
Tony Wilson wrote:
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. Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis. |
Red buses
"Brimstone" wrote in message
... Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis. It is the same all around London. Bromley, Croydon, Mitcham, Sutton and Kingston coming to immediate mind as examples in South London. |
Red buses
"Brimstone" wrote in message
... Tony Wilson wrote: 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. Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis. 1. If you live in Bexley, how much of your council tax goes to Kent County Council? 2. The Royal Mail dropped the requirement for county names in addresses many years ago. Type your postcode into their address finder. Peter. |
Red buses
"Peter Goodland" wrote in message ... "Brimstone" wrote in message ... Tony Wilson wrote: 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. Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis. 1. If you live in Bexley, how much of your council tax goes to Kent County Council? As much as those who live in Medway pay. So? Kent the "entity" is more than just the administrative KCC area. 2. The Royal Mail dropped the requirement for county names in addresses many years ago. Type your postcode into their address finder. And most post still uses the county field. Nick |
Red buses
"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? 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 |
Red buses
"Henry" wrote in message ... "Brimstone" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis. It is the same all around London. Bromley, Croydon, Mitcham, Sutton and Kingston coming to immediate mind as examples in South London. What about Dartford, Watford? It is a pity people (ie the media, mostly) cannot differentiate between administrative and strategic areas without using every opportunity to brand things as "London" and calling residents "Londoners". It is somewhat ironic that the London branding lobby that try so hard to persuade Bexley that it's in south London actually harm the expansion of the Greater London administrative are by doing so. A significant area around London can be sensibly co-ordinated from London, but that does't mean for a moment that it then automatically becomes London or those areas lose their cherished identity. Nick Bexley, Kent |
Red buses
I think this is one of those debates that's often characterized as an
either/or thing, when it really needn't be. I grew up in Romford, another town that's been swallowed by greater London. As anyone who's ever been to Romford will know, it's not exactly devoid of Essex identity, and I suspect that most residents would claim they live in Essex. (This includes the local MP who for no reason other than a hatred of Ken Livingstone, as far as I can tell, wants the London Borough of Havering to cede from the GLA). However, it also shares features elements of cultural identity with East London generally in a way that, say, Basildon doesn't. Moreover, in a practical sense, thigs like transport are better planned from City Hall than from Chelmsford, as more people will want to travel around the conurbation than out into Essex. I don't see any contradiction there. Romford is a suburb of London in Essex, in the same way that Bexley is a suburb of London in Kent, and Wood Green is a suburb of London in Middlesex. Jonn |
Red buses
"Nick" wrote in message
... "Henry" wrote in message ... "Brimstone" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis. It is the same all around London. Bromley, Croydon, Mitcham, Sutton and Kingston coming to immediate mind as examples in South London. What about Dartford, Watford? What indeed? I did say these were examples - there's probably a couple of dozen in all. cheers Henry (Man of Kent) |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
"Nick" wrote in message
... "Tony Wilson" a@a wrote in message ... snip 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 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. 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. Greater London & Kent *are* administrative areas. -- regards Stephen |
Red buses
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. So... which is more reliable in determining where a place is located - a postcode county system which isn't even required to be used by the Royal Mail, or the county that administers the borough? I mean, nobody seriously argues that Bordeaux is in the UK. -- Akin aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk |
Red buses
"Epetruk" wrote in message ... 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. So... which is more reliable in determining where a place is located - a postcode county system which isn't even required to be used by the Royal Mail, or the county that administers the borough? I mean, nobody seriously argues that Bordeaux is in the UK. Postal counties are pretty well established, based largely on administrative counties of some decades past. People, not surprisingly, quote where they live as where they are addressed, hence people in Bexley say they live in Kent as that's what they usually quote as their address. Describing locations by administrative areas, particularly as they seem to change so relatively frequently in the UK, makes no sense to me, though this seems increasingly common. Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe areas that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it. However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA. Nick Bexley, Kent |
Red buses
wrote in message ups.com... I think this is one of those debates that's often characterized as an either/or thing, when it really needn't be. I grew up in Romford, another town that's been swallowed by greater London. As anyone who's ever been to Romford will know, it's not exactly devoid of Essex identity, and I suspect that most residents would claim they live in Essex. (This includes the local MP who for no reason other than a hatred of Ken Livingstone, as far as I can tell, wants the London Borough of Havering to cede from the GLA). However, it also shares features elements of cultural identity with East London generally in a way that, say, Basildon doesn't. Moreover, in a practical sense, thigs like transport are better planned from City Hall than from Chelmsford, as more people will want to travel around the conurbation than out into Essex. I don't see any contradiction there. Romford is a suburb of London in Essex, in the same way that Bexley is a suburb of London in Kent, and Wood Green is a suburb of London in Middlesex. I agree with all that, and I'm sure this approach would keep everyone happy (other than the London Emporeor, sorry Mayor, who wants "London" to expand another 10 miles in all directions and banish all county names forever ;-)) Nick |
Red buses
"Nick" wrote in message
... However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA. What BBC London do geographically is pretty meaningless. They cannot even manage to match their own news coverage area to the TV transmitters they use. There are a number of areas who cannot receive any other BBC local TV news service, but whose local news is transmitted by another region. They can only get a BBC local news service if they choose to have satellite. |
Red buses
Postal counties are pretty well established, based largely on
administrative counties of some decades past. People, not surprisingly, quote where they live as where they are addressed, hence people in Bexley say they live in Kent as that's what they usually quote as their address. Indeed, and there are other variations. Edmonton has had a London postcode since the mid-1800s, about thirty years before it came under the control of Middlesex County Council, and about century before it was ever controlled by any London administrative body. Some other parts of the London Borough Of Enfield still have Middlesex in the postal address despite having a similar history. Post is really based on Post Towns and the Post Code. The county you see on your postal address may well be that of the post town rather than your own town. Your postal address can include a county that your town has never been part of geographically or administratively. Describing locations by administrative areas, particularly as they seem to change so relatively frequently in the UK, makes no sense to me, though this seems increasingly common. Absolutely, and it is not helped by the Ordnance Survey using administrative boundaries on their maps. http://www.abcounties.co.uk/ gives a good background to all this sort of thing. Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe areas that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it. However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA. When we had the GLC the term 'Greater London' did seem to be used a lot more, though that has never been part of any postal addresses. Now we have Greater London Authority the term is just as well defined, but we only really hear mention of the Mayor Of London and the London Assembly that comprise it. |
Red buses
"Nick" wrote in message
... 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. Kentish people, surely... -- 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 |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
Incidentally, there are several "Welcome to Middlesex" signs where you cross from Barnet LB to Enfield LB. I thought these were old, but I have been subsequently informed that they were put up by Enfield Council in the last ten years, after the Middlesex enthusiasts managed to convince them that even though Middlesex was no longer an adminstrative entity, it still existed. -- 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 |
Red buses
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? -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
Red buses
"Henry" wrote in message ... "Brimstone" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting the Royal Mail is wrong? As far as I'm aware Bexley has always been in Kent, it's only the grasping of London suburbia that has caused Bexley to become attached to the metropolis. It is the same all around London. Bromley, Croydon, Mitcham, Sutton and Kingston coming to immediate mind as examples in South London. Quite, and Uxbridge, Rickmansworth, Ruislip, Enfield etc. I suspect that anything inside the M25 will soon be "London" and anything outside will be out in the sticks |
Red buses
"Nick" wrote in message ... 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. Independence for Bexley? What would Ted Heath say? |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
"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. |
Red buses
John Rowland wrote:
"Nick" wrote in message ... 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. Kentish people, surely... Nah, they live in LB Camden... -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
"Brimstone" wrote in message
... "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. As would Nick no doubt. I don't agree. 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. -- regards Stephen |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
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. Michael Bell -- |
Red buses
In article ,
"Graham J" wrote: Describing locations by administrative areas, particularly as they seem to change so relatively frequently in the UK, makes no sense to me, though this seems increasingly common. Absolutely, and it is not helped by the Ordnance Survey using administrative boundaries on their maps. The OS using admin boundaries is very useful to people who want to know where current admin boundaries go. They can't really use out-of-date boundaries. http://www.abcounties.co.uk/ gives a good background to all this sort of thing. There is always going to be a problem over which county boundary to use. The 'traditional counties' have themselves had boundaries which shifted - many were undefined until the later middle ages, then some former counties were made exclaves of other counties (Islandshire being possibly the best known example). The exclaves were mostly abolished in the 1830s and other changes were made in the 1880s. -- http://www.election.demon.co.uk "The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders, and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September 1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62. |
Red buses
Nick wrote:
"Epetruk" wrote in message ... 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. So... which is more reliable in determining where a place is located - a postcode county system which isn't even required to be used by the Royal Mail, or the county that administers the borough? I mean, nobody seriously argues that Bordeaux is in the UK. Postal counties are pretty well established, based largely on administrative counties of some decades past. People, not surprisingly, quote where they live as where they are addressed, hence people in Bexley say they live in Kent as that's what they usually quote as their address. But I've already stated that they aren't even used today by the institution that introduced them. And why use postal counties in particular, which after all only reflect the divisions of England at a particular point in the past? Why not go further back - or further forward? Anyway, if I lived in Bexley, I would still get a good night's sleep if my address was referred to as 'Bexley, London' as long as my letters still got to my address and people were able to find my address. -- Akin aknak at aksoto dot idps dot co dot uk |
Red buses
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... "Nick" wrote in message ... 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. Kentish people, surely... Yes, I wondered who would say that ;-) Nick |
Red buses
"Graham J" wrote in message ... ... Plus, I don't understand why the "Greater" is being lost from "Greater London". Greater London, to me, means real London plus lots of fringe areas that aren't really "London" but close enough to be administered by it. However, organisations such as BBC London appear to ban the phrase unless it's in a name of an actual body, eg the GLA. When we had the GLC the term 'Greater London' did seem to be used a lot more, though that has never been part of any postal addresses. Now we have Greater London Authority the term is just as well defined, but we only really hear mention of the Mayor Of London and the London Assembly that comprise it. 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? 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... Nick |
Red buses
"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! Arguably, I think the freedom pass is overkill anyway; I would support free use of local buses to moderately distant locations, trains to central London, and maybe tube travel in Z1 off-peak. In Bexley, I would guess that 95% of Freedom pass owners use the train and tube extremely rarely, and probably less than 50% use the buses regularly. I don't believe pensioners are at all bothered that they can travel to Uxbridge for free. How many Freedom pass users regularly travel to Dartford and Bluewater and contribute to "out-of-region" retail spend I wonder :-) 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. Nick |
Red buses
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. 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" ? 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... Perhaps LB ("London Borough") might give you a clue? But why do you drag "city" into it? The City of London has no authority over the village of Downe as far as I know. -- Paul Terry |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
"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? |
Red buses
|
Red buses
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 |
London or Not (try to cross-post to uk.transport.kent ??)
"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. |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
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! |
Red buses
"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. |
Red buses
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 |
Red buses
"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! |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
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 |
What determines what 'region' a locality is in? (Was Red buses)
"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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk