Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message , Tony Polson
writes Ian Jelf wrote: If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford? Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a "commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2] would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems. Look no further than the boundaries of the 1980s Network SouthEast. Didn't that get to Exeter, though?! -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
#22
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In message
Tony Polson wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: It probably makes little difference for the rail network, as it is highly centred on London, with the minor exceptions of such animals as Gatwick - Tonbridge, Ashford - Hastings etc. It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London" services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor. No taxation without representation ... Ang on a mo' while I chuck a VEP into the harbour... -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
#23
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Tony Polson writes Ian Jelf wrote: If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford? Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a "commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2] would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems. Look no further than the boundaries of the 1980s Network SouthEast. Didn't that get to Exeter, though?! Yes, but only for sound operational reasons. You couldn't sensibly operate two separate services (commuter/Inter City) over the one route in NSE days. Maybe it could be done now? Tony |
#24
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Arquati wrote:
Tony Polson wrote: It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London" services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor. No taxation without representation ... Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway. I'm sorry, you seem to have completely missed my point. The rail services might appear "central London dominated" but the people using them are most certainly NOT. It would be quite inappropriate to give control of these services to TfL when such a substantial proportion of people using them live and vote (please note that word) outside London. The fact that their morning commute terminates in central London doesn't mean that they are in any sense adequately represented by TfL or the Office of the Mayor, and it would not be realistic to suggest that they could be. It was theoretical anyway; I wouldn't advocate giving the whole of NSE to TfL. I do think it would make more sense for them to have greater control over inner suburban services though, even if those do stray outside the GLA boundary - the idea is to make sure that transport into London is co-ordinated properly. I'm sure we can all agree on that. The point is, however, that people served by these services who live outside London are not represented by TfL. They would be poorly served (at best) by any SE Rail body that was dominated by TfL or the Mayor. On the other hand, they were well served by Network SouthEast, which (on the whole) successfully balanced the needs of its passengers in, into and outside of London. That's why I suggested we need look no further than the boundaries of Network SouthEast. Tony |
#25
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
This idea will certainly go down like a lead balloon with the John
Redwood's of this World but I believe London could be treated in a similar fashion to another City which I've just returned from and found a lot to be impressed with public transport wise. This City wielding huge economic power over a large swathe of the country and having a transport infrastructure that was short of the capacity needed to cope with it's growth and lacked the integration required to encourage the use of public transport. This is now being addressed by by Central Government paying for 50% of the capital outlay with the EEC supplying the other 50%, new buses, trams and trains along with the lines and bus lanes to facilitate them. The projects all carry the National Flag and the EEC Stars Symbol alongside each other and a lot of the buses and rolling stock as well. Very cheap park and ride schemes ("Speed Parks" they call them to attract the Jeremy Clarksons) 5 Euros per vehicle plus up to 6 occupants per vehicle to continue in by train or bus. The whole caboodle meant that I could get from one end of the city to the other across the suburbs with very little effort and using one day ticket. The shops and business centres are booming and talking to people living there it was obvious that they have a great deal of pride in the network. The surrounding counties recognise this since people choose to live there and commute into work. The economic hinterland therefore becomes more prosperous if the central area is better managed transport wise. I'm sure some here will know the City. (Clue, Guiness) |
#26
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tony Polson wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Tony Polson wrote: It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London" services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor. No taxation without representation ... Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway. I'm sorry, you seem to have completely missed my point. The rail services might appear "central London dominated" but the people using them are most certainly NOT. The majority of journeys in the south eastern area are to or from central London - I'd call that central London dominated. It would be quite inappropriate to give control of these services to TfL when such a substantial proportion of people using them live and vote (please note that word) outside London. The fact that their morning commute terminates in central London doesn't mean that they are in any sense adequately represented by TfL or the Office of the Mayor, and it would not be realistic to suggest that they could be. I understand that. However, a "Greater South East Rail Authority" is as unlikely to be accountable to passengers in the area as TfL-controlled rail services would be - unless the GSERA proportionally represented the passengers of the area, taking representatives from each authority region. If that were the case, it would probably end up being TfL-dominated anyway. I was just pointing out that such a rail authority is not necessarily better than total TfL control - both are probably equally bad for people outside the GLA area. It was theoretical anyway; I wouldn't advocate giving the whole of NSE to TfL. I do think it would make more sense for them to have greater control over inner suburban services though, even if those do stray outside the GLA boundary - the idea is to make sure that transport into London is co-ordinated properly. I'm sure we can all agree on that. The point is, however, that people served by these services who live outside London are not represented by TfL. They would be poorly served (at best) by any SE Rail body that was dominated by TfL or the Mayor. On the other hand, they were well served by Network SouthEast, which (on the whole) successfully balanced the needs of its passengers in, into and outside of London. That's why I suggested we need look no further than the boundaries of Network SouthEast. NSE did have some rather odd boundaries anyway - King's Lynn & Exeter? A new NSE would also extend to Kidderminster! Boundaries will always be somewhat arbitrary. If you introduce three layers of control - TfL inside the GLA, NSE for the SE area, and "everywhere else" (taking into account other regional control like Wales, Scotland and the PTEs), then you risk a lot of bureaucracy. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
#27
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:08:07 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:
Ang on a mo' while I chuck a VEP into the harbour... LOL! -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/c363683.html (Thumbnail index to British Electric Multiple Units) |
#29
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tony Polson wrote:
(Charles Ellson) wrote: In article "Dave Arquati" writes: snip Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway. That view only works if you ignore that journeys have two ends, and allow one part of the area to be the tail that wags the dog. My point, exactly. Journeys have two ends; one end is frequently in central London. How many journeys start or finish at Victoria versus at Maidstone, or High Wycombe, or Hatfield? Even if a rail authority proportionally represented the origins and destinations of all journeys on the South East rail network, almost half the "seats" would be occupied by representation of central London; probably over half would be representatives from inside the GLA, i.e. TfL. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
#30
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dave Arquati wrote:
Journeys have two ends; one end is frequently in central London. How many journeys start or finish at Victoria versus at Maidstone, or High Wycombe, or Hatfield? Even if a rail authority proportionally represented the origins and destinations of all journeys on the South East rail network, almost half the "seats" would be occupied by representation of central London; probably over half would be representatives from inside the GLA, i.e. TfL. No doubt you live in London, as well as work there. I don't doubt your sincerity. Neither do I doubt your self-interest, however. As someone who lives outside London, used to commute daily over a period of some years, and now still travels into London regularly, I have a different view. I fully understand your view, I just don't happen to agree with it. I see the need for balance between the interests of people living in London and those outside London who commute, whereas you want the interests of Londoners to dominate. I am not asking for the views of commuters from outside London to dominate, merely for them to be included in a balanced overview. Perhaps you should make just a tiny bit more effort to understand others' views, especially those of people whose personal circumstances differ from your own. Tony |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
National rail south east - any single engineering works source? | London Transport | |||
De Menezes casually picks up a Metro, rushes for a tube then gets killed - photo of body | London Transport | |||
Greater say on trains | London Transport | |||
Park & Ride in Greater London | London Transport | |||
South West Trains over District Line south of East Putney | London Transport |