|
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
A think tank comments:
http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about time this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that. IMO, in terms of transport and many other matters, the London area should be managed as an integral part of the south east of England, not separated out into an artificial region, with the surrounding area divided between two further administrative regions - east and south east. Rich |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
In message , Rich Mallard
writes http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about time this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that. Perhaps it could be called Network SouthEast :) -- Paul Terry |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:19:44 +0000 someone who may be Paul Terry
wrote this:- Perhaps it could be called Network SouthEast :) That was my initial thought too. It remains my thought, along with the thought that I should really not condemn "influential" "think" tanks on the basis of them finally coming up with what "bad old" BR came up with decades ago. -- David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
Rich Mallard wrote:
A think tank comments: http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about time this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that. IMO, in terms of transport and many other matters, the London area should be managed as an integral part of the south east of England, not separated out into an artificial region, with the surrounding area divided between two further administrative regions - east and south east. Rich Er... aren't TfL suggesting the opposite though? ie they want control of the main line railways that are in the TfL area. It's going to an interesting few months as they start their various power plays on the TOC's to get them to share their revenue etc etc. |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
In uk.railway Paul Terry wrote:
Perhaps it could be called Network SouthEast :) Damn, I was just about to post that ;) pete -- "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
"Pete Fenelon" wrote in message
... In uk.railway Paul Terry wrote: Perhaps it could be called Network SouthEast :) Damn, I was just about to post that ;) Damn, I was just about to post *that*. -- 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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
In article ,
"Rich Mallard" wrote: A think tank comments: http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about time this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that. It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent, south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc. -- 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. |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message
... In article , "Rich Mallard" wrote: A think tank comments: http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent, south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc. Since it would diminish their power, this is unsurprising. But it might not go down like a lead balloon with the voters of those areas, which is what really matters. -- 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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
"John Rowland" wrote in message ... "David Boothroyd" wrote in message ... In article , "Rich Mallard" wrote: A think tank comments: http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent, south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc. Since it would diminish their power, this is unsurprising. But it might not go down like a lead balloon with the voters of those areas, which is what really matters. -- 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 From the point of view of purely 'running a railway', divorced from the reality of politics, yes the return of NSE may make sense. However, TfL is the PTE for Greater London, subsidised by the residents of Greater London and managed by the elected representatives of the residents of Greater London. TfL as a single body wants to integrate all forms of transport within Greater London. This provides several benefits for the people of Greater London (Ticketing, Accountability, similar standards for all GLA council tax payers whether they are north or south of the river etc.). If we, as GLA Council Tax Payers are prepared to pay for good public transport services, why shouldn't we be able to have some control over stations and services within our area? It would be impossible to exert co-ordinated political control over a Greater South East rail body in the same way as is possible in the GLA. You would have continual political fighting between the labour suburbs and Tory shires. And the Tory Shires wouldn't want their Council Taxes raised to pay a share equal to that paid by GLA residents (when so many people out there are quite happy with their private vehicles). The current level of subsidies show that (for the forseeable future) you cannot run a railway without vast sums of public subsidy. The price to pay for that is 'political control / public accountability'. And if it's a case of the railways or local government changing its structure to fit reality, it's the railways that are going to have to adapt. Colin |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:49:12 -0000, "Colin"
wrote: It would be impossible to exert co-ordinated political control over a Greater South East rail body in the same way as is possible in the GLA. You would have continual political fighting between the labour suburbs and Tory shires. And the Tory Shires wouldn't want their Council Taxes raised to pay a share equal to that paid by GLA residents (when so many people out there are quite happy with their private vehicles). It's not so much the "Tory Shires" wanting their cars, rather that the railway in the South East is largely geared up towards getting people to London, and therefore is irrelevant to most other journeys, which will either be by bus or more likely by car. Public transport in Bucks, for example, is appalling outside the towns, and middling to mediocre within them. If a South East PTE was to be set up, for want of a better term, it would almost certainly be London-centric. There would therefore be, from what I can see, an increase in local tax for little local benefit. Mind you, bringing back Network SouthEast, so long as it wasn't accompanied by massive increases in council tax, wouldn't be particularly unwelcome, and I don't see why it would be incompatible with TfL taking on revenue risk for local services around London in the same way as Merseytravel taking on revenue risk[1] for their sponsored PTE services didn't affect adversely the fact that many of their services run outside their boundaries. [1] Which they've now relinquished to SercoNed, as I recall. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK When replying please use neil at the above domain 'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read. |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
John Rowland wrote:
"Pete Fenelon" wrote... In uk.railway Paul Terry wrote: Perhaps it could be called Network SouthEast :) Damn, I was just about to post that ;) Damn, I was just about to post *that*. AOL |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message ... In article , "Rich Mallard" wrote: A think tank comments: http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about time this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that. It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent, south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc. It has? I'm slightly surprised because if this doesn't happen, TfL may well encroach on their area anyway with the expanded "London Rail" area (and they'll have even less control I would have thought...) Better to have a Greater South East authority in control of rail rather than the central-London dominated TfL, from their PoV surely? Rich |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
"Colin" wrote in message ... ... From the point of view of purely 'running a railway', divorced from the reality of politics, yes the return of NSE may make sense. Agreed. However, TfL is the PTE for Greater London, subsidised by the residents of Greater London and managed by the elected representatives of the residents of Greater London. Not sure about that. TfL is directly accountable to the Mayor as I understand it, who is then supposedly "scrutinised" by those elected reps. I don't think TfL is particularly constrained by the assembly. TfL as a single body wants to integrate all forms of transport within Greater London. This provides several benefits for the people of Greater London (Ticketing, Accountability, similar standards for all GLA council tax payers whether they are north or south of the river etc.). But the trouble is Greater London, in transport terms amongst others, is an artificial cut-out of the South East of England. I don't think it makes sense to isolate the area in this way. I am also not convinced that they are doing enough in their existing area (partricularly fringe boroughs like Bromley, Bexley, Havering...) let alone expanding their remit over rail. If we, as GLA Council Tax Payers are prepared to pay for good public transport services, why shouldn't we be able to have some control over stations and services within our area? We should, via a comprehensive South East body? It would be impossible to exert co-ordinated political control over a Greater South East rail body in the same way as is possible in the GLA. That could be a good or bad thing. Wait until Ken Livingstone steps down, and one day there will be a Tory mayor. Everyone seems to think Greater London = Ken Livingstone = progressive transport policies. But this won't always be the case (and I think a lot of the pro-"GLA model" people will realise what they've created when this happens). You would have continual political fighting between the labour suburbs and Tory shires. And the Tory Shires wouldn't want their Council Taxes raised to pay a share equal to that paid by GLA residents (when so many people out there are quite happy with their private vehicles). The divide you talk already exists in the GL area itself I would argue. From my local PoV, the Tory shires really start at Bexley & Bromley, and extend out to Kent. The current level of subsidies show that (for the forseeable future) you cannot run a railway without vast sums of public subsidy. The price to pay for that is 'political control / public accountability'. And if it's a case of the railways or local government changing its structure to fit reality, it's the railways that are going to have to adapt. Well, I disagree with the "Greater London" local government structure at is, so maybe it should be the other way around! Rich |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
In message , Rich Mallard
writes But the trouble is Greater London, in transport terms amongst others, is an artificial cut-out of the South East of England. Indeed it is. But that applies to any territorial authority; there will always be a boundary *somewhere* and it will always throw up anomalies. Ewe see this now with borderline cases such as Romford, Croydon, Dartford and Watford. 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. For the record, I feel that Greater London probably ought to include Dartford and Watford but little more. It would be interesting to see a map of the boundary of London's Green belt (I've never seen such an animal, at least not in detail). That *ought* to be a good GLA area boundary. But these things are always arbitrary and one has only to look at the recent thread concerning whether places are "London" or "Kent" or "Essex" to see what this throws up in terms of local allegiances. [1] In the widest sense of the word [2] So to speak -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
Rich Mallard wrote:
"David Boothroyd" wrote in message ... In article , "Rich Mallard" wrote: A think tank comments: http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about time this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that. It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent, south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc. It has? I'm slightly surprised because if this doesn't happen, TfL may well encroach on their area anyway with the expanded "London Rail" area (and they'll have even less control I would have thought...) Better to have a Greater South East authority in control of rail rather than the central-London dominated TfL, from their PoV surely? 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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent, south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc. It has? I'm slightly surprised because if this doesn't happen, TfL may well encroach on their area anyway with the expanded "London Rail" area (and they'll have even less control I would have thought...) Better to have a Greater South East authority in control of rail rather than the central-London dominated TfL, from their PoV surely? 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. Indeed. London is the train journey destination / starting point for the majority of people over a large area of the south east. TfL have suggested a 'London Rail' area partly based upon the current 'Inner Suburban' services, and data that shows (on a ward-by-ward basis) the number of people who commute to London every day for work reasons. It is bigger than London, but certainly not as big as NSE. See Page 9 in this presentation: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads...-Conf-2004.pdf Colin |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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. Tony |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 ... Tony |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
In uk.railway 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. One thing that's puzzled me. Why was the NSE boundary set the way it was? So we have all of BR(SR), fine, which I suppose drags in Exeter though that's a bit of a strange inclusion. We have IC lines up to just before the first(ish) major station (Leamington, Northampton, Huntingdon) so you can't get an IC train to get there. But why King's Lynn and not Norwich (DMU vs IC?), and what about the rest of East Anglia? Why so little of BR(WR)? Theo |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 ... 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. 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. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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) |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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) |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
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 |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
David Boothroyd wrote:
In article , "Rich Mallard" wrote: A think tank comments: http://www.ippr.org.uk/press/index.php?release=355 Interesting stuff, which superficially I like the sound of. It's about time this notion that London should somehow be artificially divorced from its south east context is challenged, and this helps do just that. It's gone down like a lead balloon with the councils in north-west Kent, south-east Essex, south Hertfordshire, etc. If they were to apply this thinking also to bus services, we'd return them towards what they were between 1933 and 1969, when we had the Country Area of LT. Doubt we'd get the RTs and RFs back though. Cheers, Francis K. -- [Remove Trailing'Z' from mail address to reply.] |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
Tony Polson wrote:
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. I think you've completely misunderstood my intentions. I never said or believed that TfL should take over all south eastern rail services!! I believe that TfL should exercise control over inner surburban services lying wholly or almost wholly within its remit, such as services to Watford, Dartford, Chingford, Croydon, Orpington/Sevenoaks, Hampton Court etc. I do *not* believe that TfL should be given control over services to Ashford, Cambridge or Southampton for example, as they're a completely different kettle of fish, and *I understand that*. You seem to be getting the impression that I'm more self-interested than I really am. If I were completely self-interested, I wouldn't give a toss about inner surburban services as I rarely use them. I was merely being sceptical and playing devil's advocate with regard to the accountability of a Greater South East rail body mentioned to start off with. Theoretically, the best representative body for rail services would be the DfT, controlled by central government to whom we elect representatives. And look who's taking over control of rail services shortly! -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
Dave Arquati wrote:
I was merely being sceptical and playing devil's advocate with regard to the accountability of a Greater South East rail body mentioned to start off with. Theoretically, the best representative body for rail services would be the DfT, controlled by central government to whom we elect representatives. And look who's taking over control of rail services shortly! Fair enough. We will leave it at that. Tony |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
|
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
Colin wrote:
TfL have suggested a 'London Rail' area partly based upon the current 'Inner Suburban' services, and data that shows (on a ward-by-ward basis) the number of people who commute to London every day for work reasons. It is bigger than London, but certainly not as big as NSE. See Page 9 in this presentation: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads...-Conf-2004.pdf Colin Why does that TfL suggested area cover the blue area (low train share of commutes) at Aylesbury, but not the red area (high train share of commutes) in South Essex (lines to Southend and Southminster)? stupid! Can anyone give a good reason why they haven't included these lines, because I cannot think of any? Also crossrail would go outside of the boundary, unless there are plans to reduce it even further - just to Slough. Ebbsfleet is not on it, and neither is a particually yellow/red patch around Tonbrige - again any suggestions why TfL don't want to look after these routes? Anyway I feel that neither of these destinations are "Inner Suburban". I note that the WCML route only goes as far as Watford, but the ECML goes as far as Stevenage. It's not consistant really and that what annoys me most about the extent of the proposals. I also laugh that, though it's LU, Chesham station would just be outside of the area - you'd have thought that they would adjust the line slightly to cover that. Simon |
IPPR suggest "Greater South East" rail body
simon wrote:
Colin wrote: TfL have suggested a 'London Rail' area partly based upon the current 'Inner Suburban' services, and data that shows (on a ward-by-ward basis) the number of people who commute to London every day for work reasons. It is bigger than London, but certainly not as big as NSE. See Page 9 in this presentation: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/rail/downloads...-Conf-2004.pdf Why does that TfL suggested area cover the blue area (low train share of commutes) at Aylesbury, but not the red area (high train share of commutes) in South Essex (lines to Southend and Southminster)? stupid! Can anyone give a good reason why they haven't included these lines, because I cannot think of any? Also crossrail would go outside of the boundary, unless there are plans to reduce it even further - just to Slough. Ebbsfleet is not on it, and neither is a particually yellow/red patch around Tonbrige - again any suggestions why TfL don't want to look after these routes? Aylesbury is in it because co-ordination of services to Amersham would include Chiltern services there, all of which extend to Aylesbury. South Essex is probably outside because those services serve few destinations inside the GLA area. Generally the boundary has been set so that stopping services at GLA stations are included; those stopping services extend outside the GLA boundary to the places marking the TfL London Rail boundary. Anyway I feel that neither of these destinations are "Inner Suburban". I note that the WCML route only goes as far as Watford, but the ECML goes as far as Stevenage. It's not consistant really and that what annoys me most about the extent of the proposals. I also laugh that, though it's LU, Chesham station would just be outside of the area - you'd have thought that they would adjust the line slightly to cover that. Since this is a London Rail area, Chesham isn't included because it's a London Underground-only service! -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk