You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one "county"
and another to be moved from time to time to take account of any urban sprawl of a city on the
boundary, so as always to avoid splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better for the boundary to be moved
so it runs through sparsely-populated areas between Reading and the surrounding villages. Likewise
for London - though where you (literally!) draw the line between London and its surroundings is a
more difficult one!

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were intended to be part
of Greater London.

"Peter Masson" wrote:

I think it must have been. IIRC, the zones for NLL stations were fiddled
some time ago to ensure that it was necessary to hold a 2-zone ticket
(Zones
2 and 3) for most journeys - even so, if there are any commuters between
North Woolwich and Kew Gardens they get a bargain, as long as they don't
decamp at West Ham and go the rest of tHe way by LUL District Line.

If there are any commuters between North Woolwich and Kew Gardens, they
deserve a medal as well as a bargain. Seventy minutes commuting could get
them from London to Grantham, Chippenham or Ipswich, rather than 20 miles
through the back gardens of the less salubrious bits of north London.

Chris

"TKD" wrote

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were intended to
be part
of Greater London.

The parish of Knockholt was actually put into Greater London, but protested
so much that it escaped back into Kent. Knockholt staton is however, not in
Knockholt and (just) within Greater London, so within Zone 6.

Peter

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:18:18 -0000, "TKD" wrote:


You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one "county"
and another to be moved from time to time to take account of any urban sprawl of a city on the
boundary, so as always to avoid splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better for the boundary to be moved
so it runs through sparsely-populated areas between Reading and the surrounding villages. Likewise
for London - though where you (literally!) draw the line between London and its surroundings is a
more difficult one!

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were intended to be part
of Greater London.


Ken has had some daft ideas but I'm with him on this one. But will it
entitle all those domiciled within the M25 to have a vote in the
election for London mayor? Somehow I doubt it. All those within the
"London commuter zone" are likely to be affected by plans made
Transport for London/Lefties!

G

In article ,
(Martin Underwood) wrote:

You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one
"county" and another to be moved from time to time to take account of
any urban sprawl of a city on the boundary, so as always to avoid
splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better
for the boundary to be moved so it runs through sparsely-populated
areas between Reading and the surrounding villages. Likewise for
London - though where you (literally!) draw the line between London
and its surroundings is a more difficult one!

A British obsession that will never work. There are no clear boundaries
between conurbations as you seem to think.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Peter Masson) wrote:

"TKD" wrote

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the
M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were
intended to be part of Greater London.

The parish of Knockholt was actually put into Greater London, but
protested so much that it escaped back into Kent. Knockholt staton is
however, not in Knockholt and (just) within Greater London, so within
Zone 6.

Two other parishes in that area were in a similar position to Knockholt,
included in Greater London but escaped by way of the Greater London,
Kent and Surrey Order in 1970. ISTR that one of the others was Hooley.

The main places proposed for inclusion in Greater London in the Herbert
report but not included in the London Government Act 1963 were Watford
and Epsom & Ewell.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one "county"
and another to be moved from time to time to take account of any urban sprawl of a city on the
boundary, so as always to avoid splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better for the boundary to be moved
so it runs through sparsely-populated areas between Reading and the surrounding villages.
Likewise
for London - though where you (literally!) draw the line between London and its surroundings is
a
more difficult one!

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were intended to be part
of Greater London.


Ken has had some daft ideas but I'm with him on this one. But will it
entitle all those domiciled within the M25 to have a vote in the
election for London mayor? Somehow I doubt it.

What makes you say that? If the London regional boundary is realigned
to the M25 then everyone in that boundary will have the right to vote for
the Mayor and a London Assembly candidate.

In fact some minor realignment to the M25 has already taken place, although
the number of affected population gaining (or loosing) that right has been in
single figures or zero.

An example: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19931218_en_1.htm

"TKD" wrote in message ...

You'd think that it would make sense for the boundaries between one "county"
and another to be moved from time to time to take account of any urban sprawl of a city on the
boundary, so as always to avoid splitting that city. The conurbation of Reading is split
between
Reading, West Berkshire and Wokingham, when it would be much better for the boundary to be
moved
so it runs through sparsely-populated areas between Reading and the surrounding villages.
Likewise
for London - though where you (literally!) draw the line between London and its surroundings is
a
more difficult one!

Ken Livingstone has suggested aligning the London boundary to the M25.

Initially Epsom, and several other peripheral districts, were intended to be part
of Greater London.


Ken has had some daft ideas but I'm with him on this one. But will it
entitle all those domiciled within the M25 to have a vote in the
election for London mayor? Somehow I doubt it.

What makes you say that? If the London regional boundary is realigned
to the M25 then everyone in that boundary will have the right to vote for
the Mayor and a London Assembly candidate.

In fact some minor realignment to the M25 has already taken place, although
the number of affected population gaining (or loosing) that right has been in
single figures or zero.

An example: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19931218_en_1.htm

Another example: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1993/Uksi_19930441_en_1.htm

DERWENT Zone 6 conquers ten further Southern stations...
10 Nov 2005 13:11:43 -0800, "Mizter T"

[originally posted to uk.transport.london ]
[ommitted to cross-post this to uk.railway ]
[pls reply to *this* post- sorry for the mess]


I'm surprised that no-one has referred to this yet, though it doesn't
seem to appear anywhere on the Southern (or any other) website(s).

I've seen a poster at a Southern station, which has been there at least
a week, that states that from 2 January 2006, when new fares are
introduced, the London's Zone 6 will be extended to include the
following stations to the south of Croydon and Sutton:

SNIP

I don't understand why they didn't just invent a zone 7.

Does this also mean that the Zone A tube stations will also be moving
into Zone 6?

PRAR
--
http://www.i.am/prar/ and http://prar.fotopic.net/
As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. --Dick Cavett
Please reply to the newsgroup. That is why it exists.
NB Anti-spam measures in force
- If you must email me use the Reply to address and not

I'm surprised that no-one has referred to this yet, though it doesn't
seem to appear anywhere on the Southern (or any other) website(s).

I've seen a poster at a Southern station, which has been there at least
a week, that states that from 2 January 2006, when new fares are
introduced, the London's Zone 6 will be extended to include the
following stations to the south of Croydon and Sutton:

SNIP

I don't understand why they didn't just invent a zone 7.

Does this also mean that the Zone A tube stations will also be moving
into Zone 6?

Probably because TfL have a long term goal of having fewer zones, not
more.

Also the inclusion in Zone 6 seems to be a Southern idea rather than a TfL
initiative, probably just to make its charging "fairer" as it has adopted zonal
charging for all its station within London.