Roland Perry wrote in
:

In message .com, at
13:11:43 on Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Mizter T remarked:
Also I read a story on the Kingston Times website that says SWT are
considering extending Zone 6 out to "stations such as Esher, Hinchley
Wood and Claygate" [3].

Those three stations are all within the extended urban sprawl that is
London. And Hinchley Wood even has 020 phone numbers (to the east of
the railways line). To that extent they "deserve" to be in Z6 just as
much as Thames Ditton and Hampton Court.

The next stations out, however, are outside that sprawl (just).

The real anomaly is the Tattenham Corner line: because of the way the
Greater London boundary is routed, you can travel further out of central
London to Couldson, but then when you turn back north again, ending up
closer to London than you were before, you are outside the boundary.
Similarly Epsom and Epsom Downs are a lot closer into London than Coulsdon.

In these cases, I wonder whether I'm being cynical in thinking that it's
done like this make visitors to Epsom racetrack pay as much as possible ;-)

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!

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.

"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

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

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

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

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:05:44 -0000, "TKD" wrote:


"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


I was thinking of large parts of Surrey, namely Weybridge, Walton on
Thames etc, and the likes of Watford and Denham, all of which fall
inside the M25. Not all of these can be described as having a net
effect of zero...........

G

"Gavin Hamilton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:05:44 -0000, "TKD" wrote:


"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


I was thinking of large parts of Surrey, namely Weybridge, Walton on
Thames etc, and the likes of Watford and Denham, all of which fall
inside the M25. Not all of these can be described as having a net
effect of zero...........

I still don't see how or why those places could move from the South East
England or East of England regions to the London region without giving
the residents the same voting rights as those already in the London region?
There isn't any argument, benefit or precedent to support such a thing.

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