On Oct 22, 1:58*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
There's a legal definition of Inner London; I was going with that...

So are Newham and Haringey in Inner London (per the ONS and Census) or Outer
(per the old County and ILEA)? And the reverse for Greenwich?

Greenwich in, Newham and Harringey out.

The 1963 London Government Act still determines central funding
levels, and Newham is still grumpy about being excluded:
http://apps.newham.gov.uk/aboutus/Po...nnerLondon.pdf

....so that'll be the legal definition, irrespective of what the
statisticians say.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Oct 22, 1:57*pm, Adrian wrote:
There's also those of us who live outside the boroughs whilst still
being heavily affected by TfL and the GLA, yet get no representation.
...or taxation.

looks at price rises in fares

Not being subsidised as much as everyone else != being taxed.

(AIUI, Essex County Council does subsidise TfL services, hence why the
Central Line is all in zone 6 - there's presumably some kind of
representation of ECC within TfL that goes on as a quid pro quo. If
your local authority doesn't, then why not vote for a candidate who
says they will?)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Oct 22, 12:58*pm, Walter Briscoe
wrote:
The people of London didn't want Boris as their mayor. The people of
various unsavoury outposts that the Tories gerrymandered into Greater
London in the first place to end Labour's dominance of the County of
London wanted Boris as their mayor; the people of actual London voted
for Ken.

Your memory of history differs from mine.
ISTR Mrs Thatcher's government eliminated the GLC and ILEA. At the time,
I thought that adding another ring of buroughs to London could have
served her purpose, permanently gerrymandered London and be justified
from a transport perspective.

I was referring to the creation of the GLC, which most commentators
suggest was carried out by the Conservative government of the time at
least partly to end Labour's dominance of the LCC.

The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s
that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so
incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is
fairly irrelevant.

....and as someone has mentioned below, the Watford-type-places that
would have permanently gerrymandered London for the Tories were
themselves strongly opposed to integration, otherwise there's a good
chance it'd've happened either in the creation of the original GLC or
during the 1980s.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s
that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so
incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is
fairly irrelevant.

Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to abolish
the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981
(and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who was
promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when the
incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election.

...and as someone has mentioned below, the Watford-type-places that
would have permanently gerrymandered London for the Tories were
themselves strongly opposed to integration, otherwise there's a good
chance it'd've happened either in the creation of the original GLC or
during the 1980s.

I don't think that would have worked. Remember the GLC was elected by first
past the post, initially multi-member borough-wide then single-member from
1973, and the Labour majorities were often substantial.

FWIW here are the seat outcomes, courtesy of
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcresults.html

From 1964 to 1973 the GLC consisted of 100 directly elected councillors and
16 Aldermen.

1964:
Elected: Labour 64, Conservatives 36
Full Council: Labour 75, Conservatives 41

1967:
Elected: Conservatives 82, Labour 18
Full Council: Conservatives 92, Labour 24

1970:
Elected: Conservatives 65, Labour 35
Full Council: Conservatives 76, Labour 40

The election system changed to single member for the 1973 election, with the
council cut to 92 elected and the Aldermen to 15.

1973:
Elected: Labour 58, Conservatives 32, Liberals 2
Full Council: Labour 67, Conservatives 38, Liberals 2

Aldermen were abolished from the 1977 election onward.

1977:
Conservatives 64, Labour 28

1981:
Labour 50, Conservatives 41, Liberals 1

Note also the maps of results. Although there's a clear outer vs inner
pattern in the years of Conservative victories, Labour victories often
carried outer east and west parts, and turn the map into a north & south vs
centre divide.

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcmap.html

Leaving the Aldermen to one side (as they seem to have been allocated
reasonably proportionally so just reinforce the existing proportions), I
can't really see the GLC as having gone Conservative on any realistic larger
boundaries in 1964 or 1973, and even 1981 would have been difficult as not
every additional seat would have gone Conservative. On the suggestion in
this thread that the government should have expanded the boundaries to
secure a majority in a 1985 election, leaving aside both the opposition to
being added and the existing outer boroughs demand for outrigh abolition, I
don't think it would have done the trick as it would have been just another
mid-term election.

Also the website, run by a Labour councillor, has a history of the GLC that
challenges some of the myths about abolition:

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html

On Oct 22, 2:56*pm, "Tim Roll-Pickering" T.C.Roll-
wrote:
The fact that Mrs T's government was /so/ unpopular in the mid-80s
that Labour managed to control the GLC as well, and that she was so
incapable of tolerating dissent that she abolished it as a result, is
fairly irrelevant.

Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to abolish
the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981
(and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who was
promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when the
incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election.

....? Surely your link below highlights the fact that the main drive to
abolish the GLC came in 1983, by which time Ken had been in power for
two years...

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

John B wrote:

Which is not a "fact" as I've pointed out elsewhere; the drive to
abolish
the GLC predated Ken coming to power. Also the crucial election was 1981
(and won by Labour on a moderate manifesto with a moderate leader who
was
promptly deposed) and wasn't that different from 1967, 1973 or 1977 when
the
incumbent Westminster government lost the GLC in a mid term election.

...? Surely your link below highlights the fact that the main drive to
abolish the GLC came in 1983, by which time Ken had been in power for
two years...

http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glccomment.html

The drive began at the borough council level because they realised they
didn't need it and didn't get enough out of it - the GLC provided about 16%
of services at the time of "Streamlining the Cities" (and the metropolitan
county councils 26%) compared to 87% for the shire counties. The 1979
Marshall Report only narrowly recommended against abolition and the drive
was ongoing. That was a trend predating Livingstone. What you're referring
to is the pressure acted on by central government, but it would abolished
anyway regardless of who was leading it (although a populist Conservative
leader might have temporarily withstood the tide from a Conservative
government).

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 07:13:24PM -0500,
wrote:

Trying to get along Euston Road from King's Cross station to turn
left into Judd Street before and after the 73 became a bendy
route. Observation of the Cambridge Circus junction.

To be fair, the current problems at Cambridge Circus are caused by road
works further up Charing Cross Road.

It does strike me as a bit daft, however, that eastbound buses still
turn to go up Charing Cross Road and past Centre Point, instead of just
skipping a couple of stops and going straight up Shaftesbury Avenue to
New Oxford Street.

a) The buses causing the problems are going in the opposite direction.
b) The problem started before the road works which I actually thought were
past their worst,

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 04:36:11PM -0700, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:23=A0am, wrote:
I hate bendies because they are just too long to mix with other
traffic.
Based on what evidence?

My evidence would be taking a look at traffic flows at Piccadilly
Circus, along the western half of Shaftesbury Avenue, and at the
junction of Bloomsbury Street and New Oxford Street.

In particular, note the difficulty that bendy buses have actually
getting into the junction at Picadilly Circus from Picadilly itself,
how much road space they need to turn left from Regent Street onto
Picadilly, and how New Oxford Street snarls up because bendy buses
turning onto it from Bloomsbury Street so often have the unpalatable
choice of either just sitting there and not making the turn, or stopping
so as to block the entire junction.

Hope that helps.

Totally agree on Bloomsbury Street/New Oxford Street.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 22 Oct, 11:49, MIG wrote:
Travelling between Trafalgar Square and Camden Town is better on a 24
than on a 29. *I know people who let the 29 go in the hope that a 24
will turn up, and I've done so myself at times.

Similarly where there is a choice of 36/436 or 53/453 etc.

While it's often possible for individual passengers to have a more
pleasant journey by switching to a double decker, it's not possible to
switch a whole bendy bus load of passengers onto double deckers and
get the same result. Therein lies the bendy bus paradox.

U

John B wrote:
"I am informed that, thankfully, there have been no fatal accidents
arising from collisions between cyclists and articulated buses in
London since the introduction of articulated vehicles."

"Serious incidents are defined by TfL as those where a cyclist may
have required treatment, including in hospital. There was one serious
incident involving a cyclist in each of the years 2005/06 and 2006/07,
and two in 2007/08."

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/as...en_answers.pdf

In other words, the data collated by TfL and accepted by the mayor
clearly shows that bendy buses are not dangerous for cyclists.

Sorry, it isn't as simple as that. Lack of casualties doesn't equal lack
of danger. It might equally indicate that cyclists are avoiding the
danger in various ways that delay them - taking another route, not
overtaking when they would pass an ordinary bus, for example.

Apart from HGVs, motor vehicles very rarely kill cyclists in London. It
appears that bendibuses are not as bad as HGVs - but this may be because
their routes are more predictable rather than because of greater
inherent safety.

I know that:
- if I try to pass a bendy bus at red traffic lights, and it's first in
the queue, it can start moving before I'm past, whereas I can get past a
normal bus between red and green
- as a fairly fast cyclist, bendy buses rarely get completely past me
before having to slow down or move in. Ordinary buses often do.

The obvious solution to lack of capacity on bus services is to get more
people cycling - most London bus journeys can be done quicker by bike.
The way to increase cycling is to help people to feel safe on the road -
e.g. by removing bendy-buses, though that isn't the most important thing
to do.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.