Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:20:25 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\06\10 12:46, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:53:25 +0100, Mizter T
wrote:

So suggests this report, based on a meeting of the London Assembly's
Transport Committee - Kent County Council being the active objector to
the TfL rail takeover plan in revenge:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33066006

Hopefully it'll be an idea that'll surface again in the future - so long
as TfL does a good job on their new West Anglia metro routes.

The webcast from the session certainly confirmed Kent's viewpoint. I
suspect there were other issues too but this is politics at its worst.
However the reps from Kent CC and Surrey CC were much more positive
about devolution of some services to TfL *provided* there is proper
involvement for them in the decision making process and the scope.
Kent set out some "red lines" but the TfL rep present was confident
they could be dealt with sensibly or where already controlled by the
ORR (the old fear of TfL stealing train paths for trains into Kent).
Kent certainly wanted to see Oyster extended into Kent so that was a
positive thing.

TfL said they would be very happy to work with both Counties in
respect of the next franchising round and sorting out what lines /
services would be devolved and where the boundaries are. I felt it
was positive overall.

Are Kent holding out because they want Crossrail to come to them, perhaps?

No. Crossrail was not mentioned at all. Bizarrely they seem very
happy to have HS1 and with South Eastern generally. Rather shows
where the franchise priorities are - i.e. not on Metro services.

They seem keener now provided the following are met :-

a) TfL add capacity at peak times by lengthening trains to the
permissible longest length. They don't want train paths reallocated
from "their" trains to Metro routes.

b) There is no "theft" of train paths from "their" services to TfL
ones. This is impossible because ORR control track access. Obviously
if there are spare paths and TfL bid for them and South Eastern do not
then that's a different scenario.

c) There are no adverse or perverse issues relating to fares. They
didn't want fares to rise in Kent to somehow "pay" for TfL's takeover.
Also they didn't want TfL to introduce cheap fares that then created a
shift in commuter patterns causing traffic congestion issues and
localised parking problems in the vicinity of a "cheaper" station.
Given the DfT have effectively hobbled TfL's ability to lower fares
anyway (other than removing the Zone 1 add on fare) this is pretty
much a non issue.

Kent CC also had a specific question about whether the Metro services
that currently run on to Gravesend and Gillingham would be TfL
operated or remain with South Eastern or if the service pattern would
change. Clearly there wasn't a specific answer to that given.

My sense was that these are either non issues because of existing
industry controls / processes or else could be solved through
discussion. It's over to TfL to try again and hopefully keep people
on side. I still think the spectre of airport policy will hang heavy
given the government have not set a deadline for responding to the
Airports Commission and Boris won't give up either.

I thought Boris Island had already been removed from the list of airport
extension options under consideration? There are three options on the
short list: Gatwick, or the two Heathrow proposals.