Paul Terry wrote:
In message , Nick
writes

And have you noticed how the GLA, Mayor and various other bodies have
re-invented the definition of a "city" to mean the county of Greater
London?

No. The City of London is something quite separate and it continues to
have its own Lord Mayor.

He means a city as opposed to The City.

The Mayor of London's jurisdiction is laid down by Act of parliament
(principally the London boroughs). What do you mean by the "county of
Greater London" ?

The GLA area.

And no-one seems to be pick them up on it! In what way the village of
Downe
in LB Bromley is part of a "city" I really don't know...

It's a bit of an anomaly but I imagine Downe relies on Bromley
economically, so it's better in LB Bromley (and therefore ends up being
in "London") than elsewhere.

Being a relatively new Londoner, I'm quite happy with describing or
hearing Croydon, Romford, Uxbridge etc. as being in "London", taking it
by context to mean Greater London; if someone from those places talks
about "going into London", that makes sense too.

The way that conurbations work, it would seem silly for the outer
boroughs to be "returned" to their old counties; transport certainly
works better coordinated on a "London" basis, and that by itself
requires a Greater London authority.

Watford seems to be a case in point; an urban centre linked closely to
other Greater London urban centres with train, Tube and bus links,
requiring TfL to provide services quite a far way outside of their area
(both bus and Tube), and making it more difficult to provide the Croxley
Link. I know TfL provide other services outside their area, but Watford
seems particularly odd since it is served by TfL bus *and* Tube services
(and will be served by TfL Rail services if they take on management of
Silverlink Metro).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London