In message , at 20:00:00 on
Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Paul Corfield remarked:
The Mayor has launched a proposal for further rail services to come
under TfL control.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor%E2%80...-services-lon\
don

The proposal centres on taking over the local "West Anglia" routes out
of Liverpool Street

Only those to Chingford, Enfield and Hertford East.

I did say "local" routes - I don't think anyone can reasonably say
Cambridge or Stansted are local to London.

I didn't catch on to the emphasis on *local* WA routes.

The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the
Mayor's wider boundary.

Roughly inside the M25 I suppose.

I was looking forward to Cambridge being in Zone 6 (with bargain fares
as a result), but this seems unlikely.

I guess you can dream but I can't imagine the good burghers of
Cambridge would want a London Mayor controlling their train services.

If it meant getting to London on a Z6 travelcard, I don't think they'd
complain.
--
Roland Perry

On Feb 6, 3:00*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the
Mayor's wider boundary.

has TfL or the GLA ever produced a map showing what that boundary is?
I did a quick Google but couldn't find anything.
--
Roy

If it meant getting to London on a Z6 travelcard, I don't think they'd
complain.

Yerrbut it'd also mean London's tea-leafs 'n feral youfs getting to
Cambridge on an Oyster (possibly the one they've just robbed off a
visiting Cantabrigian.......)
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On Feb 6, 8:36*pm, Roy Stilling wrote:

On Feb 6, 3:00*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:

The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the
Mayor's wider boundary.

has TfL or the GLA ever produced a map showing what that boundary is?
I did a quick Google but couldn't find anything.

It's the Greater London boundary, which has existed since 1965 (with a
few minor amendments since then).

This TfL Streets master map shows an overview of Greater London and
its boundary:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloa...Map_Master.pdf

There's some outline mapping available in the wikipedia entry for
Greater London:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_London

Decent street maps such as the A-Z or the Collins Bartholomew mapping
used by streetmap.co.uk show administrative boundaries.
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/

OS's useful Election Maps site also shows administrative boundaries:
http://www.election-maps.co.uk/

On Feb 6, 8:35*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 20:00:00 on
Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Paul Corfield remarked:

The Mayor has launched a proposal for further rail services to come
under TfL control.

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor%E2%80...ervices-london

The proposal centres on taking over the local "West Anglia" routes out
of Liverpool Street

Only those to Chingford, Enfield and Hertford East.

I did say "local" routes - I don't think anyone can reasonably say
Cambridge or Stansted are local to London.

I didn't catch on to the emphasis on *local* WA routes.

The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the
Mayor's wider boundary.

Roughly inside the M25 I suppose.

Greater London - I think Paul's phrase "the Mayor's wider boundary" is
potentially confusing - the GLA/Mayor have one boundary, and it's the
GL boundary. Of course arrangements can be made for TfL provided
services to run beyond the GL boundary - there's the Met line, and in
recent times London Overground beyond Hatch End up to Watford -
sensible arrangements could be made elsewhere.

In article , Robin wrote:
If it meant getting to London on a Z6 travelcard, I don't think they'd
complain.

Yerrbut it'd also mean London's tea-leafs 'n feral youfs getting to
Cambridge on an Oyster (possibly the one they've just robbed off a
visiting Cantabrigian.......)

Lahdahn LOOT ....

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 19:45:09 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:34:41 on
Mon, 6 Feb 2012, Paul Corfield remarked:
The Mayor has launched a proposal for further rail services to come
under TfL control.


http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor%E2%80...g-rail-service
s-london

The proposal centres on taking over the local "West Anglia" routes out
of Liverpool Street

Only those to Chingford, Enfield and Hertford East.

I did say "local" routes - I don't think anyone can reasonably say
Cambridge or Stansted are local to London.

The report says that the outer limit of stations aligns with the
Mayor's wider boundary.

I was looking
forward to Cambridge being in Zone 6 (with bargain fares as a result),
but this seems unlikely.

I guess you can dream but I can't imagine the good burghers of
Cambridge would want a London Mayor controlling their train services.

We did have a City Council leader once who thought the City should become a
London Borough. He thought it would bring the right mix of powers to the
council. As his deputy at the time, I'm not sure he was entirely serious
about it, though. :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Feb 6, 8:13*pm, Ganesh Sittampalam
wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:22*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

It is absolutely nonsensical that you are penalised for a journey that
requires two buses, and you are penalised for changing from Tube/train
to bus.

Isn't it cheaper for the operator if your journey has one leg rather
than two? There's overhead from getting on/off - people getting on
buses, interchange capacity at stations, etc. It seems like a good
thing to me to encourage people at the margins to not change - though
the current fares structure isn't right for that either since it does
allow unlimited tube changes for free; and the "penalty" for changing
in the circumstances you describe is probably too high.

Ganesh


Interchange is a necessity to counter the practical inability to serve
all possible journeys whilst exploiting the high carrying capacity of
trains on core routes. Outer bus journeys transfer to tube or bus for
a faster & more reliable trunk leg to popular city destinations. Inner
bus distribution takes people from rail station to wider range of
possible destinations. The whole journey may not be possible in one
leg, or on bus mode alone. People 'endure' transfer because it gives
them overall journey time, reliability or comfort benefits, but it
brings it's own anxieties (will i catch the next connection?). I think
transfer penalties should be minimal if any, although I agree there
are areas where it needs to be managed to avoid overcrowding.

--
Mark

On Feb 6, 8:13*pm, Ganesh Sittampalam
wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:22*pm, Neil *Williams wrote:

It is absolutely nonsensical that you are penalised for a journey that
requires two buses, and you are penalised for changing from Tube/train
to bus.

Isn't it cheaper for the operator if your journey has one leg rather
than two? There's overhead from getting on/off - people getting on
buses, interchange capacity at stations, etc. It seems like a good
thing to me to encourage people at the margins to not change - though
the current fares structure isn't right for that either since it does
allow unlimited tube changes for free; and the "penalty" for changing
in the circumstances you describe is probably too high.

Ganesh

Interchange is a necessity to counter the practical inability to serve
all possible journeys directly whilst exploiting the high carrying
capacity of trains on core routes. Outer bus journeys transfer to tube
or rail for a faster & more reliable trunk leg to popular
destinations. Inner bus distribution takes people from rail station to
wider range of possible city destinations than is practical to walk
to. The whole journey may not be possible in one leg, or on bus mode
alone. People 'endure' transfer when it gives them overall journey
time, reliability or comfort benefits, but it brings it's own
anxieties (will i catch the next connection?). I think transfer
penalties should generally be minimal (if any), although I agree there
are areas where it needs to be managed to reduce overcrowding on
trains where there are realistic alternatives.

--
Mark

On 06/02/2012 17:22, Neil Williams wrote:
On Feb 6, 5:10 pm, wrote:
If good for London, why not every other major city in the UK?

Surely, we already have such tickets.

In London, they have the Railcard and that even covers the Croydon
Tramlink.

In Birmingham, they have something similar so do all the other PTEs.

What’s being proposed here that’s any different?

Single tickets as well, presumably.

It is absolutely nonsensical that you are penalised for a journey that
requires two buses, and you are penalised for changing from Tube/train
to bus.

I'm not sure that having a third TOC which runs trains into both
Liverpool Street and Marylebone (or whatever) would be necessary for
getting through bus tickets.

Getting NS to accept passengers kicked off DB buses which stop short
would be a good start.

There should be one zonal fares system for the entire network for
single fares, completely irrespective of what mode(s) of transport is/
are used. The one exception is that I'd allow for a "bus only"
variant to avoid Tube crowding in central London - but even then
changes should not be penalised.

Being able to change buses would be nice. But who cares about the bus
passengers who actually /pay/? Chances are they aren't the Poorest +
Most Vulnerable Members of Society.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK