In message , Tony Polson
writes
Ian Jelf wrote:

If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it
stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford?
Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a
"commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2]
would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems.


Look no further than the boundaries of the 1980s Network SouthEast.

Didn't that get to Exeter, though?!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message
Tony Polson wrote:

Dave Arquati wrote:

It probably makes little difference for the rail network, as it is
highly centred on London, with the minor exceptions of such animals as
Gatwick - Tonbridge, Ashford - Hastings etc.


It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial
proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London"
services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives
on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor.

No taxation without representation ...



Ang on a mo' while I chuck a VEP into the harbour...

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Ian Jelf wrote:

In message , Tony Polson
writes
Ian Jelf wrote:

If we create a Greater South East body, exactly how far would it
stretch? Would Luton be included? How about Oxford? Or Chelmsford?
Or Brighton? All of these places are recognisable at the end of a
"commuter line" [1] but making them part of a Greater Greater London [2]
would throw up a hornets nest of its own problems.


Look no further than the boundaries of the 1980s Network SouthEast.

Didn't that get to Exeter, though?!


Yes, but only for sound operational reasons.

You couldn't sensibly operate two separate services (commuter/Inter
City) over the one route in NSE days. Maybe it could be done now?



Tony

Dave Arquati wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial
proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London"
services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives
on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor.

No taxation without representation ...

Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than
a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central
London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a
difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway.

I'm sorry, you seem to have completely missed my point.

The rail services might appear "central London dominated" but the
people using them are most certainly NOT. It would be quite
inappropriate to give control of these services to TfL when such a
substantial proportion of people using them live and vote (please note
that word) outside London. The fact that their morning commute
terminates in central London doesn't mean that they are in any sense
adequately represented by TfL or the Office of the Mayor, and it would
not be realistic to suggest that they could be.

It was theoretical anyway; I wouldn't advocate giving the whole of NSE
to TfL. I do think it would make more sense for them to have greater
control over inner suburban services though, even if those do stray
outside the GLA boundary - the idea is to make sure that transport into
London is co-ordinated properly.

I'm sure we can all agree on that. The point is, however, that people
served by these services who live outside London are not represented
by TfL. They would be poorly served (at best) by any SE Rail body
that was dominated by TfL or the Mayor. On the other hand, they were
well served by Network SouthEast, which (on the whole) successfully
balanced the needs of its passengers in, into and outside of London.

That's why I suggested we need look no further than the boundaries of
Network SouthEast.

Tony

This idea will certainly go down like a lead balloon with the John
Redwood's of this World but I believe London could be treated in a
similar fashion to another City which I've just returned from and found
a lot to be impressed with public transport wise. This City wielding
huge economic power over a large swathe of the country and having a
transport infrastructure that was short of the capacity needed to cope
with it's growth and lacked the integration required to encourage the
use of public transport. This is now being addressed by by Central
Government paying for 50% of the capital outlay with the EEC supplying
the other 50%, new buses, trams and trains along with the lines and bus
lanes to facilitate them. The projects all carry the National Flag and
the EEC Stars Symbol alongside each other and a lot of the buses and
rolling stock as well.
Very cheap park and ride schemes ("Speed Parks" they call them to
attract the Jeremy Clarksons) 5 Euros per vehicle plus up to 6
occupants per vehicle to continue in by train or bus. The whole
caboodle meant that I could get from one end of the city to the other
across the suburbs with very little effort and using one day ticket.
The shops and business centres are booming and talking to people living
there it was obvious that they have a great deal of pride in the
network. The surrounding counties recognise this since people choose to
live there and commute into work. The economic hinterland therefore
becomes more prosperous if the central area is better managed transport
wise.
I'm sure some here will know the City. (Clue, Guiness)

Tony Polson wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote:


Tony Polson wrote:

It makes a lot of difference when you consider that a substantial
proportion of commuters using these "highly centred on London"
services actually live outside the capital and have no representatives
on the GLA and no say in the election of the Mayor.

No taxation without representation ...

Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than
a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central
London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a
difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway.


I'm sorry, you seem to have completely missed my point.

The rail services might appear "central London dominated" but the
people using them are most certainly NOT.

The majority of journeys in the south eastern area are to or from
central London - I'd call that central London dominated.

It would be quite
inappropriate to give control of these services to TfL when such a
substantial proportion of people using them live and vote (please note
that word) outside London. The fact that their morning commute
terminates in central London doesn't mean that they are in any sense
adequately represented by TfL or the Office of the Mayor, and it would
not be realistic to suggest that they could be.

I understand that. However, a "Greater South East Rail Authority" is as
unlikely to be accountable to passengers in the area as TfL-controlled
rail services would be - unless the GSERA proportionally represented the
passengers of the area, taking representatives from each authority
region. If that were the case, it would probably end up being
TfL-dominated anyway.

I was just pointing out that such a rail authority is not necessarily
better than total TfL control - both are probably equally bad for people
outside the GLA area.

It was theoretical anyway; I wouldn't advocate giving the whole of NSE
to TfL. I do think it would make more sense for them to have greater
control over inner suburban services though, even if those do stray
outside the GLA boundary - the idea is to make sure that transport into
London is co-ordinated properly.


I'm sure we can all agree on that. The point is, however, that people
served by these services who live outside London are not represented
by TfL. They would be poorly served (at best) by any SE Rail body
that was dominated by TfL or the Mayor. On the other hand, they were
well served by Network SouthEast, which (on the whole) successfully
balanced the needs of its passengers in, into and outside of London.

That's why I suggested we need look no further than the boundaries of
Network SouthEast.

NSE did have some rather odd boundaries anyway - King's Lynn & Exeter? A
new NSE would also extend to Kidderminster! Boundaries will always be
somewhat arbitrary.

If you introduce three layers of control - TfL inside the GLA, NSE for
the SE area, and "everywhere else" (taking into account other regional
control like Wales, Scotland and the PTEs), then you risk a lot of
bureaucracy.

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

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:08:07 +0000, Graeme Wall wrote:

Ang on a mo' while I chuck a VEP into the harbour...

LOL!
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/c363683.html
(Thumbnail index to British Electric Multiple Units)

(Charles Ellson) wrote:

In article "Dave Arquati" writes:

snip
Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than
a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central
London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a
difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway.

That view only works if you ignore that journeys have two ends, and
allow one part of the area to be the tail that wags the dog.


My point, exactly.



Tony

Tony Polson wrote:
(Charles Ellson) wrote:


In article "Dave Arquati" writes:

snip

Someone said it would be better to have a SE rail authority rather than
a "central London dominated" TfL - but since the rail network is central
London dominated, from that point of view, there isn't much of a
difference, as a SE rail authority would be London-dominated anyway.


That view only works if you ignore that journeys have two ends, and
allow one part of the area to be the tail that wags the dog.



My point, exactly.

Journeys have two ends; one end is frequently in central London. How
many journeys start or finish at Victoria versus at Maidstone, or High
Wycombe, or Hatfield? Even if a rail authority proportionally
represented the origins and destinations of all journeys on the South
East rail network, almost half the "seats" would be occupied by
representation of central London; probably over half would be
representatives from inside the GLA, i.e. TfL.

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

Dave Arquati wrote:

Journeys have two ends; one end is frequently in central London. How
many journeys start or finish at Victoria versus at Maidstone, or High
Wycombe, or Hatfield? Even if a rail authority proportionally
represented the origins and destinations of all journeys on the South
East rail network, almost half the "seats" would be occupied by
representation of central London; probably over half would be
representatives from inside the GLA, i.e. TfL.


No doubt you live in London, as well as work there. I don't doubt
your sincerity. Neither do I doubt your self-interest, however.

As someone who lives outside London, used to commute daily over a
period of some years, and now still travels into London regularly, I
have a different view. I fully understand your view, I just don't
happen to agree with it.

I see the need for balance between the interests of people living in
London and those outside London who commute, whereas you want the
interests of Londoners to dominate. I am not asking for the views of
commuters from outside London to dominate, merely for them to be
included in a balanced overview.

Perhaps you should make just a tiny bit more effort to understand
others' views, especially those of people whose personal circumstances
differ from your own.


Tony