http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ays_611308.pdf

Ken Livingstone and the DfT proposes an increase in the powers of TfL
to cover cross boundary rail services with 2 members from outside the
TfL area appointed to the TfL. Does this mean every cross boundary
commuter will now get to be included in the vote that determines who
should be Mayor of London - or will this be a case of increased fare
extraction and service reduction without representation?

P.S. See also Ben Websters " Magic Kendom" article in the Transport
Times

http://www.transporttimes.co.uk/Opinion/

"John B" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bob wrote:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ays_611308.pdf

Ken Livingstone and the DfT proposes an increase in the powers of TfL
to cover cross boundary rail services with 2 members from outside the
TfL area appointed to the TfL. Does this mean every cross boundary
commuter will now get to be included in the vote that determines who
should be Mayor of London - or will this be a case of increased fare
extraction and service reduction without representation?

No: the proposal involves TfL subsidising rail services outside the GLA
area (like the Croxley link, in which £16m of Londoners' money will be
used to improve Hertfordshire's rail connections). The relevant
services will be only those where the vast majority of the route is
within the GLA area, but where the logical terminating point is not.
This already happens on London Underground and works rather well.

The governance arrrangements on p15/16 state that services will only be
changed if a local government body for the relevant bit of not-GLA-land
agrees: the only exception is if TfL introduces a new subsidised
service to benefit non-GLA commuters and then decides to withdraw it
again, which seems fair enough.

So why aren't the citzens of Shrewsbury represented on the Welsh Assembly?

PF

John B wrote:
the proposal involves TfL subsidising rail services outside the GLA
area (like the Croxley link, in which £16m of Londoners' money will be
used to improve Hertfordshire's rail connections). The relevant
services will be only those where the vast majority of the route is
within the GLA area, but where the logical terminating point is not.
This already happens on London Underground and works rather well.

AIUI the TfL contribution to the Croxley Link is supposed to be £19m
instead (what's £3m between the members of this NG?) However, my
point it that this link is not just about enhancing Hertfordshire's
rail services but also about giving the good folk of north west London
direct rail access to the Watford employment centre (ISTR reading
something about 1.25 jobs for every working age adult very recently)
and that's reason enough for Ken to borrow a bit more under the TfL
5-year investment programme to help Hertfordshire put together a
funding package. Not that it's made any difference in gaining the
approval of the DfT bean counters so far.

THC

Peter Fox wrote:
No: the proposal involves TfL subsidising rail services outside the GLA
area (like the Croxley link, in which £16m of Londoners' money will be
used to improve Hertfordshire's rail connections). The relevant
services will be only those where the vast majority of the route is
within the GLA area, but where the logical terminating point is not.
This already happens on London Underground and works rather well.

The governance arrrangements on p15/16 state that services will only be
changed if a local government body for the relevant bit of not-GLA-land
agrees: the only exception is if TfL introduces a new subsidised
service to benefit non-GLA commuters and then decides to withdraw it
again, which seems fair enough.

So why aren't the citzens of Shrewsbury represented on the Welsh Assembly?

Because most pax from Salop head towards Crewe or the West Midlands.

Humm. Pity the former WMPTE didn't adopt TfL's ideas.

On 10 Mar 2006 07:28:49 -0800, Bob wrote:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ays_611308.pdf

This looks good from a first skim, and covers my line (Dartford to
London). I live within Greater London and my local station is inside the
area too, but only just, and we feel thoroughly neglected as far as TfL
is concerned around here so if they can try and make our trains feel
more integrated then we might start to get over the huge chip on our
collective shoulder about the complete lack of tube/DLR etc. anywhere
near here!

Anyway, to get to the point, this document makes occasional vague
mentions of 'integrated ticketing'. Could this proposal ultimately lead
to Oyster Pre-Pay being usable on South Eastern Trains into London? I
can scarcely believe it could be true, but it does sound like that could
be one aim.

Paul

Does this mean every cross boundary
commuter will now get to be included in the vote that determines who
should be Mayor of London - or will this be a case of increased fare
extraction and service reduction without representation?

No: the proposal involves TfL subsidising rail services outside the GLA
area (like the Croxley link, in which £16m of Londoners' money will be
used to improve Hertfordshire's rail connections). The relevant
services will be only those where the vast majority of the route is
within the GLA area, but where the logical terminating point is not.
This already happens on London Underground and works rather well.

The governance arrrangements on p15/16 state that services will only be
changed if a local government body for the relevant bit of not-GLA-land
agrees: the only exception is if TfL introduces a new subsidised
service to benefit non-GLA commuters and then decides to withdraw it
again, which seems fair enough.

Try reading it properly. The Mayor can propose reductions (called
decrements) in service outside London (not just ones he was previously
funding) and can then use those 'savings' elsewhere, and not
necessarily for transport. He also only has to consult "Local Transport
Authorities", whatever they are, presumably the County Councils, and
the Regional Assemblies that the government are obsessed with, who
represent nobody, and most people have never heard of or want. There is
no consultation with local District Councils that are closest to the
residents of areas outside London.

Peter

wrote:

Try reading it properly. The Mayor can propose reductions (called
decrements) in service outside London (not just ones he was previously
funding) and can then use those 'savings' elsewhere, and not
necessarily for transport. He also only has to consult "Local Transport
Authorities", whatever they are, presumably the County Councils, and
the Regional Assemblies that the government are obsessed with, who
represent nobody, and most people have never heard of or want. There is
no consultation with local District Councils that are closest to the
residents of areas outside London.


The mayor can *propose* reductions, but he needs to get the relevant
local authority to agree to them. This will only happen in cases where
the change in funding would benefit the relevant readion (otherwise why
the hell would they agree? It's not as if the boundary-Greater-London
local government bodies are hotbeds of Ken-loving leftism).

In London, the regional assembly is responsible for transport and the
local district councils are not. This change has led to massive
improvements in the provision of transport across London. Applying a
similar model to neighbouring areas doesn't seem entirely ridiculous.

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