Should TfL's area of control be extended into the Home Counties?

[SouthCentral10]

Seeing posts here in the speculative ideas about splitting up GTR and a speculative idea to extend crossrail to High Wycombe, it got me thinking, should TfL become the transport authority of not only London, but also the surrounding counties.

In this plan the county council's would contribute towards some of the TfL budget and appoint members to the board, so that there is some form of democratic accountability.

TfL should then assume control over outer suburban commuter services from across the south east, with longer distance expresses remaining part of the current franchises (or whoever operates them post-williams review).
These services will be more akin to the Transilien that serves île de France.

This proposed transport area would have a completely integrated fare system, with the ability to use contactless as standard. The area should cover roughly the same that was proposed in the February 2019 consultation for expanding PAYG in the south east.

Furthermore buses in the neighbouring countries could also be regulated by this larger TfL, creating a common standard between operators which I believe could only increase the attractiveness of bus usage.

I would be interested to know everyone's thoughts on this.

 

[A0]

Seeing posts here in the speculative ideas about splitting up GTR and a speculative idea to extend crossrail to High Wycombe, it got me thinking, should TfL become the transport authority of not only London, but also the surrounding counties.

In this plan the county council's would contribute towards some of the TfL budget and appoint members to the board, so that there is some form of democratic accountability.

TfL should then assume control over outer suburban commuter services from across the south east, with longer distance expresses remaining part of the current franchises (or whoever operates them post-williams review).
These services will be more akin to the Transilien that serves île de France.

This proposed transport area would have a completely integrated fare system, with the ability to use contactless as standard. The area should cover roughly the same that was proposed in the February 2019 consultation for expanding PAYG in the south east.

Furthermore buses in the neighbouring countries could also be regulated by this larger TfL, creating a common standard between operators which I believe could only increase the attractiveness of bus usage.

I would be interested to know everyone's thoughts on this.

Simple answer - no.

The biggest mistake in the 1930s was the creation of the LPTB and giving it an operating area of 20 miles outside of it's jurisdiction. It meant London standards and London cost of bus operation in provincial areas which was unnecessary. For places like Buntingford, Stevenage, Harpenden which in those days were small towns it was complete and utter overkill. It also crippled a number of other operators - Birch Bros springs to mind who were operating Rushden to London services but always had to run the 'back way' from Hitchin to Hatfield because LPTB blocked their attempts to serve Stevenage.

PAYG ticketing doesn't need TFL - the only reason TFL has been seen to be the proponent of this is timing, put simply pre-TFL the technology didn't exist for e-ticketing or PAYG.

The biggest issue will remain TFL's accountability will be to the Mayor of London - and people in the home counties can't vote to remove the Mayor. I don't believe having "delegates" from the various county councils provides anything like the accountability that is required.

And as for the claim having a common standard would 'increase the attractiveness of bus usage' - bus usage fell in the Home Counties throughout the time that LT and then LCBS were operating the services - and that was supposedly a 'unified' system.

 

[SouthCentral10]

However it's no longer the 1930s, but the 2020s. You only have to look at TfL controlled bus routes, such as the 465 from Kingston to Dorking; the 405 from Croydon to Redhill which have much higher patronage, because of higher frequency and cheaper fares then the 420 that runs between Sutton and Redhill via Reigate, which is commercially operated by Go-Ahead's Metrobus albeit with support from Surrey CC.

I would also make the point that the fall in bus usage was due to the increase in car usage due to central government prioritising road investment and not public transport investment. Its is more then likely that the common man did not care who operated/regulated the bus services. If we are really serious about climate change we need to encourage people out of their cars and onto public transport. We can only do this by ensuring public transport is frequent, reliable, and affordable. This is something TfL already do.

 

[A0]

However it's no longer the 1930s, but the 2020s. You only have to look at TfL controlled bus routes, such as the 465 from Kingston to Dorking; the 405 from Croydon to Redhill which have much higher patronage, because of higher frequency and cheaper fares then the 420 that runs between Sutton and Redhill via Reigate, which is commercially operated by Go-Ahead's Metrobus albeit with support from Surrey CC.

I would also make the point that the fall in bus usage was due to the increase in car usage due to central government prioritising road investment and not public transport investment. Its is more then likely that the common man did not care who operated/regulated the bus services. If we are really serious about climate change we need to encourage people out of their cars and onto public transport. We can only do this by ensuring public transport is frequent, reliable, and affordable. This is something TfL already do.

The bit I've put in bold is rubbish - in the next 10 years most cars will be battery powered and therefore low or zero emission. So the anti-car brigade really do need to come up with a different narrative, because the motor industry is in the throes of shooting that particular fox.

 

[telstarbox]

So TfL would control, for example, the Sheerness branch and the buses from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bit I've put in bold is rubbish - in the next 10 years most cars will be battery powered and therefore zero emission. So the anti-car brigade really do need to come up with a different narrative, because the motor industry is in the throes of shooting that particular fox.

Until they also shoot the rather larger fox of how we generate electricity in the UK it's still sneaking around in the shadows scoffing their chickens, though. We might not have burnt coal for 60+ days now, but we are still burning gas by the cylinder-load[1].

As regards TfL, yes and no. There are services that would make sense, and services that wouldn't. The Watford Overground service probably gives you an idea of the ones that would - sarf ov da Rivva that's things like Chessington South and the likes but clearly not the Brighton mainline or LNR services to Liverpool Lime St.

[1] I know it's piped, but it was the best one I could think of

 

[hwl]

Seeing posts here in the speculative ideas about splitting up GTR and a speculative idea to extend crossrail to High Wycombe, it got me thinking, should TfL become the transport authority of not only London, but also the surrounding counties.

In this plan the county council's would contribute towards some of the TfL budget and appoint members to the board, so that there is some form of democratic accountability.

TfL should then assume control over outer suburban commuter services from across the south east, with longer distance expresses remaining part of the current franchises (or whoever operates them post-williams review).
These services will be more akin to the Transilien that serves île de France.

This proposed transport area would have a completely integrated fare system, with the ability to use contactless as standard. The area should cover roughly the same that was proposed in the February 2019 consultation for expanding PAYG in the south east.

Furthermore buses in the neighbouring countries could also be regulated by this larger TfL, creating a common standard between operators which I believe could only increase the attractiveness of bus usage.

I would be interested to know everyone's thoughts on this.

I can see TfL getting more control of certain rail services but nothing more on the bus side - the current SoS is keen to see TfL take over his local (Hertfordshire) GTR Moorgate services hence it isn't speculative. It is worth noting that one of the requirements attached to DfT's emergency funding package was that TfL had to continue to working on "further devolution of rail services*"

* DfT's coded way of saying GTR Moorgate service handover.

 

[Enthusiast]

You only have to look at TfL controlled bus routes, such as the 465 from Kingston to Dorking; the 405 from Croydon to Redhill which have much higher patronage, because of higher frequency and cheaper fares...

I suppose it depends whether London Council Taxpayers relish the thought of paying to subsidise bus services in Surrey.

 

[A0]

Until they also shoot the rather larger fox of how we generate electricity in the UK it's still sneaking around in the shadows scoffing their chickens, though. We might not have burnt coal for 60+ days now, but we are still burning gas by the cylinder-load[1].

As regards TfL, yes and no. There are services that would make sense, and services that wouldn't. The Watford Overground service probably gives you an idea of the ones that would - sarf ov da Rivva that's things like Chessington South and the likes but clearly not the Brighton mainline or LNR services to Liverpool Lime St.

[1] I know it's piped, but it was the best one I could think of

Same goes true for all those electric trains though - the electricity to power those isn't being generated by fairy dust or unicorn breath.

And running a half-empty electric train is a much bigger drain on the grid than a single person in an electric car - in the same way a half-empty Class 153 is burning far more fuel and creating much greater emissions (per passenger) than a single person in a modern Focus or Astra diesel.

The big difference with the Watford Overground is it was a completely segregated route - the only place it comes into contention with the rest of the WCML is the final mile or so into Euston.

Whereas the only segregated part of the GN Moorgate services for example is the final bit from Drayton Park to Moorgate. And where Watford is just over the boundary between London and Herts, Welwyn, Stevenage and Hertford are much further out.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I suppose it depends whether London Council Taxpayers relish the thought of paying to subsidise bus services in Surrey.

. . . and I can assure you we don't!

 

[Bletchleyite]

And running a half-empty electric train is a much bigger drain on the grid than a single person in an electric car

Umm, except while this COVID thing is going on or at awkward times of day (e.g. Sunday morning's first few trains), precisely how many "half-empty electric trains" are you seeing in the South East commuter area? I certainly don't see many.

That Northern run quite a number of "fresh air expresses" using the Class 153s you mention doesn't really have a relevance to the London commuter area. These days (pre-COVID), LNR's trains are busy at pretty much all times.

 

[SouthCentral10]

. . . and I can assure you we don't!

Surrey CC already partially fund the routes I mentioned, yet have no control over how the routes are tendered.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Umm, except while this COVID thing is going on or at awkward times of day (e.g. Sunday morning's first few trains), precisely how many "half-empty electric trains" are you seeing in the South East commuter area? I certainly don't see many.

Off peak, many South Eastern trains carry more fresh air than passengers.

 

[A0]

So TfL would control, for example, the Sheerness branch and the buses from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton?

Well - that's the problem.

I know people will say the LPTB example I cited was almost 100 years ago - it was. But the issue it created was it stifled the services on the perimeter. So the likes of Eastern National (as it was then) ran services along the edge of the 'protected' area but not into it, because they were prevented by the regulator. The example I cited of Birch Bros was a clear on - even in the late 1930s, running through Stevenage Old Town would have given them a better usage, but they were blocked by the regulator. Smith's of Buntingford - a long standing independent operator (pre LT no less) found every time they proposed a change to their route between Hitchin and Buntingford that LPTB would object - yet anyone who knows that area will be aware its highly rural and wouldn't have been a significant traffic flow - why did LPTB behave like that? Because they could - because they weren't accountable. And that's the risk we run if TFL are given a bigger and bigger area. And their accountability will be to the Mayor and the people of the Home Counties will have no way of influencing the policies.

 

[A0]

Umm, except while this COVID thing is going on or at awkward times of day (e.g. Sunday morning's first few trains), precisely how many "half-empty electric trains" are you seeing in the South East commuter area? I certainly don't see many.

That Northern run quite a number of "fresh air expresses" using the Class 153s you mention doesn't really have a relevance to the London commuter area. These days (pre-COVID), LNR's trains are busy at pretty much all times.

Try the St Albans Abbey line. Or the Bromley North branch. Or any number of the other branch lines which run around the London area - quite a few aren't that busy 'off peak'.

But the point being made was that people need to be forced onto public transport because of the "climate emergency" - well cars are going to be largely zero emission - so that's shifted the tailpipe emissions away and both private cars and public transport will be competing for electricity - so then it comes down to which is more efficient per passenger mile - and if trains are half full, guess what, they're going to be less efficient in the same way a half-empty diesel train is less efficient than each of those passengers using a modern diesel car.

 

[py_megapixel]

The bit I've put in bold is rubbish - in the next 10 years most cars will be battery powered and therefore low or zero emission. So the anti-car brigade really do need to come up with a different narrative, because the motor industry is in the throes of shooting that particular fox.

But road maintainence and car manufacture will not be zero-emission. Everything from setting concrete to manufacturing batteries has some form of environmental cost.
Also, electric cars are better, but as @Bletchleyite quite rightly says, electrical generation is far from zerio-emission.

What is the future in my opinion is "active transport" which is the latest buzz-word for walking and cycling, along with people simply living closer to their workplaces and leisure facilities (which may require changes in where these facilites are located and how they are designed). Public transport and electric vehicles will still be there for leisure trips similar to now, as well as those who still have to commute over longer distances than are achievable on a bike.

 

[PeterC]

The bit I've put in bold is rubbish - in the next 10 years most cars will be battery powered and therefore low or zero emission. So the anti-car brigade really do need to come up with a different narrative, because the motor industry is in the throes of shooting that particular fox.

Replace Euston with a car park for EVs only, with decent charging facilities?

 

[JonathanH]

The bit I've put in bold is rubbish - in the next 10 years most cars will be battery powered and therefore low or zero emission. So the anti-car brigade really do need to come up with a different narrative, because the motor industry is in the throes of shooting that particular fox.

We seriously need to get away from this myth that the creation of batteries is somehow a magic bullet for the environment. While better than some of the alternatives, they still involve us plundering the world's resources.

We need to dramatically reduce consumption, not substitute it with the same level from the past. Reparation for our past misdemeanors may be a way of focusing minds on this.

As for extending TfL's area of control, it is great to have the 405 and 465 running beyond the London borders but the reality of it is pretty much unsustainable in terms of costs. It couldn't be extended everywhere.

Isn't there a Transport for the South East body that is meant to be trying to coordinate some of this stuff a bit better? It just doesn't have the same powers that TfL does so people look to TfL to extend the London model further without the level of revenue that exists in London.

Transport for the South East

The South East powers the UK economy and international travel. Transport for the South East transforms transport for residents, businesses, and visitors.

transportforthesoutheast.org.uk

 

[mmh]

Umm, except while this COVID thing is going on or at awkward times of day (e.g. Sunday morning's first few trains), precisely how many "half-empty electric trains" are you seeing in the South East commuter area? I certainly don't see many.

That Northern run quite a number of "fresh air expresses" using the Class 153s you mention doesn't really have a relevance to the London commuter area. These days (pre-COVID), LNR's trains are busy at pretty much all times.

There are many quiet trains in the South East, the most obvious but not only example of which are all those 12 car Thameslink trains running less than half full outside the peaks. South of London is full of quiet routes during the day and evenings - the Hayes line, Beckenham Junction via Crystal Palace, Caterham and Tattenham Corner, the Sutton loop...

 

[mmh]

This question seems to crop up a lot. Interestingly it doesn't in other parts of Britain. Should Transport for Greater Manchester's remit be expanded to include Derbyshire and West Yorkshire? Merseytravel's to Flintshire and Wrexham?

 

[London Trains]

However it's no longer the 1930s, but the 2020s. You only have to look at TfL controlled bus routes, such as the 465 from Kingston to Dorking; the 405 from Croydon to Redhill which have much higher patronage, because of higher frequency and cheaper fares then the 420 that runs between Sutton and Redhill via Reigate, which is commercially operated by Go-Ahead's Metrobus albeit with support from Surrey CC.

I have always thought why that isnt a TfL bus. The Sutton - Belmont - Banstead part of the route is already operated by lots of TfL buses, the 405 already goes out to Redhill, the 420 is the only non TfL bus in Sutton (apart from the 820 - the school bus equivalent of the 420, and the National Express coaches).

 

[London Trains]

This question seems to crop up a lot. Interestingly it doesn't in other parts of Britain. Should Transport for Greater Manchester's remit be expanded to include Derbyshire and West Yorkshire? Merseytravel's to Flintshire and Wrexham?

If by Derbyshire you mean Hadfield, Glossop, New Mills and Buxton, then yes, they should be included. The Peak District mostly cuts them off from Derbyshire and they are on the Manchester side.

Again, if you mean the Bidston to Wrexham line, yes it should be included, since the first part runs in Merseyside, and we shouldn't be cutting lines into two.

 

[SouthCentral10]

We have to remember the official boundaries of London are very arbitrary. London's Larger Urban Zone extends into almost the whole of Surrey and Hertfordshire and includes substantial parts of Kent, Essex and Berkshire.

Services that should be devolved are the commuter services to places such as Southend, Guildford, Reigate and the GN suburban services.

What I am proposing isn't handing control over everything to the mayor of London, but reforming TfL to become jointly controlled by the Mayor's office and the neighbouring county council's.

On the subject of Transport for the South East, it is an interesting proposal but so far it seems to be a toothless quango, lacking any real power. I also believe that TfL is a member of the board of TfSE. Could it not be possible to have services operated on behalf of both bodies. Similar to SNCF and RAPT jointly operate some of the lines of the Paris RER?

 

[SouthCentral10]

I have always thought why that isnt a TfL bus. The Sutton - Belmont - Banstead part of the route is already operated by lots of TfL buses, the 405 already goes out to Redhill, the 420 is the only non TfL bus in Sutton (apart from the 820 - the school bus equivalent of the 420, and the National Express coaches).

I have to agree, it is an anomaly. Also when you consider a single fare from Sutton to Redhill is £5.30 compared with £1.50 on the 405 from Croydon to Redhill. It's unsurprising that people are more inclined to drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This question seems to crop up a lot. Interestingly it doesn't in other parts of Britain. Should Transport for Greater Manchester's remit be expanded to include Derbyshire and West Yorkshire? Merseytravel's to Flintshire and Wrexham?

There's certainly a good argument to "close up" the PTEs so they are contiguous, or perhaps have a single "Transport for the North" PTE like body, as the North West at least tends to act as one conurbation in many ways despite the strong identities people have.

Certainly, TfGM should probably reach out towards Buxton, certainly as far as New Mills (Disley in particular is a posh Manchester commuter village, and it's folly to see it as anything else) and probably Merseytravel out as far as Burscough, as again Ormskirk, nice though it is, is a commuter town for Liverpool. So yes, I think there is certainly scope for extensions like these. Though Wrexham is pushing it somewhat.

 

[JonathanH]

I have always thought why that isnt a TfL bus. The Sutton - Belmont - Banstead part of the route is already operated by lots of TfL buses, the 405 already goes out to Redhill, the 420 is the only non TfL bus in Sutton (apart from the 820 - the school bus equivalent of the 420, and the National Express coaches).

I have to agree, it is an anomaly. Also when you consider a single fare from Sutton to Redhill is £5.30 compared with £1.50 on the 405 from Croydon to Redhill. It's unsurprising that people are more inclined to drive.

It isn't really an anomaly. I think it would be rather difficult to justify the 420 being a TfL bus - as you say there are plenty of other buses between Sutton and Banstead and the rest of the route is in Surrey. The 420 just goes to Sutton as a natural traffic objective - for all TfL are concerned it could terminate in Banstead from the south. Clearly the 460 (with which it is associated) operates solely in Surrey (and West Sussex) although was once part of the 406 from Kingston to Reigate.

There was a possibility of the 465 being truncated in Leatherhead but a successful campaign was run by users for Surrey to continue funding the extension to Dorking.
https://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/...from-the-chop-in-county-council-and-tfl-cuts/

Arguably, the 405 is a bit of an anomoly - you could very easily make a case for chopping it - send the 466 via Pamphisford Road, extend the 463 to Hooley to serve the few Londoners who live south of Coulsdon South Station and Metrobus can then extend the 100 to Coulsdon (or perhaps Purley).

 

[A0]

We have to remember the official boundaries of London are very arbitrary. London's Larger Urban Zone extends into almost the whole of Surrey and Hertfordshire and includes substantial parts of Kent, Essex and Berkshire.

Services that should be devolved are the commuter services to places such as Southend, Guildford, Reigate and the GN suburban services.

What I am proposing isn't handing control over everything to the mayor of London, but reforming TfL to become jointly controlled by the Mayor's office and the neighbouring county council's.

On the subject of Transport for the South East, it is an interesting proposal but so far it seems to be a toothless quango, lacking any real power. I also believe that TfL is a member of the board of TfSE. Could it not be possible to have services operated on behalf of both bodies. Similar to SNCF and RAPT jointly operate some of the lines of the Paris RER?

Why Southend ? That's about 30 miles out from the current London 'boundary' if you use somewhere like Dagenham as that point.

So why not then Chelmsford ? Or Bishops Stortford ?

When you say the GN suburban services - I assume you mean the inner suburban ones, because the outers run to Cambridge and Peterborough ?

But then what about the Midland Mainline - so that has no TFL involvement at all. And over on the WCML TFL involvement stops at Watford Junction - so places like Hemel which are closer to London than Stevenage aren't covered by TFL.

This is why it's daft - because TFL will just end up with incursions into certain places and certain areas yet not others which are closer to London.

The integrated ticketing is a red herring - a distraction. TFL only introduced PAYG ticketing because the technology had evolved. Over 30 years ago the Capitalcard, later Travelcard was introduced which provided cross ticketing from national rail, underground and bus - it was, and still is, available way outside the London area, but didn't need LT or LRT to take over national rail services to achieve it.

 

[HSTEd]

Really Greater London should be much bigger than it is.

 

[A0]

Really Greater London should be much bigger than it is.

Why ?

What reason is there to give London and its government more and more control, reaching out into other counties?

How would the people of Potters Bar or St Albans, for example, benefit from being part of London exactly ? Apart from almost certainly getting a Mayor imposed on them that politically is the opposite of how those areas usually vote.

 

[SouthCentral10]

Why ?

What reason is there to give London and its government more and more control, reaching out into other counties?

How would the people of Potters Bar or St Albans, for example, benefit from being part of London exactly ? Apart from almost certainly getting a Mayor imposed on them that politically is the opposite of how those areas usually vote.

Because places like Potters Bar, St. Albans, Dartford etc already function as being part of London. Most people of live in these areas commute into London for work. Greater London itself was originally supposed to be substantially larger than it currently is. But unfortunately due to a "Londonphobia" that existed in places like Epsom at the the time the government excluded these places. This has had the bizarre effect whereby next door neighbours could be in a London borough or not.

The built up area and economic reliance of London does not stop at these arbitrary boundaries, but extends much further than the official borders.