Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2015 19:27:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 15, 2015 20:18:40 GMT
This was off the back of the Transport Committee meeting last week. They had Surrey CC and Kent CC reps at the meeting and specifically asked about any issues with TfL taking over services that might run into their counties. Kent said they objected to TfL's previous attempt because they did not want the Estuary Airport, proposed by the Mayor, being built in Kent. In short politics got in the way of common sense although I suspect TfL will be pleased to wait until 2018 and get the London Bridge works out of the way. Kent (Mr Balfour mentioned in the article) seemed keener now provided the following are met :- a) TfL add capacity at peak times by lengthening trains to the permissible longest length. They don't want train paths reallocated from "their" trains to Metro routes. b) There is no "theft" of train paths from "their" services to TfL ones. This is impossible because ORR control track access. Obviously if there are spare paths and TfL bid for them and South Eastern do not then that's a different scenario. c) There are no adverse or perverse issues relating to fares. They didn't want fares to rise in Kent to somehow "pay" for TfL's takeover. Also they didn't want TfL to introduce cheap fares that then created a shift in commuter patterns causing traffic congestion issues and localised parking problems in the vicinity of a "cheaper" station. Given the DfT have effectively hobbled TfL's ability to lower fares anyway (other than removing the Zone 1 add on fare) this is pretty much a non issue. Kent CC also had a specific question about whether the Metro services that currently run on to Gravesend and Gillingham would be TfL operated or remain with South Eastern or if the service pattern would change. Clearly there wasn't a specific answer to that given in the meeting. My sense was that these are either non issues because of existing industry controls / processes or else could be solved through discussion. It's over to TfL to try again and hopefully keep people on side. I still think the spectre of airport policy will hang heavy given the government have not set a deadline for responding to the Airports Commission and Boris won't give up either. Surrey supported the points made by Kent and said they didn't want to just be consulted by TfL as if any transfer was a "done deal". They want to work as partners in the development of any proposals. To be fair that's probably reasonable given the importance of rail in Surrey and obviously a number of London routes end up in Surrey. |
|
