The cycle docks form an integrated network, you can't just stick one on it's own, several miles from the nearest dock.
Generally speaking the plan hasn't been rolled out to the suburbs yet, so it seems strange to suggest that Dulwich has been specifically excluded. I also heard that Stratford is set to get the bikes, but I think we can all agree that Stratford is something of a special case.
I'm not saying just one dock. I'd suggest Surrey Quays, Camberwell, Peckham. E Dulwich, Dulwich Village for a Start. We have no Tube no silly Chair Lift, no trams It wouldnt cost much to put cycling in. Boris seems Blind to the South
Hackney is just as 'inner London' as Southwark. As is the Western most part of Hammersmith . In fact its further out.
The Scheme goes east and west but not South or North! And we already stick out like a sore thumb. No Tube No Tram and no Cable Car(I'm glad about this one!)
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:03:23:15:03:02 by the-e-dealer.
The southerly route across south London's existing network of suburban railways underwent many changes before a final route was decided. Initial proposals around 1992 envisaged the western extension running from Peckham Rye to East Dulwich. The 1999 proposals listed four options, all starting south of Surrey Quays:
through Forest Hill to West Croydon station, with a spur from Sydenham to Crystal Palace (a route eventually selected and implemented for part of Phase 1);
through East Dulwich and Tooting to Wimbledon (rejected);
through Denmark Hill to Clapham Junction (the route eventually selected for Phase 2);
through Forest Hill and Norwood Junction to West Croydon (a route eventually selected and implemented for part of Phase 1).
In the final plans, the Dulwich option was rejected, with the western extension terminating at Clapham Junction instead.
Arguments were made for the line to be extended further south to Sutton, but estimates indicated that passenger usage would be so great that the line would be unable to take much traffic north of West Croydon and this option was not adopted.[citation nee
You don't need to convince me, I think he's a shit. My wife's father is Jewish, and although both if them are proper old skool labour, they are both seriously doubting whether they can vote for this man.
How bizarre: the Jewish author condemns, "his hugging embrace of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the scholar who supports female genital mutilation, the murder of homosexual people, and suicide bombing so long as the victims are Israeli civilians, deeming even the unborn child inside an Israeli mother's womb a legitimate target, because that child will one day grow up to wear his country's uniform" yet ignores his own religion's genital mutilation of male babies or The King's Torah wherein, "it is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," and "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder" and 'that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation'.
Not all Jews are religious and follow the teachings of the (ancient) Torah. And do you think those that do, all take it literally word for word? Every religion has nutters who will follow ancient texts to the letter. Most religious people are just trying to live good lives.
Why stir HAL, is it just that you can't help yourself?