Medley

A bus as substitute for the tube ???? Forgive me but do you work office hours? If so no way in hell will I choose the grinding slowmotion agony that is the bus in rush hour for the admittedly sweaty and rammed pit that is the tube in rush hour. As for moving to somewhere with a tube, I can't afford it! And yes I am discounting the hellholes with tubes in that calculation.

Well said richfish. I don't see it's necessarily our responsibility to point out the many failings with this junction if the Council knows about them. P.S. the timings are ridiculously tight for traffic on E Dulwich Road turning right in either direction. Certainly under 3 seconds.

an hour on the tube to get to zone 1 from zone 2? I think not. The train's all well and good but a tube offers: Much higher frequency as an average More constant frequency Much higher levels of staffing Usually later and earlier running times Usually quicker end to end journeys Usually more seamless changes to other lines (hardly surprising) but also other modes Far greater range of destinations per line of course. And a nasty fetid atmosphere to breathe in admittedly!

My parents are currently being dragged through the mill by Talk Talk too. Grim.

I live five mins from this place and had no idea it had facilities. And a pool!!!!! 'had' being the operative tense. Marvellous. Very interesting about the contributions by the likes of Harris to academies. Typical public sector getting the rubbish end of the deal again.

Interesting post Tom Chance - thanks. Although it's now presumably up to each local authority to spend or not spend on the LCN? And I don't mean that the cycle superhighways were particularly expensive compared to something similar on the same scale - just that they'd cost an awful lot. And at lots of points they don't seem to me to 'improve things for cyclists' at all.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Cycle Superhighways are as good as TfL will > fund and where council roads as the council > insists. No real idea what this means but the cycle superhighways are monstrously expensive, often badly designed and at the expense of the existing, far wider network. > The only Cycle Superhighway in Southwark so far is > around E&C and then Southwark Bridge Road. As part > of this Southwark Bridge Road will become 20mph > and that principle will make it even more > attractive. Not really - it'll make that bit of it more attractive. But that's hardly much use if 20mph limits stop either side of the bridge, is it? > I believe the biggest road safety problem in South > London is the number of uninsured, untaxed, un > MOT'd vehicles. Definitely a massive problem that everyone - taxpayers, other drivers through higher insurance premiums etc - pays for. > The next biggest problem is speeding by people passing through who start and > end their journeys outside Southwark - around half > of all the vehciles you see. I've been trying to get someone interested in speed control on my stretch of Forest Hill Road, but no luck so far. > Then again air pollution largely caused by motor > vehicels prematurely kils many Southwark residnts > every year. Hmmm. Don't forget the planes groaning over our heads. And I should think it's the lorries, vans, buses and taxis which cause most - lots of nasty particulates in that diesel. Some of them visibly spew out God knows what. Contribution by private cars, diesel or petrol, has got to be relatively minor compared to that. Almost all of London's goods are surely transported by diesel road vehicles. And the lack of tube and train services means we've got a lot of buses here.

Think 23e Heure's point is a really good one - bits of Clapham have become the overspill of Wimbledon or Richmond or Highgate - people with serious amounts of money. There's lots to parody in ED - and lots to love - but it's not got much of that kind of wealth and therefore that kind of inequality and that's one of the things I like about it. I also like that it's not just a pocket, that there's Honor Oak and Forest Hill and Crystal Palace and Nunhead and Peckham too, none of which are no-go areas. The views and amount of green space are also truly amazing - do the new Green Chain walk from Nunhead to C Palace.

I went to the market yesterday for the first time in ages and remembered how much I enjoyed it. I'm in favour of: extending to 30; opening on Sunday AND closing the road (although I appreciate that's not covered by this consultation, wish it was).

Excellent points by JB there. I find pedestrians the biggest danger to me as a cyclist. But I'd be up for compulsory insurance for cyclists - it's one of the reasons I'm a London Cycling Campaign member. Licensing though - hmmm. Are we going to license pedestrians? And as for DulwichMoan's moan about it being drivers' fault, that's not the case in England and Wales law at all. Quite the reverse if anything - some continental European countries have this presumption of driver guilt in the law but in E&W trying to get justice if you're hit as a cyclist is no easy gig. I should know - though thankfully I wasn't injured.

Yeah, lovely times. Couldn't believe how much more green space there is within easy walking difference. You really can go from Nunhead to Crystal Palace and back with some variety on the return and hardly see a busy road, mostly not seeing a road at all.

A white cheese fondue?

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 78 from the city to Peckham, P12 from there to > Nunhead cemetry Woah, my two most hated buses in one double whammy journey.

Don't I know it mate. But being able to change at C Water or L Bridge etc ain't no substitute for going direct to W East for Southbank or Charing X for Cov Gdn/Strand/Whitehall/Westminster etc. I wasn't criticising the frequency to other destinations from HOP - it's much increased and the range of destinations (admittedly mainly to places I'll never need to go to) extended - but mourning the loss of this direct connection. Reminds me of the axeing of the South London Line (direct to L Bridge and Victoria from P Rye) and the coming of the East London Line/Overground phase two (direct to, er, Clapham Jct where you can, er, change to get to, er, Victoria). Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Medley Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They used to go from Honor Oak Pk but now don't > > seem to. Irritating, particularly the loss of > the > > Charing X connection. > > The Charing X direct services were axed in > December 2009 due to those train paths that > Southern railway used being obtained by > SouthEastern trains. In any case, Honor Oak Park > now has 12 trains per hour, 4 to London Bridge, > the rest to Dalston with interchange with the > Jubilee for Waterloo (and Southwark for Waterloo > East) and the District and Hammersmith & City > lines.

Good one JonC. I'm uncomfortable with public subsidy of whatever kind for such visits, just as I am for ex-premiers such as Blair and with the Civil List. I can see arguments in favour of all but think the Royals could well self-fund, Blair could well contribute to his own security costs given that they are partly driven by his globe-trotting to earn vast amounts of cash and that if the Pope wants to come here and the Catholic Church in the UK wants to have him they can at least pay towards the security costs for that too. The focus on the Catholic Church in recent days has reminded me what a startling contrast I found between - the open spirit of enquiry I saw in the Vatican's decorations (the Signature Room's murals by Raphael with one wall having the official line and the other wall interrogating it; Michaelangelo's work in the Sistine chapel being so full of questions, palpable humanity, doubt, the ups and downs of human emotions as well as the divine, godly and reassuring; even the depictions of biologically interesting animals collected by an 18C Pope) and - its recent occupants, with their depressing insistence that homosexuality is a great threat, that condoms do not work, the abysmal handling of the sex abuse scandals. I must be an aggressive atheist.

ianr, think you're correct - it must have been for the Park statue unveil. The Spit must have been having a busy week!

I found this really interesting. It very largely confirms my existing view of places - but perhaps that' just me finding what I seek.

yes, fair enough. 3 into 5 probably doesn't go on 2 wheels. Or xx plus 11 plus 10 plus 5! trinity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Medley Wrote: > > > > > Anyway, the vicious circle of the South > Circular > > school run - would cycling with them be an > option > > at all? There is a bike path down the pavement, > > albeit rather an erratic one. > > > > I'm currently considering this though my youngest > is only 5 and the entire school run for her is > about 3 miles. Possible on a tag-a-long but for > the portion of the journey on the road (about > half), our bike snake of mother with tag-a-long > plus 11 year old plus 10 year old makes me feel a > bit uneasy.

Oh that's why I saw one in town yesterday. What a gorgeous looking and sounding machine. Thank &*$% the UK ordered it off the drawing board in '36. Although think the much cheaper Hurricane was the workhouse.

Like the rail cos., but not the same as them then. Most of them are massively subsidised, lots with cosy arrangements such as us taxpayers making up 80% plus of any shortfall from the revenue expectations. What they charge passengers is just a part of their income. It's why UK taxpayers spend 2.5 times more IN REAL TERMS (apols for the shouty capitals, Modern Railways figs) on rail than they did under British Rail, despite the railways being 'privatised'. Anyway, the vicious circle of the South Circular school run - would cycling with them be an option at all? There is a bike path down the pavement, albeit rather an erratic one. skidmarks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Medley Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ah, gotcha. > > > > So it's like the rail companies in other words. > > > > A little different to the train companies as TfL > collect the fares directly where train companies > collect fares from passengers and keep it. The > train companies play around with their passenger > numbers to make sure they get maximum subsidy from > the government when revenue from fares should be > offset from the subsidy. > > The way TfL manage the buses as implemented by Ken > is much better as they have full control.

Ah, gotcha. So it's like the rail companies in other words. A dysfunctional model, but possibly less so than the free market racketeering you get by bus cos where they're less tightly regulated. E.g. First launched in Edinburgh against the locally owned and run (and excellent) bus co. ?1 ticket to travel anywhere all day. To start with. Then - guess what?! - once they'd got market share they jacked the prices up. Quick check shows it to now be ?3, which sounds more like it. So I'd rather have the current system than those kinds of antics.

Sorry, skidmarks, but you can't have it both ways. Either: there is no such thing as a profitable route for a bus company in London only for TfL who collects the money. (your 1st post) Or: It is up to the bus operator to provide that service for that money, the bus company makes their profits by cutting costs. (your 2nd post). Dita's right, London bus passengers get a great deal on fares, even after the rise to ?1.20. I'm constantly stunned by how expensive buses are in other UK cities where fares aren't as regulated. It's got the point in Leeds (my home town) where even if there are only two of you it's often almost as cheap to take a minicab. That's utterly crazy - the minicab is quicker (sometimes far quicker), always much comfier, inevitably more direct and about ?1 each more expensive! Madness. This is almost never true in London, thankfully for congestion. School run point also very valid. The difference it makes to congestion never ceases to amaze me. Then I think of the practicalities of getting kids to nursery/school and oneself to work and it's less amazing. My starting and finishing points with the UK in general are that public need systems like transport are best run in the public interest by the state. But the unions and the UK's generally slovenly attitudes (esp. in the public sector) long put paid to that. So instead we have to have well-regulated and partly centrally planned private sector service as the next best option. I think London's buses - with lots of room for improvement, especially on orbital and single-decker routes - work much better than lots of other bits of its transport network (National Rail trains come first to mind) and in turn that network works better than lots of other UK and world cities. Albeit lots worse than lots of other cities around the globe. London buses are also coping with crazy gaps in the London rail and tube network, mainly the result of a lack of strategic overview over decades and the inability of poorer areas to lobby effectively for transport spending, although that has changed somewhat.

V interesting posts, thanks for them intexas and DJKQ. It's another of those scenarios where it all looks lovely in someone's planning doc and on a comp. screen. And it is a great idea to have a contraflow as lots of cyclists just went the wrong way down the pavement before anyway. But the reality is so woeful that most of the advantage is destroyed. Surely any mug can see that having a northbound lane only one bus wide - aside from the bus congestion - will force cyclists onto the pavement/cycle lane? Likewise that having a cycle lane marked only by incredibly discreet small cycle symbols embedded into the pavement can only lead to grief on all sides? Most of the people I've had near misses with I think have genuinely not understood that it's not just part of the pavement - and I don't blame them. So depressing. All that money and effort and disruption and it doesn't work. Maybe we should all get out there with some blue paint and declare it a Citizen's Cycle Superhighway.

V. good point Applespider. Agree with poster above about Ken and decent regulation. We are far - or rather governments have been far - too sceptical of decent regulation. When it's done well it's an enabling thing. When it's done badly, it's as crap or crappier than a 'free' market effort. London's transport doesn't do too badly for integration, although there are many wins to be had still (encouraging cycling, getting serious about river transport, changing Oyster charging to not penalise for switching mode). As for this: > All the bus companies are paid by TfL to provide a minimum level of service, there is no such thing as a profitable route > for a bus company in London only for TfL who collects the money. You must be joking. How come FirstGroup, Stagecoach et al - who are used to absolutely bumper profits from their operations - bother operating London bus routes then?

There was a consultation?! I'm in Southwark Cyclists as part of being a member of London Cycling Campaign and I never heard about it. In any case they could have asked 'Do you want two way cycling and an improved road surface on Rye Lane?' And I'd have said yes, although it's turned out to be 'Do you want a disastrously designed cycle facility on Rye Lane'