Medley

I can quite understand the fears, but I've cycled this twice a day most days since late 2007 and never had an incident. I have, however, had kids chuck stones/other missiles in Burgess Pk, which has no lighting. So it's far from ideal to not have the lights on, and going via road is sensible if you're worried (also possible with Burgess Pk) - but mostly it's fine there.

Gatwick all the way.

Louisa, the Tube may not be in your DNA - but would I go back to Honor Oak Park with just Southern trains and not the Overground? Not on your life.

Hello, London Cycling Campaign and Lewisham C are interested in where (in the Lewisham C area) people would like on street secure bike parking Tell them here: http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1745&ea.campaign.id=22122&forwarded=true Example of the bike parking: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cyclehoop-brings-dutch-style-secure-residential-cycle-parking-to-six-london-boroughs

In case it's helpful, the best cycling journey planner I've found is the LCC one at http://routes.lcc.org.uk/journey/

Yep, exactly.

Agree with that. There's also the denial drivers have about how fast they can go overall - sure, they're quicker than bikes outright, but they often scorch past me only for me to then overtake them at the next obstruction and probably get to my destination at much the same time or quicker than they do. But they don't recognise that/don't want to recognise that.

Good points about VED and health benefits. Can I add that there's also the benefit to public transport users from cyclists not taking up space on public transport. In a less crowded city that argument could go the other way - i.e. less revenue from public transport fares - but in London most of the system is so crowded that it's actually a benefit.

It's been quieter because there's been an early respite noise trial. As we've all noticed, this has now ended. I'm starting to file my Webtrak complaints again...http://webtrak.bksv.com/lhr

roblay Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > XxNikkixX Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Because a dog runs up to u does not in any way > > mean its dangerous > > > Defend the dog all you want but the fact is it ran > up to him in the first place and that led to the > attack by the 2 men. Dogs, dangerous or not, > shouldn't be running up to anybody - they should > be on a short lead and under the complete control > of the owner. There are signs all over Dulwich > Park to that effect but the majority of dog-owners > ignore them. I have stopped running there now for > that very reason. Totally support that post (the second one I mean).

Dodo1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Also Sugar Mountain in Forest Hill are converting > part of their shop to an ice cream parlour and > will be stocking Marine Ices! Woah! That is BIG news. I was a Marine Ices addict in my north London days....

Love_London Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We are thinking of moving to Honour Oak Park area > (near the station or in between Forest Hill and > HOP station). > I have read positive things about living in HOP in > previous threads but have some specific questions > and would be grateful if you could share your > wisdom! > > - Are there any good places for grocery shopping? This is mixed. There's a good-sized Sbury's in FH. A small Sbury's is to open in HOP in coming months. There is a fab new butchers in FH. But there's a bit of a lack of a good greengrocer or fish place. > Large supermarkets or farmers market? Food market in FH once a month I think > - How are the kids facilities in the area? Many > nurseries? Kids swimming, gym, library, > activities? FH pools are brand new and good. I prefer them to ED pools. Don't know about the rest I'm afraid. > - How is the community compared to ED? Am I going > to get the village communitiy feel in HOP as > well? Yes. > - How often do London overground trains run? Every > 10-12 minutes in peak times? Depends where you're going. If you want the Jubilee line to get into West End etc then it's 16 trains per hour in the peak, so one every 4-5 mins. If you want London Bridge then it's Southern trains, about 8 in the peak. Overground 8 all day pretty much. > - Do you think primary schools in the area will > keep their outstanding rating in next couple of > years too?(well, i know we will need a crystal > ball for this!) > > Property prices are slightly cheaper than ED but > not that much cheaper so we are slightly hesitant > in making a decision at the moment... > Property prices are MUCH cheaper than prime ED. Esp in HOP. > Thanks so much in advance everyone!

I'm not sure I buy this 'the Tube will ruin ED' line. It hasn't ruined Richmond or Hampstead, the places referenced above. In any case the Bakerloo extension is about far more than ED (I appreciate this is the ED Forum), and in fact is fairly likely not to come to ED at all (if it ever goes anywhere) but to Camberwell, Peckham, New Cross. The comparison to Crossrail 2 is not daft in the sense of transport infrastructure spending on routes that already have much better provision than south east London does. One chain looking at the Crossrail 2 map showed me was that: - if you have decent transport links people will use them - then they get overcrowded - then you need to relieve those. Crossrail 2 has been mooted since God knows when - the route's been safeguarded since 1991 for Heaven's sake - so it most definitely isn't just about HS2 at Euston. It's a mix of relieving Waterloo (the busiest station in the country), Victoria, the Victoria line, some central Tube lines and Euston/King's X/St P, even Liv St I guess. Just can't get away from the stark feeling that most of the enormous transport investment planned in London is passing south east London by.

It's obviously total nonsense to say there's been no uplift from the ELL southern extension. It's also startling, from a south east London perspective, just how far down the pecking order we are - if we're on it at all, I sometimes wonder. As above - Crossrail 2!! What about Tubeline/decent transport 1?

I could be wrong, but I think the Overground is linked to property development (as, arguably, should any transport infrastructure investment) - at least at Shoreditch High St, where in the end there's to be a load of office etc space around that station. In general I think SE London remains a poor relation in terms of transport, and improvements are to be welcomed. But any extension would need private funding or contributions of some kind I imagine, sensible routeing and a sensible end point to provide a reliable service. The time to start pressing for it is now as TfL starts to make the case for monies beyond 2015 and the Bakerloo is well overdue an upgrade (I think that's roughly pencilled for the early 2020s). A lot would depend on political will, the councils all along a potential route extension getting enthusiastically and collectively on board etc.

Always an interesting dust-kicker this. To those who say it would cost vast amounts of money - of course, it would. But so does any major transport infrastructure, from Crossrail or Thameslink on downwards. Just look at the Northern line extension - roughly 1 billion for 2 stops, a quarter of which will (in theory) come from the private sector. To those who say there's been talk of this for decades - quite right. A start was actually made on digging the tunnels from Elephant to Camberwell, they still exist. As I understand it the technical difficulties that south London has more of than north London (for Tube tunnelling) can largely be overcome now, whereas that used to be less the case. My experience has been that Lewisham is pretty clued-up on this issue as a Council, even commissioning its own report, whereas Southwark is nowhere - despite the fact the line currently terminates in zone 1 in Southwark!

I don't get this easterly landing stuff (much as I'd like it to happen, for exactly the reason SLP gives above). I thought they had to land into the wind for safety? See below. From http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/Heathrow_Noise/Downloads/PDF/Arrivals11.pdf For safety reasons, aircraft must take off and land into the wind. Most of the time at Heathrow, the wind comes from the west. This is known as a westerly wind. Therefore, because aircraft must land into the wind, they will usually arrive from the east (that is over London). However, when the wind is coming from the east (an easterly wind), aircraft will arrive from the west (that is over Windsor).

eco79 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow! I've got half a brain, but responding to this > consultation requires detailed reading of an > enormously wordy document, in order to answer such > fantastically specific questions such as.... > > "Do the dispensation guidelines still adequately > reflect current operational issues?" > > What? Who cares? Can you just make my baby sleep > longer than 4.45am by sorting out your planes? And lo there is the sound of the nail being squarely hit on the head!

Covers Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted... https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/night-flights-consultation

As with the cable car and 'Boris' bikes, private contributions seem to rather lag public expectations, resulting in a taxpayer bill I presume: Lord Berkeley asked the Government what is their estimate of the cost of extending the Northern Line to Battersea Power Station; and what contribution the developer of that site will make. Earl Attlee replied that the costs of the [Northern Line] extension are not > expected to exceed ?1 billion* in outturn prices. Further design works will be required to provide a more accurate forecast of the capital costs, which will also be dependent on the timing of construction. Transport for London is currently working with the London boroughs of Wandsworth and Lambeth, the Greater London Authority and private developers to finalise the project?s funding and financing solution. The developer of the Battersea Power Station site is committed to providing ?211.6 million (this figure will be subject to indexation) of funding towards infrastructure works, as set out in its Section 106 agreement. At least 72% of this will be used to fund the Northern Line extension.

The Overground in the peaks at HOP is crowded, but that's a reason to have longer and more trains - not a reason for people not to have better links to it. Southern trains are much longer in the peaks and less crowded (although never less than very busy of course). The P13 solution seems to have attractive features to me: less need for improved infrastructure, fewer traffic problems, 63 turnaround facilities can remain as they are, improvements of options for those on some parts of P13 routes already. What do people think is the essential end goal? A link between P Rye and HOP?

Don't think the snow point is valid - the existing turnaround has frequently been ignored by gritters, meaning the buses can't be turned and the route being curtailed at Peckham Rye, where they can turn back. Katuja's post was excellent, I must say. I'm not sure it is a goer, after reading that thought-through piece from someone making this journey daily for years. Could the P12 route be tweaked to cover the gap? Albeit that wouldn't connect up in the same way - you'd need to change bus.

Interesting spending figs from House of Lords Q and Answer: Lord Kennedy of Southwark asked the Government how much they have spent on (1) Elephant and Castle, and (2) Denmark Hill, railway stations in (a) 2010, and (b) 2011. Baroness Stowell of Beeston replied that Under the National Stations Improvement Programme (NSIP) ?11,000, ?30,000 and ?879,000 was spent on station improvements at Denmark Hill station in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. ?3.4 million of funding under the Access for All (AfA) main programme has also been spent towards a ?4.18 million project at Denmark Hill, which is due for completion in 2013. Of this, ?400,000 was spent in 2010 and ?1.6 million in 2011. Under the station commercial project facility, ?328,000 was awarded in 2011 for new station ticket gates and ?80,000 to improve retail facilities for passengers at Denmark Hill. There is no record of equivalent expenditure at Elephant and Castle.

One thing that's being forgotten is the potential catchment at the HOP end. At the moment the catchment is at the very start of the route is surely just the streets on the east side of the cemetery - Mundania, Marmora, Therapia etc. But with extension to HOP whole new swathes come in, so there would be more towards town demand than at present (which I can't see being a problem as the 63 and 363 have never, in my experience, been anything like full from the start of the route)

Nothing wrong with a bit of emotion when such crazy decisions are threatened. Actually I think if you read through the responses from clinicians and medical staff on the SLH website, you'll find lots of reason. What the SLH perhaps lacks is a fully worked-up alternative plan. That's the moan of Kershaw the administrator - apparently - that no one came up with a workable alternative. This line of argument, for me, conveniently ignores the fact that this is precisely his/the Trust's/DH's/the NHS' job. It's not for local people to resist insane and unjust slashings of services and abandon their day jobs to work out what would be a better plan. What are all these managers paid for?