Frisco

People seem to be referring to traditional conductors and calling for them to be brought back. However, in my view, buses should be completely cashless, and they can be as a Oyster and bus stop payment machines. The previous role of the conductor is obsolete, and money handling would only distract from more useful roles. Not having to handle money would allow the drivers to drive without distraction, and a second person on board could be used in a passenger assistance, security and revenue enforcement role. Sadly, I suspect that these people would probably have to wear stab proof jackets, but everyone else working in security these days seems to do so anyway.

"If only the police or wardens would enforce the parking laws more readily, then at least one of the unpleasant aspects of Rye Lane would be ameliorated." Parking and stopping to load on Rye Lane is controlled by both parking attendants and CCTV. "Being stuck on a bus because some van/taxi/other vehicle with 'disabled' driver or passenger in it has stopped on the double yellows is annoying." Because, of course, the success of a shopping street is determined by the number of people who drive through it on a bus, rather than those who are able to have access to it to shop etc. Rye Lane is a disaster for shoppers, having become mainly a just a dehumanised bus lane that people don't want to use, so it's no wonder that shops are closing down or choosing to move out. I'm a 'disabled' (whatever the inverted commas are meant to mean) driver and I can assure you that there is no facility for 'disabled' parking on Rye Lane. "There used to be bollards that would drop down for buses and access, but they lasted for a short time as they damaged a vehicle, I heard. Rather than trying to improve it, it was obv. decided to do away with it altogether, which is not an efficient use of our money, is it?" Well it was an efficient use of my money, in that they were dangerous and the risk of having to pay out compensation was too high compared to any gains the high maintenance bollards provided. So yes, in my view, it was an efficient use of 'our' money.

"The assumption always seems to be that Conductors ca only operate on Routemasters. Why cant they operate modern buses?" This is true, but my view is that while there may be a need for a second person on buses, they shouldn't necessarily be distracted by collecting fares and handling cash (which may even make them a target). I think it's far better that all buses become cashless through the wider use of Oyster etc, and that any second crew member undertakes an enforcement/security role. I wonder if there's been any feasibility studies or cost/benefit analysis of this.

"A redesign to retain the good bits (including the jump on / jump off element) and improve DDA access would have been a much better option. I could envisage a design such that the old platform end being something that was hydraulically controlled with access to a wheelchair "parking space" so wheelchair users could get on / off." As far as I'm aware, I didn't address the other issues you raised so you I'm not sure what you're responding to, but some of what you claim as advantages wouldn't be acceptable in terms of H&S. As I said, when things lead or contribute to people's deaths they tend to be replaced. Also, the RM couldn't have been successfully redesigned to make it DDA compliant, and if it could the cost would have prohibited it. But the main reason is the size of the bus, the internal step from the platform, the fact that the position of the internal wheels dictated the type of rear seating etc. etc. Plus, DDA compliance isn't just about wheelchair access, as they only actually account for about 8% of disabled people. I'm not particularly a fan of bendy buses, but I do find them more attractive when faced with the arguments of the RM Luddites. "Just because it's iconic 1950's design doesn't mean it won't work in 2007." Obviously, your view is that the RM was suitable for the 21st century, but my equally valid view is that it wasn't.

I'm not really concerned whether your view appears harsh or not, I was only concerned to correct the erroneous impression given that the demise of the RM in general use was wholly due to the DDA. Rightly or wrongly, H&S played risk based role, and when things are deemed to be the cause of deaths they are very often altered, if only because of insurance industry pressures. As I wrote, I was making the point about the H&S based contribution to the decision and I have no views on the 'fishy' apparent conspiracy theory you refer to, except to say it is almost certainly just that. The fact is that people's views aren't usually fixed, especially when new information and alternatives become available. Politicians can change their views too, and although the RM had become iconic, it wasn't ever really going to increase bus usage and didn't send out the message that London has a modern bus-based contribution to its mass transit system. The RM still runs on the heritage routes used by tourists and, in my opinion, that's where it belongs.

"On the disability side of things. Yes, they were not accessible, hence they were to be withdrawn to meet a deadline decreed,....Are Bendy Busses wheelchair friendly? Ask someone trying to get on one in Oxford street at 5pm..." Compliance with DDA requirements and deadlines is only one reason why the RM was withdrawn from general service. I recall that assurances that they were to be withdrawn were given years years go at an Inquest, following someone being killed when jumping off the platform of a moving RM, in Oxford St. "Surely the routemaster could have been modified with a retractable ramp for wheechairs? And then there would have been a conductor to operate it unlike the automatic thing on the bendy bus that never works properly." That's highly unlikely, especially given with narrowness of the aisles in RMs, and the lack of any space for a wheelchair while on board.

"Fair enough, getting off some buses these days does not involve passing the driver on your way out. On other buses like the P13 or if you get off at the front door of a bendy-bus, many people still do not say thank you." I would always be polite to drivers and say thank you if I got off when passing them, but not if met with the aggressive glaring and no response when I got on. However, I don't buses these days with the exception of one quite short journey with a friend about a month ago from Wimbledon town hall (or Tesco as it is now) to the tennis ground. At Wimbledon Village a young woman with a child attempted to get on because the bus in front had been terminated and she'd paid to go to Southfields. The driver was very unhelpful and wanted her to pay again. She didn't see why she had to but she was doing so anyway. She asked for his number, presumably so she could report him for his unhelpful attitude. He turned off the engine and refused to move the bus until she and the child got off. The driver's behaviour was appalling, and this was my only experience of travelling on a bus for about three years. However, as a driver, it's not my only experience of aggressive and unskilled bus drivers.

"The chemists I've been into on LL could do with a thorough tidying up and a re-vitalised range of products to reflect the fact that outside the shop its 2007. IMO." OK it's not on LL, but chemist on Northcross Road has quite recently been modernised and seems quite good. The Peckham branch is probably the closest to me if I specifically needed to go to a Boots, but it's not very convenient for me so I go elsewhere. The last time I went there, the Peckham branch of Boots looked as though it needed a fair bit of tidying up and revitalisation too. Also, I'm not sure Boots would particularly move to ED given that Sainsburys is having another go at running a pharmacy in the DKH store. The last time they tried it was in partnership with Boots, but they failed to get a licence to dispense prescriptions, and their new pharmacy might be hitting the same barrier too.

"listen ibo you,re sinking here big time,it has already been pointed out to you by another forum poster that you started the whole disability issue, no one has made an issue of it apart from you so drop it." Actually you sank and lost big time at the point you wrote, "in future if you're concerned about the quality of products received it might be worthwhile doing it yourself and at least it would spare the rest of us having to listen to you". I don't think this was necessarily a disability issue as it's not just people with learning difficulties who can get fobbed off with below standard goods (although they may be more susceptible than most), but parts of your response were unnecessary and, quite simply, rude.

"The journalist couldn't be arsed to check." I think this is the more likely, plus the journalist has ignored the fact that it becomes fairly quickly well known locally which fish and chips shops are good and which are not. While Sea Cow may be considered good in terms of its quality, its prices may put it outside the reach of some ED residents. I hope it doesn't result in the demise of any cheaper decent local 'chippy', but I suspect it's has a different target clientele. Good point about even more delivery scooters.

That's what I thought. That proves that it's strange that the journalist concerned should seem to equate its closure with the opening of Sea Cow, which has been there for three years at most. Plus, it must have been written by someone who lives locally, because Golden City isn't exactly in a main road or prominent place. Which may be why the shop unit has stood empty and unused for so long.

How long ago was that, Ibo?

"Hmm, somewhat disingenuous methinks. I've been living in ED for 10 years and the Golden City hasn't been open since I moved here and probably a long time before that." I agree with this; I can't recall a time when it was open. Whenever I've gone to the Royal Mail sorting office I've passed it and always noticed the fact it was closed, and the brown rubber plants. There's been a fish and chip shop in North Cross Road for years, and it's more likely that there were just too many in the area, and quality probably dictated which ones survived. Is the one Dog Kennel Hill, opposite Quorn Road, ever open? I drive past it but I've never really noticed.

Louisa, you've listed stores that left Peckham, challenging people's reasons for their departure, but you appear to be ignoring the fact that they left other similar areas too, and the fact that there was a recession between 1988 and 1995, combined with a rapidly changing retail sector. However, I'd suggest the following, in terms of local influence: - BHS consolidated and probably couldn't justify having a store in Peckham as well as at Surrey Quays. - M&S rationalised their trading, and probably took a view that either the Peckham or Walworth Road would have to go. - C&A were contracting in the eventual lead-up to them ceasing to trade in the UK. - Clarkes Shoes went through a considerable profit crisis, and Peckham wouldn't have fitted their target market. - Richards disappearance was probably connected with parent company policy. - Rumbelows went the way of most electrical retailers. "But surely half these stores didn't 'abandon peckham' - they disappeared nationwide. They don't exist anywhere any more." This is exactly right, and the moves by chains stores, etc. out of Rye Lane has to be seem in the wider context and not just in the narrow sense of the decline of a narrow local area. There has been a huge national shift in retail in the last 15 years, and Rye Lane isn't the only area that suffered decline. I know it's been stated that White Stuff is a national chain of stores, it's not a chain in the sense that I meant or understand, such as Next, Topshop, etc. The White stuff website is here http://www.whitestuff.com/WhiteStuffSite/pages/stores/cms.asp?pid=UKStores I'd never come across it before, but it does seem like the kind of smaller clothing shop that will bring employment to what has been in struggling shopping area in terms of retail (as opposed to nick nack shops, estate agents and bars) employment. Also, I don't consider a total of 35 shops in selected locations to be a nationalwide chain, in the widely understood sense of the term. However, the fact that they are coming to ED, while it is an indication of changes to the area, isn't exactly like having an Argos, etc. Presumably the Lordship Lane shopping area is now considered the type of place that can support this kind of niche clothing shop, whereas it would be unlikely to be able to support a branch of W H Smith or Boots the Chemist, both of which would undoubtedly have an adverse effect on small independent businesses, over and above what the new larger Sainsburys will have.

Lousia, that's not quite my recollection and I'm fairly sure that J&H went over 25 years ago, replaced by 'Houndsditch' in the very early 80s, I seem to recall. Plus, the first proposed route of the channel tunnel rail link affected areas along its whole route, not just Rye Lane and Peckham. Plus, retailers would have been compensated for loss of premises etc, so I think it's stretching it a bit to link the decline of Rye Lane with the channel tunnel rail link, as its Delcine began a long time before channel tunnel was planned. Is "White Stuff" a national chain? M&S have denied rumours of a move to ED, which wasn't based on the Somerfield site, when rumours began, but on the fact that M&S were going to take over some Iceland store sites. Also, in 1988 M&S were closing lots of their smaller 'High Street' stores due to their profitability, in the same way that John Lewis closed its small and outdated department stores in areas such as Streatham and Holloway Road, etc. So what you are claiming seems to be nothing more than speculation in terms of M&S moving to ED. Also, Foxtons is not a national chain, it started off in Fuham in about 1982/3, I believe, and it is predominantly London based having spread gradually south and east from its West London roots, following house price rises and improving markets. If you can't think of a single estate agent on Rye Lane, that may be due to lower levels of owner occupied property in the area, and be partly due to Rye Lane's general inaccessibility. The co-op chemist has been in LL for years and is probably a remnant of the old co-op shop that was next door (co-ops went out of fashion everywhere), Iceland's been there for years (and may not be doing too well). William Hill bookies are hardly a sign of gentrification, and indeed the betting shops in LL predate it. Tesco Express is almost everywhere now and I'd already mentioned Sainsburys move from Peckham myself, to what it presumably considered a more strategic site in terms of their contemporary developments, and which gave much greater access to parking. I'm struggling to see your point.

"But where we are getting into new territory, which is very worrying, is the white community becoming the minority, and feeling they have to gravitate to a certain area and stick together to live, which I believe to be very different to immigrant communities who want to settle in an area and then disperse at a later date." What you are referring to is not a matter purely of race, if it is at all, it is a demonstration of the growing gap between rich and poor (particularly in terms of access to property), with the added issue of 'class' probably entering the equation too. What you really pointing, perhaps unknowingly, out is that ED is becoming a middle class enclave, where no one, white, black or asian can move to, unless they have the money to do so. On the diversion of immigrants issue, that too has changed, with parts of Tower Hamlets being an example, where some relatively new immigrant groups seem to be permanently settling, unlike what seemed to happen in the past.

Louisa, the steep decline of a shopping area is rarely dependent on one retailer pulling out, and similar stores were closing all over London at the time, but some other areas didn't decline as much as Rye Lane did. "The irony is that many big chains are now considering ED even though it has less retail space along LL, simply because it has a high earning white middle class population" Which big chains are these?

"but as someone previously pointed out it's about the visibility of that population, and here ED does suffer a bit, which is a pity." Maybe that's the case on Lordship Lane, the character of which was changed by the arrival of Sainsburys in the early 1990s anyway, with the subsequent large number of boarded up shops (subsequently taken over by the independent shops referred to as selling high priced 'tat'), but the visibility of the ethic mix of the area seem to be pretty obvious when shopping in Sainsburys, or in the Tesco on East Dulwich Road.

I?ve lived in ED for twenty years, and in the area for over twenty-five years, so I?ve seen quite a lot of change. When ED changed to what it is now is quite a hard question, but I believe the change would have happened much sooner had house prices not collapsed in 1988, and then remained static for most of the next ten years. However even from 1990 onwards, ED was changing and young professional couples were moving in on the basis that they liked the area, its unspoilt Victorian suburb feel. However, in my view the big change began to happen the derelict squatted houses at the top of Camberwell Grove were refurbished and marketed. I can?t recall if the marketing was done by an estate agent in ED rather than Camberwell, but it did seem to give rise to the potential of ED to people who?d probably never been the place before and who didn?t even understand where it was in relation to the rest of London. Only two days ago, someone asked me where I lived and, when I said ED, their response was, ?that?s a bit far outside London, how do you manage?? Some people seem to think it?s in the depths of Kent. As far as gentrification goes, even in the late 1980s ED was beyond many ordinary people?s incomes. It fell back within the reach of some in the 1990s, but it was always going to go back to being a target for incoming wealthly buyers sooner or later. Probably when the market picked up and places like Clapham went out of most people?s economic reach. I?m not against gentrification per se, but I am against the ghettoisation of areas to the extent that other groups are excluded. In my view, communities should be mixed and just as areas shouldn?t become wholly middle class or ?gentrified ?, so they shouldn?t become huge working class (or perhaps what?s now becoming known as the new underclass) enclaves, as became the case with Peckham, mainly due to large sprawling public sector estates, which were perceived as dangerous places. Although, someone has referred to the ethnic divide that has developed between ED and Peckham, I?m of the view that there?s always been that divide, and it may be due to the greater proportion of public sector housing in Peckham that ED. I worked in Peckham 25 years ago and it was always had a very different feel in that time to some of its neighbouring areas. I also think there?s a danger of perceiving the ethnic mix in Peckham, and other similar areas, as being representative of London in terms of racial profile, when in fact it isn?t. There are areas (Brixton and Peckham being two, and perhaps Hackney being another) where lots of black people settled, for one reason or another, in the same way perhaps that a high proportion of Irish people settled in Kilburn or Portuguese in Stockwell. The East Dulwich Estate on Dog Kennel Hill is, however, an example of mixed cultural/ethnic living in ED. Most incoming immigrants came and either lived in or bought in places where indigenous white people no longer wanted to live (which was the generally the inner parts of most cities). Places like Brixton or Notting Hill were popular because the housing had fallen out of fashion from the 1920/30s onwards, and either provided the opportunity for cheap purchases, or provided cheap (mostly sub-standard) housing in multi-occupied houses. Peckham was no different, but where it was different was that the Victorian housing that people settled in was soon demolished and vast and unworkable council house estates were built in their place. I?m afraid I don?t buy it that 20 years ago in Peckham 20 things were rosy and people all lived happily together shopping on Rye Lane, because that wasn?t the case. I was there 25 years ago working, at the time, with disadvantaged kids (mostly black) and Rye Lane was in steep decline. It didn?t work at all seem to work well, it was a fractured society and people were terrified of stepping foot on the North Peckham Estate, particularly postal workers, even then. Mainstream traders were leaving Rye Lane in droves because it wasn?t economical to be there, and apart from Sainsburys at DKH, they certainly weren?t moving to ED, which was a bit of a mixed and sleepy backwater.

Is 'The Green' connected in any way to the 'Le Chardon' on Lordship Lane? I seem to remember seeing reading that they were.

"If West Dulwich is SE21 West of the railway line it's the sort of place you drive through and don't bother to stop." I only stop there for the tip. Refined and sedate indeed.

From this map you should able to explore the whole area with a click in any direction. http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=533708&y=173267&z=1&sv=dulwich+common&st=1&tl=Dulwich+Common,+SE22&searchp=newsearch.srf&mapp=newmap.srf

Where are you? The distances between East Dulwich, Dulwich Village and West Dulwich are so short (at most 2 miles) as to mean that any sporting facilities are probably jointing used by the residents. The are both a golf course and at least one cricket club and in the area.

"I don't think it was to do with 'class' per se" I agree, and my understanding is that the housing was built when land from the local manor was sold off in parcels, with it mostly being aimed at City clerks and professional trades, such as tailors etc. My house, which is by no means exceptional, had servant bells, and I found all of the pulleys and wires for them when I was rewiring.

"If faulty road markings have not been repainted I suggest that people write to the Highways Agency and ask if this amounts to breach of statutory duty by LBS. If they say yes, copy the letter to the CEO of Southwark and give her a fixed time to make good. The Audit Commission's CPA assessment is coming up in September ................." I did think of doing that, and I might do it when I have a little more time. To me it beggars belief that that a council can't organise itself so that an appeal based on faulty road markings can't initiate a work request for them to be repainted. Remember the concept of joined-up thinking? I'm glad to hear about the CPA review, although I do think that they are rather an irrelevant as far as the person in the street is concerned.