Earl Aelfheah

London bridge is a nightmare at the moment due to redevelopment of the station. Once it's finished things should get better. Buses are incredibly slow during rush hour, but good in the evenings and at weekends. This part if London is does not have as fast or as regular transport as other parts due to lack of tube, but it's relatively close to the centre and a really nice locality. Cycling into town is easier and faster than you may think. I commute to Southbank and it takes 30-40 minutes depending on mode of transport (cycling being the quickest).

To have raw human meat processed for you to eat, by an unregulated cottage industry, seems fraught with risks. I have no idea whether the health claims made for placenta captures are true, but then I suspect nobody really does (as there's a lack of good quality double blind studies). I would encourage people to approach such matters with a healthy degree of caution /skepticism.

https://twitter.com/FrancoMancaPizz/status/461947160805011458/photo/1

Where are you moving to StraferJack (if you don't mind me asking)?

I was genuinely taken aback that anyone would wish to have such an obnoxious number plate (you may expect it of Jeremy Clarkson I guess).

Saw a big sporty looking Mercedes driving down Lordship Lane yesterday with a personalised number plate of 'POLLUTION'.

..I've wondered the same thing. Platform 15 is not safe in the morning. I've taken to my bike in order to avoid it.

I'm not either... that was a mistaken click of the mouse. Sorry Jeremy. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > That's not great for an > > affluent, highly developed, world class city... > > Agreed, but not sure how that's related to my post > which you replied to...

I have family who live just north of Burgess Park, to the East of Walworth Road. It's less than a couple of miles from Central London and yet in rush hour it's very difficult to get on a bus, it's not a comfortable walk to a tube station and there is no overground. That's not great for an affluent, highly developed, world class city. Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London Overground is not really comparable to the > tube. 4 trains an hour and barely enters zone 1.

Yep, and the closure of Camberwell Station which lay on the same route (although it was closed earlier). It really is about time that this obvious demonstrable gap was closed. Medley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Of course some of this is about plugging the gap > left when the third Crystal Palace line was pulled > back in the '50s - trains ran: > > Ludgate Hill (City Thameslink) > St Paul's > Elephant > Loughb J > D Hill > P Rye > Nunhead > Honor Oak (where the Wood Vale estate now is) > Lordship Lane > Upper Sydenham > C Palace > > http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/h/honor_oak/

I completely agree Jeremy - including that it's all pretty academic unfortunately.

wavyline girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well the arguments for a tube, as seen i've seen > here, are equally as selfish The argument for is: -If you're investing in new transport infrastructure in densely populated, inner London areas south of the river, there are some clearly identifiable 'holes' based on population and existing provision which should be prime candidates. ....The argument against is: -I don't want my area to change in character. I actually don't call the latter argument selfish - I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold this concern, but certainly the former can be argued from a more detached, objective perspective.

There are some valid concerns regarding the knock on effects of getting a tube station, but there are clear, objective arguments why certain areas are good candidates for any further extensions. Camberwell has a particularly strong claim I think and this has been recognised for many years, but still it has never happened. From a selfish point of view (if you want to call it selfish), I would like to see transport links improved in Southern East Dulwich - but would be happy just to see investment in places with a high need, even if it were elsewhere. What really upsets me is to taxpayers money being funnelled into propping up private housing developments in areas with little existing demand. wavyline girl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It would appear that if you oppose the local tube > station idea, you are described as "selfish." > Well the arguments for a tube, as seen i've seen > here, are equally as selfish.

Poor transport effects everyone - Clearly people are going to illustrate the point by drawing on personal examples - my own, of how difficult it for me to meet work / childcare commitments (even though I only commute 4 miles), I am sure is a general problem shared by many others. The potential negative effects of a tube, as described, are not inevitable. Comparisons to outer London boroughs ignore the fact that there is far lower population density and that travelling a couple of miles in a car is much easier than it is in central London. Also, it's not true that outer boroughs are always worse served - many have high speed trains into town. It's pretty poor that someone travelling in from Surbiton can get to the Southbank quicker on public transport than someone in Camberwell, just a couple of miles away. I just can't understand why individuals would want to hold back improvements to transport infrastructure.

Have a word Ratty

There is a point about the effect a tube can have in changing an area, but I don't think it's inevitable and fundamentally, I need to be able to get to work after dropping kids at nursery in good time.. Something which is becoming increasingly difficult of late with the carnage at London bridge. Buses are fine if you are not in a rush, but I for one would appreciate improvements to transport.

Repeatedly had trains cancelled recently due to 'lack of train staff'. Not sure why this is suddenly such a big problem. I've stopped using the train for the last week and the foreseeable future. Just can't be bothered with the unreliability and crush of it all.

Thanks for the link Medley - it's a bit difficult to understand. What is the scale for the PTAL number? My address scored 3, but there is no explanation of what this means, or where it sits in the scale.

Yes you're quite right we shouldn't want to see any improvements in transport infrastructure anywhere. Cancel cross rail, hs3, people can just move. Maybe everyone could live next to Clapham junction station.

Interesting to cross reference the above with this map, showing population density in London: http://luminocitymap.org/ What's notable is that the northern line extension serves an area with low population density and good existing transport options. It seems to me that this illustrates the point that the existence of a large, poorly served community is not the main driver in service development, but rather the ability to do a deal which enriches investors via a large taxpayer subsidy.

The option to extend via Burgess Park, Honor Oak and onto the Hayes line, clearly makes the most sense if you're interested in providing frequent, rapid transport services to large inner city populations. Of course, there are always other interests.

Three notable holes in transport provision in inner South London - Brixton Hill, the South of East Dulwich, and North Camberwell / Walworth. North Camberwell probably has the highest population density of the three is the largest 'hole' as well as the most central: http://i1153.photobucket.com/albums/p519/mclellanstuart/Untitled_zps5ca3bacb.png

Here is a map with a 0.5 mile radius around every train and tube station. You'll notice a hole: http://i1153.photobucket.com/albums/p519/mclellanstuart/Untitled_zps9966a58a.jpg

I was being ironic / pre-empting the inevitable comment. miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Bit sexist innit? > > No.

Bit sexist innit?