Earl Aelfheah

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?

Love it! Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sometimes I think this forum is obsessed with > class. > > Louisa.

The northern line extension is ridiculous. It provides a couple of extra stops were there is little existing demand, at massive public cost and with the main people to profit being property speculators. It also diverts the line off it's natural course, driving it into a dead end with little opportunity for future extension. Still residents of Camberwell, whilst crawling along the Walworth Road on the 176, can at least ponder how their taxes are helping boost some Singaporeans investment portfolio.

how depressing

.

I hate the way that we look at it as some sort of gift from 'developer money', when in fact it's a massive taxpayer subsidy for investment properties. How about the tax we pay being used to provide us with transport services, minus the siphoning off of loads of it from vested private interests. cle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is 2.5k homes that big a deal compared to > the existing population of Walworth and > Camberwell? I hate this obsession with > regeneration and new developments - god forbid > anyone builds something to serve a long-standing > area. I know it's for developer money primarily, > but also an obsession with shiny new rubbish. Are > there no developer-ready sites along the Walworth > Road catchment?

so nearly 3000 people sign a petition for an extension via Camberwell and are ignored... and apparently that's a good thing? Instead of viewing the construction corporations as kindly philanthropists happy to invest in transport for the good of Southwark residents, perhaps we should consider the fact that they will get significantly more from any deal than they contribute. The vast majority will come from taxpayers (you know those folk already living in Walworth and Camberwell for example), who will be subsidising an 'exciting new investment opportunity' in 'London's vibrant new quater', in order to make handsome returns for overseas investors and Lend Lease or whoever else it is who get's to profiteer from it all. We pay our taxes so that we may have decent public services, including transport. For more than 60 years, Camberwell has had the prospect of a Bakerloo line extension dangled in front of it and now we're told that their elected representatives are going to support the interests of property developers over a well established community - their own electorate?

Dulwuch Park's middle is class. I hate the edges though.

Iceland don't sell them. Bet a Waitrose would.

.... Drug mules selling horse

Ghost guzumpers.