Earl Aelfheah

Not at the moment, but even if the money were to become available in the future any more wide reaching extension (designed to serve more areas and/or leave room for further staged expansion), is dead. Instead we get just two stops in well served areas and no opportunities left for the line. It's a totally bizarre diversion of a line that is an obvious candidate for extension along it's current route into poorly provided for SE London, switching direction entirely just to be driven into a dead end.

There has to be a more long term strategic approach to these things. You don't just divert a tube line into a dead end for the sake of one development IMO. 'Battersea has no tube' is not really the only issue here.

You are diverting a branch of the northern line into a dead end, killing off any further, future expansion into south east London (that big blank area on the tube map). What you get for doing this is two new stations in close proximity to several existing ones. This is not a case of ?win win? (using private investment to make improvements to infrastructure in currently poorly served areas with a wider regenerating effect whilst also benefitting a new development), as Canary Wharf arguably was.

If you look at the development area, it is a triangular site with Vauxhall (Victoria line) in one corner, Battersea Park (east London line) on another and Wandsworth town (also East London line) at the third. Queen's town road is also next to the site, serving Waterloo. This is an incredibly well connected area. Diverting this branch of the northern line to provide two stations and no future potential for further expansion, is not sensible. It's entirely different to the jubilee line extension which served not just a new development but provided many existing areas with new connections / regeneration.

Except both Battersea and nine elms are served by nearby tube and train lines.

You're right of course. What I meant was that trains rarely run at weekends because of regular engineering works.

I think that any strategic expansion of the tube network should look at areas which currently have poor provision and an existing need. There will be two stops on this new line, one at Nine Elms about 10 minutes walk from Vauxhall and one at Battersea Power Station, about 5 - 10 minutes walk from the new East London line station at Batersea Park (and 10 minutes bus from europes busiest station, Clapham Junction(not to mention Queen's Town Road and Wandsworth Road). There is not currently a need for more transport infrastucture in this ares. The developers are looking to create demand and profit hansomely from it, at tax payers ongoing expense.

Basically, the tube is going to be diverted to a private development, maintained for years to come using public money. The developers will contribute to the inital cost of building the extension, but then effectively receive an huge ongoing subsidy in perpetuity. The develppment at Nine Elms is only 10 minutes walk from Vauxhall underground, but clearly there is desperate need for another station even closer. It seems to me that a publically funded and maintained transport network shouldn't decide strategy according to which developer offers the highest one off payment, but rather actual transport need. The developer will have done their sums. They're not providing a public service here. TFL should be.

Contributing to the cost of a facility which will also have lots of public money invested and which will hugely increase the value of their private development. It will also ensure that Se London loses the possibility of future tube expansion.

Donut van?

Meanwhile the northern line is being extended from Kennington, not further into poorly provided SE London, but diverted West to Battersea.

The bigger issue is the fact that there are now fewer trains than in the past and none at weekends

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ED probably peaked in my estimation a few years > ago, but the demise of Inside 72 and the arrival > of Adventure Bar was something of a tipping point. > (I still quite like it here though). There was something about that particular change which did seem to be indicative of a more general shift to a more homogenous, slighty more predictable area. Still like ED, but Camberwell, Peckham, New Cross etc all a more exciting. Doesn't mean that they're nicer areas to live. Just that nights out there tend to be a little more surprising, arty or spirited.

I think the ones up now are next years (2012). This years came down last week. Easter decorations replacing them.

When did the new management come in?

There would be no need for contraception if they weren't so damned foxy.

P.S. Congrats on the birth of your daughter.

Gavin. You may want to ask why the negative comments. The Plough is my local. It's a lovely pub and serves a great range of drinks. I have actually walked out without managing to get a drink on at least three occasions however, as the service has been so slow. I'm talking about fairly quiet times when there have plenty of staff. I would love for the service to be sorted out as in every other way it's a good pub.

Hey Excuse my ignorance, but what does SLT mean? x

So does anyone know what the unit on the corner (next to the old Threshers) is going to be? Columns of monitors appearing at the moment. Wondering whether it was going to be a mobile phone shop?

So taking a space reserved for parents with children, when you have none, is not an inconsiderate act but justifiable revenge for the perceived selfishness of (all?) parents. Or is it righteous justice for someone failing to thank you for holding a door open? I never realised that taking a parking space that is a little closer to the supermarket was a political act, but I?m starting to see it now....

Who is Sainsburys to prevent you from parking where you like on their property? You are entitled to park anywhere and ignore their wishes. Anyone who suggests otherwise is self centred and has a terrible sense of entitlement.

Of course parents have a sense of entitlement when it comes to 'parent and child' spaces - they are entitled to use them. It's Sainsburys decision to designate the spaces such and it takes a special type of bitterness to look at a young Parent wrestling their shopping into the car whilst trying to hold on to their children and think 'that decadent barsteward with their slightly bigger parking space'. Get a grip.

Damian H Wrote: > I think a simple summary of the mentality you > don't seem able to grasp is that they wonder what > makes you think you are so special as to expect > special treatment to the detriment of others due > to the fact that you have chosen to have children > and take them shopping with you. I think you'll find that Sainsbury's are the ones who have designated the spaces for the use of 'parent and child'. If you fell that by doing this, they have somehow breached your rights as a childless person, why shop there. I dont' get the arguement that says "why don't you just park further away" and at the same time rails against having to park a little further away oneself. It seems to me that if Sainsbury's wish to offer customers with small children a little assistance in this way, it's up to them. Why would anyone without children resent it unless particular bitter or lazy?

If you have a baby, or a young child and baby, then it can be pretty difficult getting them out, holding them whilst locking the car, carrying them to a trolley, getting the trolley out whilst still holding them, then getting your kid in etc. It's even more difficult on the way back, with the shopping as well. Having a slightly wider space, close to the 'car seat' trolleys and not too far from the store can be a real help. Sainsbury's recognise this and so designate a relatively small number of spaces for young famillies and locate special trolleys next to them. It's frustrating when you see a young, able bodied person swoop in and park there because they're just too lazy to walk a couple of extra metres and have no desire to understand some of the logistics of shopping with young children. That's a sense of entitlement. It's clearly not the most important issue in the world, but for some it's an irritant and they are perfectly entitled to discuss it. If it doesn't bother you, if you're not interested, then why would you even bother to comment?