henryb

It takes too long.

It will be an 10 buses an hour - that is not going make a significant difference to overall number of vehicles in percentage terms. A busy single lane of traffic is 1500 vehicles an hour. It wouldn?t surprise me if Forest Hill Road is a lot more than that at times. If anything improved public transport has been shown to decrease congestion as it gets people out of their cars. If you want to do something about congestion on the road you should be supporting this.

Why not extend it put another bus on the line - review in a years time? If the service is underused revert back.

Marmora Man TFL is run by the Mayor?s office not a private company. Its priorities are set by elected officials so that they are accountable to the public and thereofre take the public's needs and desires into account. As such these decisions cannot be made on a purely objective manner because they have to take into account the subjective views local residents. It is the politician job to assess those views and make election pledges and (if in power) decisions accordingly. With TFL as public body the cost/benefit analysis it always going to a tool in helping make these decisions not the be all and end all and I believe it was Boris who made the final decision that bus route extensions here and other places were not a priority. Regarding the analysis itself as I understand it; TFL massively underestimated the usage of the Over Ground line at HOP; didn?t take into account the problems of commuter parking at the station; didn?t put any value on the environmental benefits of improved public transport; didn?t take into account any other option other than building a new stand at Brockley Rise and didn?t put any value on the strategic importance of linking HOP to Peckham. Even with all that it was still boarder line. Personally I am glad local politicians are taking a stand and an active role trying to get this done as it will be very popular and will benefit a large number of people.

Is ?500,000 the total cost or subsidy over fares. It seems like a lot for the latter - the 63 takes a lot of fares.

According to the time table during the day it takes 54 min for the 63 bus to get from King?s Cross to the Honor Oak and the P12 8 mins to get to Brockley Rise from Ivydale Road (which is further than Honor Oak stop). So it would increase the total route time by less than 8 min but say to 64 min for arguments sake which is approx 15% There are 10 busses an hour/once every 6 min. Assuming driver break times are the same a 15% increase in total route time would be mean 15% increase in the gap between buses so roughly a change to it being once every 7 min or an extra bus and a half to keep the gap the same. Doesn?t seem so bad. How much does an extra bus cost to operate?

> The interesting thing to me are the trials > currently on various roads in London where signage > and kerbs, crossings etc have been removed. All > the evidence seems to be that everyone behaves far > more responsibly and safely in those open shared > environments....so perhaps the suggestion that > it's the removal of boundaries and rules that lead > to safety more than vice versa has some > demonstrable truth to it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space They are called shared spaces. They generally come with 20 mph or lower speed limit and pedestrians can cross wherever they want i.e. the idea is a child wouldn't have to run the gauntlet across a stream of speeding traffic but rather vehicles would actually stop to let them cross. Amazing it seems to just work and both journey times and accidents are much reduced.

The cross river tram would have helped the pressure on the 63. Sadly canned by Boris. Another reason to vote Ken.

> So you'd expect a driver not to have a break after > driving from Kings Cross, probably stuck in > traffic along the route, then go back up there (or > back to Peckham for a driver changeover)? Do TFL have existing guidelines of how long a driver can go without a break? Would the extension push the route over that limit? If the answer is yes to both is yes then no I wouldn?t. It seems to me there are a lot longer routes than the 63. > The 63 under it's current route will soon have a > revised timetable in an attempt to improve it's > reliability. If extended to Brockley Rise, expect > more short runs to Peckham Rye and the current > terminus to keep the service running along the > core section of the route, which would lead to > long waits between services at HOP just to get > over to Forest Hill Road. Why is the frequency in the ?core? section more important than it is here? Surely the answer to bad reliability on the whole route is to put on more buses on the whole route.

It is about a 20 min walk from the end of Mundania to where the 63 stops to HOP station, depending on fitness. Those with mobility problems (elderly, those with young children) find it too hard because of the hill. The connection with P12 is difficult and unsatisfactory because of the distance between the stops and the irregularity of the P12 - you might as well walk. Extending the 63 would be a fantastic improvement.

Wrong thread

> There is no justification I think for assuming all > drivers can not drive safely above 20mpr or for > assuming all pedestrians are incapable of crossing > roads safely if the speed limit exceeds 20mpr. I am sure some can. The problem is enough can?t so that hundreds are killed and seriously injured every year. The fact is that 20 mph limit reduces pedestrian accident rates, especially in regard to children. > Nowhere in this debate is anyone acknowledging > thst pedestrians need to take repsonsibility for > their own judgement in choosing where to cross a > road safely. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their safety and safety of others however it is drivers who are the ones manoeuvring a large dangerous metal machine though an area where children are playing, walking to school and so. The onus must be on the driver to make sure their activity is not endangering others. Pedestrians have the right to use and cross roads as well.

> I'd also been led to believe that the stand at > Brockley Rise wouldn't be able to cope with the > numbers of 63s given the other services that > already use it so would be interested to know how > that problem has been resolved. The 63 could still terminate at the old Honor Oak stop - just do a loop around Brockley Rise and come back. No expensive new infrastructure would be needed.

The 63 could still terminate at the old Honor Oak stop - just do a loop around Brockley Rise and come back. No expensive new infrastructure would be needed.

Sadly these incidents are not uncommon, even when drivers are being "responsible" and staying in the 30 limit. Britain has one of the worst pedestrian fatality rates in Europe - being a pedestrian in the UK is the most dangerous way to get around - even worse than being a cyclist. No wonder parents are fearful to let their children walk to school. It is about time there was 20 limits by default across all residential areas. It doesn't make a significant difference to car journey times but it has a huge effect on pedestrian safety especially accidents involving children. The minor inconvenience to some car drivers is price worth paying to make urban streets places people can actually enjoy and live rather than places where children risk severe injury or even death if they make a simple mistake or misjudgement.

It is a pity there isn't like a Rent-A-Cat service where you could hire a really good mouser for a few weeks.

Two years for attempting to murder a four year old and her father- that is appalling. Poor family. I wonder how long he actually served. That man is clearly an on going danger to society and the sentence should reflect that. The QC's quote is appalling : "Incidents such as these, appalling as they are, will not be tolerated by the courts." Two years is way too tolerant!

I suppose you have to make your own judgement - I expect the risk of being attacked in a park is less than the risk of being hit by a vehicle if you went on the road.

At the Peckham end it starts from the pedestrian area by the library. Route 22 actually continues onto London Bridge but you can turn left into Burgess park (if it is open) a lot nicer than going along roads.

It is cycle route 22 I think.

There is the old canal route from Peckham to Burgess Park, then you can cycle through the park - that would get you quite close, from there just go down Portland Street to get to Elephant and Castle.

The new crossing is very welcome. Pity it was not a zebra crossing.

> That fact that they are Lucrative means they do > not stop people from speeding. That doesn't follow at all. They can generate revenue and reduce speeding and causalities at the same time - if say their effectiveness is somewhere between 0% and 100% - which is clearly the case. Regardless ? they do lead to a substantial reduction in speeding and causalities. http://www.racfoundation.org/research/safety/effectiveness-of-speed-cameras

Apparently it is the new Notting Hill.

I know how about a new tram line from Peckham Rye to central London via Elephant and Waterloo.. oh wait.