Transport in south london

[rendelharris]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DL - if you want to move away from ED then do so,

> you don?t need to win an argument to do so or need

> the Forum?s permission. ?Goddamn it Hotlips,

> resign your commission?

This - it is over a year I think since you started your "Anyone else leaving ED because of transport" thread...

[Penguin68]

And Forest Hill/ Honor Oak Park on the Overground all the way up to North London (or as an access point to the Jubilee Line).

The issue about the links is more about their unreliability (which is addressable) than about their existence. That is, the problem is a management and maintenance rather than a capital investment issue. If the trains ran, and on time, and the buses didn't keep being cancelled or changing their destinations (that is, if you could rely on what was being offered on paper actually being delivered) then you could look to see what improvements could be made (or were then actually needed) in the basic transport offer.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

> This - it is over a year I think since you started

> your "Anyone else leaving ED because of transport"

> thread...

9 months. And it will be even more months before I'll have managed to do it. So what?

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

>

> > This - it is over a year I think since you

> started

> > your "Anyone else leaving ED because of

> transport"

> > thread...

>

> 9 months. And it will be even more months before

> I'll have managed to do it. So what?

My mistake. So why, if you've decided to go, keep on about it - as nxjen said, it feels like you don't want to leave it until everyone's agreed transport round here's crap. For you it obviously is and I don't doubt your genuine frustration, but that's not everyone's experience.

[DulwichLondoner]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DL - if you want to move away from ED then do so,

> you don?t need to win an argument about it or need

> the Forum?s permission. ?Goddamn it Hotlips,

> resign your commission?

It's just that people trying to claim that transport links in ED are good and reliable are just like those claiming that they can get from Bromley to Victoria in 10 minutes, or that Peckham is better than South Kensington, or that Wandsworth is the new Chelsea (I'm not making any of this stuff up, these are all phrases that were said to me with a straight face).

[Abe_froeman]

all you're doing here is talking down the price of the house you can't wait to sell.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't want to sell. I like the area. I just wish it didn't take over an hour to get in to town in the morning.

[mary123]

I have to strongly agree with the transport and Time to travel.. yesterday took me 30 minutes from Overhill Road to Peckham rye train station..

Have noticed a big build up of traffic on tjeclocal roads too.

[Henry_17]

Obvious solution is to cycle

[Zebedee Tring]

What about people who are disabled or otherwise physically unable to do so? Why do some cyclists ignore these groups?

[Bic Basher]

One of the issues particularly if you live at the Goose Green end of ED is the lack of rail services. 4 trains per hour to London Bridge, so the buses are heavily used. Yes, Denmark Hill further up the road has more trains, but are badly spaced out. I was at DH today where two trains in 8 minutes went to Victoria, followed by a 30 minute gap. Thameslink runs every 30 mins, leaving the Overground with a regular train service,

At the FH/HOP end. 12 trains per hour to either Highbury & Islington or London Bridge. In any case, even if you miss a LB train at the end, you can hop on the Overground and change at Canada Water.

Worth remembering the 176 bus service has been cut earlier this year, although we have shiny new buses on them, replacing the Concorde engine buses which had been in service for 14 years.

[rendelharris]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> What about people who are disabled or otherwise

> physically unable to do so? Why do some cyclists

> ignore these groups?

Why does this accusation always arise whenever cycling is mentioned? If someone suggests driving, nobody comes on and says "what about blind people who can't drive?"; if walking's suggested, nobody says "what about people in wheelchairs?" but the second cycling's mentioned you can guarantee someone'll mention those who are unable to do so, as if cyclists are somehow terrible uncaring people (as here, where a simple five word statement is extrapolated to an accusation of ignoring the disabled). Surely it should be taken as read that whatever option is mentioned is suggested for those who are able to take it, or does "if you're able to" have to be added every time cycling's mentioned, and if so shouldn't that be done every time driving or walking is suggested also?

[Abe_froeman]

That's possibly because noone on this thread has suggested walking or driving to london bridge or victoria is "the obvious solution".

[rendelharris]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's possibly because noone on this thread has

> suggested walking or driving to london bridge or

> victoria is "the obvious solution".

Because it isn't (though walking to London Bridge is a good option), but this occurs whenever cycling is mentioned as an option. There are some people who are unable to use public transport, nobody has accused people suggesting various bus/train options above of ignoring this demographic, have they?

[DulwichLondoner]

Maybe because lots of initiatives are for the benefit of a small minority of cyclists and to the detriment of a larger number of people? E.g. removing bus lanes to make way for cycle superhighways, which are almost empty outside of rush hour?

Maybe because not all cyclists realise that not everyone can or should cycle? What would the reaction be if motorcyclists said: do a CBT (cheap and easy) and get a cheap 125 to commute to work?

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe because not all cyclists realise that not

> everyone can or should cycle? What would the

> reaction be if motorcyclists said: do a CBT (cheap

> and easy) and get a cheap 125 to commute to work?

If someone said that I would think, yes, that's a good option. I would take it as read that some disabled people wouldn't be able to take that option and wouldn't come on accusing you of ignoring the disabled.

[Penguin68]

Surely it should be taken as read that whatever option is mentioned is suggested for those who are able to take it, or does "if you're able to" have to be added every time cycling's mentioned, and if so shouldn't that be done every time driving or walking is suggested also?

Absolutely endorse this - if everyone who could cycle or walk to work did so - then maybe I'd get a bl**dy seat sometimes!

[Zebedee Tring]

Dulwich Londoner has explained perfectly what I meant when I queried why people who are disabled or otherwise physically unable to cycle were ignored by some cyclists when he said "Maybe because not all cyclists realise that not everyone can or should cycle". I thought that the meaning of my comments was obvious and really didn't need explaining. There are of course plenty of inconsiderate drivers and walkers about which similar comments could be made.

[rendelharris]

Sorry ZT but the meaning you now claim for your comments isn't clear at all. You simply accused some cyclists of ignoring the disabled. That's all you said. With regard to DL's explanation with its accusation that cyclists are somehow a minority stealing roads from the majority (a fairly nonsensical statement given that many main roads in London at rush hour now have a larger throughput of cyclist than motorists): does it never occur to you that the more cyclists there are on the road, the more room there is on public transport for those who can't cycle?

[Zebedee Tring]

My meaning may not have been clear to you RD, but it seems to be clear to other people. I think that you're choosing to misunderstand what I said because it doesn't fit in with your views on this issue.

I don't feel that I need to explain myself further on this. So this is my last word on the subject, since I have better things to do than to spend my time engaging in a semantic debate.

[uncleglen]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely it should be taken as read that whatever

> option is mentioned is suggested for those who are

> able to take it, or does "if you're able to" have

> to be added every time cycling's mentioned, and if

> so shouldn't that be done every time driving or

> walking is suggested also?

>

> Absolutely endorse this - if everyone who could

> cycle or walk to work did so - then maybe I'd get

> a bl**dy seat sometimes!

Yes- people who aer able bodied should be grateful for that

[rendelharris]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My meaning may not have been clear to you RD, but

> it seems to be clear to other people. I think that

> you're choosing to misunderstand what I said

> because it doesn't fit in with your views on this

> issue.

>

> I don't feel that I need to explain myself further

> on this. So this is my last word on the subject,

> since I have better things to do than to spend my

> time engaging in a semantic debate.

How very lofty of you, jolly good. Your exact words, in their entirety: "What about people who are disabled or otherwise physically unable to do so? Why do some cyclists ignore these groups?" and yet somehow that's not accusing some cyclists of ignoring the disabled? You don't need a PhD in linguistics to see your meaning.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> With regard to DL's explanation

> with its accusation that cyclists are somehow a

> minority stealing roads from the majority (a

> fairly nonsensical statement given that many main

> roads in London at rush hour now have a larger

> throughput of cyclist than motorists)

May I ask what the source of this is? As I have said several times, it is possible that my impressions are wrong and that my experience is unrepresentative. However, it should be TFL that should have monitored the actual usage of cycle lanes. Technology to count bikes is not particularly expensive, I would have thought. Instead, not only did they ignore the concerns of the public transport watchdog that cycle lanes would have had a detrimental effect on busses and other road users, they totally neglected to quantify impact and actual usage of the existing cycle lanes before deciding to build even more. Regardless of your opinion on bikes, surely it is not particularly wise to spend so much in doing version 2 of a project, without bothering assessing the impact and usage of version 1? Or do you think it was wise? If so, do you have a reason why? Other than it fits your 'ideology'?

>: does it

> never occur to you that the more cyclists there

> are on the road, the more room there is on public

> transport for those who can't cycle?

It's not as simple. How many people fit on a double decker? 80-90? How much road space is occupied by two double deckers vs 180 bicycles? How many bicycles can go through a green light vs how many bikes? What's the impact on the rest of the traffic?

How about outside rush hours? Many cycle nazis fail to appreciate that a huge city like London still needs people and goods to be transported on wheels. The pret-a-manger sandwiches for a flashy startup in Shoredicth may be delivered by a zero-emission pushbike; heavy goods can't. The big supermarkets concentrate their deliveries at night, but not everyone can. When I see cycle lanes empty outside rush hours, with the (now anrrower) roads jammed with white vans and delivery vans, my blood starts boiling.

[Elphinstone's Army]

I see Godwin's Law is having an airing at last.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Many cycle nazis

I'm sure we've been here before: that choice of words removes your right to be considered as a serious person. In any case, you and I have done this argument to death over many months, you hate cycle lanes, I love 'em, we're never going to agree. But they're here to stay I'm afraid.