Poor transport links: any one else thinking of fleeing East Dulwich?

[spark67]

I am i suppose relatively new here having lived in the area nearly 20 yrs, I moved to London for work in the 90s, Brixton first, it's all i could afford, that WAS rough (The police asking me if they could take the bumper off my car for forensics as a bullet from a drive by shooting near my flat was lodged in it is one of a few jolly memories)

I later moved here because it was quieter, yes the transport links were not brilliant... but found it less stressful than trying to get on a tube at Brixton in the morning or Stockwell) I found it easier to cycle which I did a lot, even when I worked in north London... now I work in Camberwell its the best option all together.

But I really don't find it hard to get into town now, and have more options Transport wise with the event of the "ginger line" Getting to my friends in wapping used to be a right trek, now it's door to door.

Sadly having better links living near a tube station doesn't make live easier tbh, I have travelled from friends in the rush hour from Clapham and found it hellish, with those platforms with track either side and the crush of people pushing you to the edge, had to let two trains go before I could get on. I have friends who live right by the Northern line in east Finchley... they said its not always great, as its pretty much shut most weekends for works (we've had to drive a few times as it was quicker when visiting them.

My partner was born & raised here (his family have been here for 4 generations) as are most of our now mutual friends.. he says it was never rough, just bit dull and quiet.

[Mystic Mog]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> edhistory Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > East Dulwich has made itself what it is..

> years

> > > ago it was a well dodgy area

> >

> > Ignorant.

>

> no it isn't ignorant it's honest and not rose

> tinted and you are attempting to invalidate my

> life here

>

> one word does not an erstwhile experience destroy

>

> besides which it is a lazy argument not worthy of

> your usual robust and erudite offerings

Sorry Admin, off topic, but can't let this one go.

EA, are you saying that East Dulwich was a dodgy area years ago or not and are you speaking from some sort of experience. I have lived here nearly all my life and have never found it so. I don't wear glasses tinted or otherwise!

[JoeLeg]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> edhistory Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> >

> > > East Dulwich has made itself what it is..

> years

> > > ago it was a well dodgy area

> >

> > Ignorant.

>

> no it isn't ignorant it's honest and not rose

> tinted and you are attempting to invalidate my

> life here

>

> one word does not an erstwhile experience destroy

>

> besides which it is a lazy argument not worthy of

> your usual robust and erudite offerings

Sorry EA, but you're plain wrong.

Born and raised here, still living here, have known this area since the 70's. East Dulwich wasn't always the veritable slip of gentility that it is now, but I've never felt in danger here. Some of the pubs could be a bit dodgy, but everyone knew which they were and even then there was only trouble if you went looking for it.

To describe the area 'back in the day' the way you have is misguided at best.

[Penguin68]

I have lived in ED close to 30 years - at the beginning bits were perhaps 'seedy' and 'down on their uppers' - LL had a number of second hand pram shops and many of the pubs were much more traditional South London (what are now known by my children as 'old men's' pubs) - but the neighborhood was never 'rough' or dodgy. Like many areas of 'nearly' inner London it was at the bottom of an economic cycle and was heading upwards, after a bit. But you absolutely could walk round the streets and feel entirely safe - which wasn't true of bits of Clapham from whence (pace Louisa) we had blown in.

[DulwichLondoner]

Aaaaaanyway... After debating the safety of pushbikes vs motorcycles, the merits of cycle lanes, and the number of overpriced organic eateries required to make an area officially 'not rough'... let's try to get back on topic! :)

A very good thing about ED are the schools: there seem to be some decent state ones, and are not as oversubscribed as those in Earlsfield and Wandsorth in general. Over the last couple of years they opened a Harris primary on Lordship Lane, one near Bellenden road, and the new charter secondary on the Dulwich Hospital site.

Wandsworth schools, instead, are, together with those in Chelsea (but who can afford Chelsea anyway?) the most oversubscribed in the capital. The catchment area for Earlsfield primary was ca. 220 metres last year! The situation will probably improve (although it's impossible to estimate by how much) now that the council is enforcing a new sibling policy: a sibling gets in if the family hasn't moved since the other child got in, or if they moved but are still within 800 metres of the school. If they moved farther away, no sibling priority.

Except for this, the compromise between Earlsfield and ED seems quite clear: the former has almost no high street but way better transport links, the latter the opposite. Tough one!

[mary123]

I think it depends on where you live in ED ie close to lordship Lane or peckham Rye, I have resigned myself that if I want to go into central it has to involve 1 or 2 buses then change at peckham Rye or forest hill to catch the train, the 363, 176 and 185 buses work well for me for local routes.Although I always find Brixton abit of a flaff to get from top end of lordship Lane and take 2 buses..the 37 is a long wait if you miss one

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> Except for this, the compromise between Earlsfield

> and ED seems quite clear: the former has almost no

> high street but way better transport links, the

> latter the opposite. Tough one!

Live to work or work to live - no contest! And if you have weans the schools must surely tip it, stay here if I were you, squire.

[MissKing]

Southern Rail is back to normal now. Road congestion is getting worse everywhere in London sadly!

[Toffee]

Blimey. Watch this space everyone for me to get torn apart but here goes: as late as the 70s the Plough was a spit and sawdust pub. Let me enlighten the newcomers - yes, the floor in the pub had sawdust down, it soaked up spit. I agree there was trouble in certain pubs but only as you would expect. You know the saying "if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen".

[????]

I think plenty of people have said the same Toffee

[DulwichLondoner]

About cycle lanes: today I was riding on my motorcycle around 2pm. Between Oval and Vauxhall, there was a traffic jam, with busses stuck in traffic, yet I only counted two bicycles in the bicycle lane which was created removing the bus lane. On Vauxhall bridge I counted six bicycles (in both directions), yet busses were stuck in traffic because bicycle lanes were created removing the North to South bus lane. On the Embankment between Vauxhall and Chelsea I counted five bicycles in the cycle lane (+ 1 cycling on the pavement), yet the rest of the road was very congested.

Bicycle lanes are almost empty outside of rush hours, yet the rest of the road is not. Favouring a small minority of cyclists during rush hours causes great inconvenience for everyone else, including outside rush hour when there are no bicycles around, and including public transport users.

[rendelharris]

Funny that as today Mrs.H and I cycled up to Blackfriars, on to Hyde Park Corner then down to Greenwich between 10AM and 1PM and there were plenty of people using the cycle lanes. We get it, you don't like cycle lanes. What was really causing the traffic jams? Too many motorised vehicles. To hear people like you talk one would imagine there were no traffic jams in London before cycle lanes.

Oh, and along Grovsenor Road (the Embankment between Vauxhall and Chelsea) the cycle lanes aren't segregated, they're just the blue paint type, approximately one metre wide. They haven't taken a lane away from any motorised traffic, there were never two lanes there in the first place, unless people started driving metre wide cars. Yet another example of you seeing congestion, seeing a cycle lane and saying there's congestion and a cycle lane in the same place, cycle lanes must cause congestion. I can remember the Chelsea Embankment was always massively congested forty years ago - but do go on blaming cycle lanes if you want. Fortunately you've conclusively lost the argument, cycle lanes are here to stay, get over it and stop blaming them for traffic congestion caused by motor vehicles.

[Townleygreen]

Totally agree, Rendel. Well put.

[DulwichLondoner]

I suppose I'll have to install a GoPro if you don't believe me...

Removing bus lanes, as was done from Oval to Vauxhall and on Vauxhall bridge going South, causes busses to get stuck in traffic. Would you by any chance dispute this? Or do you find it is OK, as long as a small minority of bicycle advocates gets its way?

Please do not twist my words. Where did I say there were no traffic jams before the cycle lanes? Quite banally, cycle lanes have worsened an already bad situation.

Yes, there are many motorised vehicles. Too many? I don't know.I often wonder if London has too many minicabs, and if the congestion charge couldn't be changed to incentivise trucks and vans to enter after, say, 9am. Apart from these points, well, to keep a big city like London running you still need lots of vehicles if only to transport goods all over the capital. Bicycles can be used to deliver your takeaway, not to deliver heavy goods - you still need a fleet of big nasty ugly vans and trucks for that. Congestion charge and parking are already so expensive in central London, and rightly so, that I don't think many people commute to zone 1 by car.

I often hear the argument that a bicycle takes so much less space than a car and doesn't pollute, that it's good to incentivise people to cycle rather than drive, but how many people used to drive to central London anyway? How many cyclists used to be car drivers driving to zone 1 and paying congestion charging and car park? By contrast, a double-decker bus has capacity for circa 85 people. How much more space than a double-decker do 85 bicycles occupy?

Also, aren't they building a segregated cycle lane on the Embankment near Chelsea right now?

I don't honestly remember what the Embankment looked like before all this cycle madness, but aren't two cycle lanes (one per direction) roughly the same width as a car lane? After all, on Vauxhall bridge they created two cycle lanes (one per direction) by removing a bus lane.

[ianc]

After 22 years in ED, I am now officially fleeing to Vauxhall. I currently rent a 1-bed, so a smaller more modern place there is do-able with a reasonable increase in rent.

When I arrived in ED in 1995, I used to be able to get from Therapia Road (far end of ED) to my job in Oxford Circus, in under an hour. Perhaps a handful of days a year it took longer. Nowadays, from where I live near Lordship Lane, it's 90mins in the morning, and almost that coming home.

I don't want to cram into & out of Denmark Hill during rush hour, fail to get on trains that are rammed, see trains delayed or cancelled. Or, face the alternative of a 45-60min bus journey.

I love the area, but I can't spend 2-3 hours per weekday commuting. I realise single folks like me have the option to move further in, whereas if you had a family then rents in Central London are even more ridiculous. It's a trade off, living somewhere more cramped and less enjoyable for the sake of an easier commute.

Will see how it goes. Who knows, I may be back next year!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Cycling definitely needs to be encouraged, but it's not a panacea. We need decent public transport too. There is an obvious shortage of high frequency train / tube services in SE London generally and we should be pushing as hard as possible to have this disparity addressed in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean a tube for ED, but better services across this part of London would seriously reduce congestion and pollution. It's kind of ironic that the one part of London with the worst roads into the centre (because of the river and the inevitable bottlenecks created by convergence of all roads around a few bridges), also has only a handful of underground stations.

[healey]

90mins? What route are you taking? I can get to soho in an hour. I avoid bothering with overground trains.

Out: 40 > Piccadilly line at E&C

Back: Northern line Tottenham CR to Oval > 185

The west end is a pain to get to, but it shouldn't take that long consistently.

ianc Wrote:

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

> After 22 years in ED, I am now officially fleeing

> to Vauxhall. I currently rent a 1-bed, so a

> smaller more modern place there is do-able with a

> reasonable increase in rent.

>

> When I arrived in ED in 1995, I used to be able to

> get from Therapia Road (far end of ED) to my job

> in Oxford Circus, in under an hour. Perhaps a

> handful of days a year it took longer. Nowadays,

> from where I live near Lordship Lane, it's 90mins

> in the morning, and almost that coming home.

>

[Zebedee Tring]

Surely Bakerloo Line at Elephant & Castle? Otherwise a totally feasible route.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner, no, I don't find it OK for buses to be stuck in traffic but the clue's in the phrase, they're stuck in traffic - motorised traffic. You have an interesting hierarchy, you think public transport should come first (quite right), then motor vehicles, then bicycles last of all. For me, motor vehicles should come last of all, which can be achieved by extending the congestion charge zone, increasing the congestion charge, limiting HGV sizes and access times and cutting off access to central London for motor vehicles. Vauxhall Bridge is a case in point, you're complaining buses are stuck in traffic because a cycle lane has taken the bus lane. Well, there's a bus lane heading north and four other vehicle lanes on the bridge, why not take one of those for a bus lane heading south? You look at this situation and say why should cycle lanes take one vehicle lane, I look at it and say there's room for six lanes, why should cars get four of them and cycles none?

It never ceases to amaze me that people can look at a traffic jam of a thousand cars and say that's xyz's fault and never actually think it might be somehow the responsibility of the thousand drivers who've chosen to bring their vehicles to that place.

You're correct that few private vehicles drive into the congestion zone, but that doesn't affect Vauxhall Bridge where people are running through town and up towards Edgware and west towards Chelsea. The westward extension which Boris scrapped so as not to upset the Tory voters of Kensington would have helped enormously.

Deliveries are a massive problem but that can be eased by encouraging night time deliveries, offloading from juggernauts onto smaller, greener vehicles outside London, even encouraging the use of the river for transport.

I'm not putting words into your mouth but anyone reading your posts can see that you clearly believe that "cycle madness" (your own words) is massively increasing the congestion problem in London. The primary problems in London are building works (not only the HGVs delivering but also the road closures and contraflows often entailed) and deliveries - apparently there's been a massive increase in people having Amazon etc deliver to their office instead of their homes.

The argument that cycle lanes aren't heavily used outside peak times and therefore have no place is utterly redundant. At Christmas I was walking back from a party down Park Lane at 4AM and there was virtually no motor traffic on it - does that mean it shouldn't be there? I then caught a train from Victoria which only had about ten people on it, should that service be abolished? Nobody is claiming that cycle lanes are a zero sum solution, they're there to encourage people to cycle to work and for leisure, to decrease car use and take the pressure off public transport (and to improve public health). 32% of all vehicles on central London's roads at rush hour are now bicycles - on some main roads up to 70% ( http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/the-utterly-amazing-growth-of-cycling-in-london/019317 ) - a number which will only increase as more proper segregated cycling provision comes online. Cyclists pay their council tax and income tax just like everyone else (and many pay vehicle excise duty as well) and yet are expected, by a vocal minority, to be content for their contribution to the exchequer to be spent on assisting polluting lethal motor traffic.

It wouldn't particularly help congestion to remove the cycle lanes anyway (can I just restate, only 2% of roads in central London have cycle lanes, yet allegedly they're responsible for up to 100% of congestion); there might be a temporary increase in traffic flow but studies have shown that any extra capacity quickly gets taken up, as soon as drivers saw it was quicker/less congested they'd start using those routes and you're back to the status quo.

The solution to London's pollution and congestion problems is not to make it easier for motor vehicles to use the roads. The only feasible solution is to make it so awkward, time consuming and expensive to use a motor vehicle in central London that people stop doing so (alongside improvements in public transport and, yes, cycle provision). Many people will hate this suggestion, which is up to them. I hate that around 10,000 elderly and ill Londoners die prematurely each year due to air pollution, that children living near busy roads grow up with lung capacities 10% smaller than average and that over 2,000 people are killed or seriously injured on London's roads each year.

Sorry for the long post, just a few things I feel need stating.

[DulwichLondoner]

You are right, I think public transport should come first. Removing bus lanes to make way for cycle lanes means it does not. I never said motorised traffic should then come before bicycles - again, you are putting words in my mouth. The point is that no policy can benefit everyone: there will always be winners and losers. Who shall be the winners should be determined by a thorough and detailed cost-benefit analysis; I have most certainly not seen anything of the kind with respect to the cycle lanes. Is it a coincidence that the transport watchdog raised the very same concerns I did on how cycle lanes would increase journey times for bus users? Also, has there been any assessment of the ex-post impact of the cycle lanes? Has TFL counted how used they are throughout the day, how motorised traffic has changed, etc? If they have, they have kept the results well hidden.

Now, if FACTS (facts, not ideology) showed that cycle lanes are used throughout the day and negatively affect only a minority of users, then I'd be all in favour of them. Are you aware of FACTS showing as much? I am most certainly not.

You ask why bicycles should not get any of the lanes on Vauxhall bridge; well, the fact that those lanes are almost totally empty outside of peak hours is a very good reason! At the very least TFL could have come up with bicycle lanes in operation only, say, between 7-9am , and 5-7pm, leaving that space as a bus lane for the rest of the day.

Your argument that non-utilisation of cycle lanes outside peak times is redundant is ludicrously preposterous. You cannot compare that with running a half-empty train off-peak, because who is inconvenienced by the running of that train? By contrast, a non-utilised cycle lane does inconvenience quite substantially all the other road users. Now, if all the road users were nasty car users who have the option of excellent public transport, but instead choose to go through the misery of driving their own cars, then, by all means, let's penalise them as much as possible and do whatever is in our power to get them off the road. But, like I said, driving through London is such an expensive and miserable experience already that I would struggle to believe that the few who do really have much better alternatives.

You talk about drivers who have chosen to bring their vehicles. Again, I am not so sure there are that many drivers who make this choice - I believe quite a few vehicles have little choice.

You talk about encouraging night time deliveries. How exactly would that work? Most big stores already do it, but what is feasible for a big Tesco is not feasible for a smaller shop. Should smaller shop have night shifts just to wait for the deliveries? Come on...

The fact that 2% of roads in central London have cycle lanes is utterly misleading. The % of the total roads is totally irrelevant; what matters is the % of the main roads which are actually used to travel through the city, not the % of tiny back roads which are either unfeasible or simply impossible (because many rat runs have been blocked by councils who gave in to the overly vocal NIMBY crowd) to use to get round London.

Yes, I believe cycle madness (yes, my words) has made the already bad problem of London congestion worse.

No, I do not believe congestion was either created by bicycles, nor non-existent before the cycle lanes - these are words YOU put in my mouth.

You say that studies have shown extra capacity gets taken up. May I ask what studies they are, and if/how they are relevant to London? I don't think it takes many studies to understand that, if there are additional lanes on a road, then journey times are likely to become shorter.

[rendelharris]

It's most amusing that you demand FACTS - BIG CAPITAL LETTER FACTS! - and studies from me and yet your own post is full of "I believe" and "I am not so sure..." Where are your FACTS? Hilariously you say you've seen no studies relating to the benefit or otherwise of cycle lanes, then go on to assume that if there were they would favour your argument, and then even hint at a conspiracy to hide such studies by TfL! Brilliant.

You're clearly rabidly anti-cycle-lanes (CYCLE MADNESS!) and nothing will change your mind, so I think I'll leave the debate with you there, if your answer above is all that's going to be offered instead of proper discussion.

As a Parthian shot, here's a Google search bringing up studies that show increased capacity leads to increased traffic volume, take your pick: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=study+shows+extra+road+capacity+doesn%27t+relieve+congestion&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ORTuWKDmCYP38Ae73rKwCw "I don't think it takes many studies to understand that, if there are additional lanes on a road, then journey times are likely to become shorter." It doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out that if journey times become shorter more people start using a route.

Cheerio.

[Nigello]

I like the idea of more accessible and safer cycling for all, but still thank that most people will be more likely to use a mixture of bus/Tube/train/walking/cycling to get to and from work and social activities than just cycling alone. That's why I think more needs done to address the realistic and current trends rather than spending lots of dosh and time to accommodate hoped-for cycling levels. I am glad the current London cycling "tsar" is also a pedestrian one too, so that may encourage more holistic thinking.

[Penguin68]

Without the cycle lane on Westminster Bridge the recent outrage could not have developed quite as it did - there are quite good security arguments in favour of jammed (or at least slow moving and queuing) traffic in areas where otherwise there would be vulnerabilities.

There are also arguments in favour of multi-use lanes determined by time-of-day (as many bus lanes are rush-hour or day-time specific). Of course, the main argument for cycle lanes isn't about priority (as it is for buses) but safety - but a proper survey of lane usage could determine the cost-effectiveness of this - at certain times it is clearly very cost effective to give sole use of highway to cyclists for safety reasons - at other times if the dedicated roads are then being very sparsely used it may not be.

[rendelharris]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Without the cycle lane on Westminster Bridge the

> recent outrage could not have developed quite as

> it did - there are quite good security arguments

> in favour of jammed (or at least slow moving and

> queuing) traffic in areas where otherwise there

> would be vulnerabilities.

Oh Penguin, I'm really surprised at you, who's normally perfectly sensible, coming out with that argument, it's such a nonsense that one or two silly people came out with in the immediate aftermath but fortunately has gained no credence. If the cycle lane wasn't there (in the last fifty yards between the end of the bridge and Parliament Square) the attacker would have driven down the road that would have been in its place, or the pavement. He didn't drive down a cycle lane on Westminster Bridge for the very good reason that there isn't one there yet, works were planned to start around March 30th but I imagine will have been delayed by the aftermath of the attack. The murderer drove down the pavement and that's where he collected his victims, apart from the poor police officer.

If we're really concerned about security, how about closing Parliament Square to all but emergency traffic? That would make it highly secure and also a paradise for pedestrians and cyclists.

ETA Oh and if there's a genuine concern about vehicle attackers using cycle lanes, it's very simple to block them with a couple of sturdy bollards which would still let cyclists through - for example I noticed yesterday that at the top of the new cycle lane on Constitution Hill there are now large yellow arches which allow cyclists to pass but would block any vehicles. Security concerns are absolutely no reason not to have cycle lanes, they really aren't.

[DulwichLondoner]

@Rendelharris, it seems putting words in my mouth is your favourite pastime. When did I talk about a conspiracy by TFL? When did I say that, if TFL had done a study, it would support my views?

Quite simply, my opinion is that those who propose to spend squillions of public money, causing huge disruptions and inconvenience for a significant part of the population (e.g. bus users, not those nasty car drivers), should present as much data and evidence as possible to substantiate their case. AFAIK no such thing was done with respect to the cycle superhighways. Again, it is not a coincidence that the Transport Watchdog raised the same concerns I raised with respect to the negative impact on busses. Similarly, after squillions of public money have been spent, it wouldn't be such a bad idea to monitor the actual effects, before deciding to do the same all over the city. Do you disagree? If so, may I ask why?

I do not have all the hard data because:

1) some of it is simply impossible to measure, but can still be estimated with a bit of common sense. It is not feasible to stop every motorist asking them: "what is the purpose of your trip today? What alternative means of transportation have you considered? Etc". However, it is simply common sense to understand that not many people can be willing to pay ? 11.50 congestion charge + the exorbitant parking fees of central London to drive into central London.

2) It is not my job to collect and provide data. The number of vehicles entering and exiting the congestion charge is something TFL should monitor, precisely and not with estimates. It is their job, not mine.

I asked if/how/why the studies you mentioned are relevant to London. You have not answered that. One of the first pages that comes up from your link relates to Los Angeles freeways, for example - an entirely different planet. The congestion charge and the fees to park in central London are so expensive that, even if the roads were totally empty, most people would probably still not choose to drive into central London, and rightly so. Let me be clearer: does any of your studies relate to a big metropolis, with huge deterrents against driving in the centre like congestion charge and very expensive parking? Not to mention that those 'studies' certainly say nothing about the merit of removing dedicated bus lanes!

You say that nothing will change my mind. Wrong. Like I wrote very clearly (but you love putting words in my mouth, don't you?), if actual facts showed that cycle lanes are used throughout the day and the year, that the people negatively affected are only a minority, that bus journey times have not changed materially, etc., then I will change my mind.