Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Because it isn?t just about existing transport provision - it is also about the potential for economic development. OKR area clearly has big potential for development and why it is likely to be chosen if only route is. Tunnels are very expensive to build so usually some major economic benefit is needed for them to be justified.


Hopefully both routes will get chosen. Failing that I hope local politicians get behind a tram scheme from south Southwark to Elephant and Castle ? I believe James Barber proposed one a couple of years ago.

Hi cle,

I beg to differ. Greenwich Council funded a ?50,000 report into rail options for Woolwich and possible extending the DLR. It directly led to the DLR being extended to Woolwich and ?180M spend.

WRT to Bakerloo extension Lewisham have talked about it a number of times and had TfL present. So those TfL officials are clear Lewisham wants it. It must help increase the chance of some form of Bakerloo gonig into Lewisham.


Hi picmic,

Yes Camnerwell has a high PTAL - which is calculated by number and frequency of each publci transport option. But it doesnt factor how effective timewise each public transport option is to get somewhere or the variability of time it takes.

James, agree about the Camberwell PTAL point.


But you must be aware, or should be aware, that the idea that the cost of that DLR extension to Lewisham was exorbitant - so there may be an element of 'once bitten, twice shy' there.

The main problem with DLR extension is that it is already running close to capacity heading south from Canary Wharf. Taking it all the way to Bromley would only work if there was an increased frequency of services or longer trains, I don't think either are particularly simple (otherwise they would already be in the pipeline without an extension).


It is great to see more people coming out in support of the Bakerloo line extension. All the talk of different routes is likely to increase support for the eventual route(s) that are recommended. A good choice of route(s) should be of benefit to a much larger area of South East London, assuming interchange is possible from other transport hubs, so I will welcome almost any route, even if it doesn't come straight through Forest Hill.


My only concern is that this must not be a pre-election gimmick by any party in the run-up to May 2015. A concerted effort needs to be made to explain how this vital transport improvement will be funded, otherwise it will probably go the way of the South London tramways.

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> I still think (even more so now) that if two

> branches are going to be made, they should meet

> again at Lewisham, then one should take over the

> Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> Bexleyheath Line.


As long as they are 100% separate with no mixing between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town or Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.

cle Wrote:

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

> JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I still think (even more so now) that if two

> > branches are going to be made, they should meet

> > again at Lewisham, then one should take over

> the

> > Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> > Bexleyheath Line.

>

> As long as they are 100% separate with no mixing

> between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town or

> Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.


Would it be easier to have 2 or 4 platforms at Lewisham?

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> cle Wrote:

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

> -----

> > JamesViktor Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I still think (even more so now) that if two

> > > branches are going to be made, they should

> meet

> > > again at Lewisham, then one should take over

> > the

> > > Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> > > Bexleyheath Line.

> >

> > As long as they are 100% separate with no

> mixing

> > between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town

> or

> > Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.

>

> Would it be easier to have 2 or 4 platforms at

> Lewisham?


Four - two separate lines by that point with no intertwining to keep things tidy. The quicker route to Lewisham should go on the longest journey, I guess.


A bit like pretending the Victoria and Piccadilly from Kings Cross were the same line in Central London, but then split off and Lewisham would be the 'Finsbury Park' - cross platform changing, but separate.

It IS great to see people talking about it more. There's such a case for it, to my mind. Time and again, developments come to London public transport:


DLR, resignalling and so hiked frequency (Jubilee, Victoria), new trains (Met, Circle etc. lines), London Overground expansion and new trains, Crossrail, talk of Crossrail 2, even the flipping cable car, Barclays/Boris/Ken bikes.


But most of them are for other bits of London. 'Nuff's enough.

South London has benefited in the last 20 years from the Jubilee Line Extension, DLR extension to Lewisham, Overground expansion to Clapham Junction, Croydon, New Cross and Crystal Palace and the resignalling of the Jubilee and Victoria Lines. There is also the impending Northern Link extension to Battersea.


Things could have been better and a Bakerloo Line extension is way overdue. But the situation is a darn sight better than when we moved from NE London to Greenwich 36 years ago and then to Dulwich 27 years ago.


And there's also the Croydon Tramlink, not to mention the much improved bus services.

I agree with all of that, with one exception. East London has had far more investment in transport than West for the last 20 years or so. Yes a lot has been Docklands and Olympics led, but it still stretched far and wide across East London.

Oh East London is transformed - but not SE London.


And of Zebedee's projects, JLE is to the far north of SE London (so to speak), DLR extension is fair and square in it, London O network likewise, Vic lines - er, not at all. Likewise the Battersea extension.



Brixton is in South London and has benefited from the Vic Line resignalling. Likewise Battersea is in South London. Dulwich may technically be in S-E London but it is v. close to S-W London - if there was a S postal area akin to the N area in North London, it would be right in it.

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Battersea extension >

>

> Brixton is in South London and has benefited from

> the Vic Line resignalling. Likewise Battersea is

> in South London. Dulwich may technically be in S-E

> London but it is v. close to S-W London - if there

> was a S postal area akin to the N area in North

> London, it would be right in it.


There used to be an S Postcode area. SE19-27 and SW11-20 were it but Anthony Trollope removed this (and NE) as well as retracting the London Postal Boundary (it used to go to Croydon, Bromley, Kingston etc.) S is now Sheffield duck.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district#mediaviewer/File:Londonpostal_iln_1857.jpg

I think Clapham is the ground zero. Mind you, Putney and Wimbledon are also hubs for the worst of people.


I see Brixton as just 'south', neither east or west. Camberwell and East Dulwich are similar, but sneak into SE. Peckham definitely so.

Yeah living as far out as I do places like Dulwich, Forest Hill and Sydenham seem much further than Lewisham or Peckham. I'd say true SE London covers the NE part of Southwark, all of Lewisham except the far SW part, all of Bromley except the far NW part and all of Greenwich and Bexley.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...