kilmore

Late night trains - half hour service after 11pm: Having just missed a train at Canada Water late at night to Peckham Rye and watching trains to both West Croydon and Crystal Palace continuing at 15 minute intervals it struck me that there was a disparity in services between the Clapham Junction Branch of the Overground and the main spine, for example giving a 7 minute service to Sydenham until after midnight. Contrast that with the half hour service on the Clapham Junction Branch and it looks very unequal. TfL obviously think that residents in this area should be tucked up in their beds by 11 pm. There does not seem any logistical reason why these trains should go on to a half hour service so early, although it's interesting that the termination our service northwards at Dalston has emerged. When the late night Clapham Branch trains do run they seem pretty full in both directions. A lot of people will not use them if there is the risk of having to wait half an hour if you just miss one. I have written to Overground about it and will post their reply. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has taken this up.

Whilst I don't doubt that there is a need to consider some traffic measures in East Dulwich Grove, bear in mind it is a bus route and we need to be very wary of more proposals for speed humps affecting bus passengers. They have no voice in the consultation procedure, and it's time there was a recognition of that bus travel is becoming increasingly slow and uncomfortable as more and more humps are introduced. Some journeys into town from this area have to cross humps all along the route, and they are so often designed with steep slopes so that there a double jolt every time the bus traverses the hump. The effect on patients in ambulances must be similar. Residents living next to the humps will also have to suffer heavy vibrations and noise day and night as heavy vehicles cross. There needs to be a rethink of this whole approach to traffic calming. No other city in Europe adopts such crude measures, and they all must face similar issues.

Extending the 63 bus to Honor Oak Park Station seems an exceptionally good idea, leaving the 363 to go on its current route to Crystal Palace. Honor Oak Park is of course on the the East London Line extension, currently under construction and due to open in mid 2010. It would greatly add to the connections in this area to have a regular direct service to the station (to be part of London Overground), opening up connections right along its route through New Cross Gate, east London and eventually to Highbury and Islington. At present it is very difficult to reach any of these places without going through central London. There would seem to be enough space to turn them around in front of the station, or otherwise at the bottom of the road. This would not remove the need for ELL Phase 2 bringing the route through Peckham Rye for Clapham Junction, branching off ELL 1 just after Surrey Quays, but it would improve the transport options in East Dulwich at practically nil cost.

New speed humps are proliferating all over the borough, increasingly now on bus routes. Two more have just been introduced at the junction of Peckham Rye and Barry Road, and on the pedestrian crossing on Peckham Rye a little way further down. This means every bus on these busy routes has to bounce their passengers over these obstacles, adding to discomfort, slowing them down still further and adding to wear and tear on the vehicles. How many people think this is a benefit?

Cobbled streets are a great idea and very regenerative, widely adopted in urban centres in continental Europe. It also means that there is no need for speed humps (unless you drive a Citroen). Also when the road is dug up it is easier to knit back together again, rather than create yet another ridge or rut in the road. Cobbles are not so great for cyclist nor for disabled people (or users of high heels) but so are ramps and broken pavements in general, not to mention those bumpy bits at pedestrian crossings.

Having just come back from a holiday in eastern Germany, every medium sized town has new low floor trams gliding in and out of the town centre, linking the shops, the station and the suburbs. The streets are paved with newly restored cobbles and there is not a speed hump or raised table to be seen. The trams run to a timetable displayed on screens at every stop and turn up absolutely on time. Everyone dutifully punches their ticket in the machine. Bikes, cars, buses and trams seem to coexist quite happily, with the buses sharing the tram stops. There is plenty of parking but you always have to pay a euro or two. So it seems a bit odd that London, the richest city in the universe cannot afford the ?1bn for the south London tram. If money needs to be saved, cut out the Camden and Brixton extensions because the first lot don't want it and the second have two tube lines already - call it a second or third phase. But Peckham desperately needs the tram because the railway is so akward and the buses so slow and uncomfortable, made worse by the incessant prattle of that annoying woman telling us twenty times a journey what bus we are on. Look again at the loop proposal round Peckham which would bring it round the oval at the top of Peckham Rye Park (by Austins) and make it useful to people living in East Dulwich. And sort out the depot by taking it out of Peckham Town Centre and making an extension to the Ilderton site by Millwall Football Club.

I'm also debating whether to object. The Council has a policy to resist the split of houses into flats especially in the conservation area, and there's no doubt that it does change the character of the street. Most of us probably lived in flats once so there's no stigma, it's just that there are loads of existing conversions and new flats in the area, and it seems better to keep the houses in single occupation as they were built -that's an aspect of conservation. Conversion often involves rather unsympathetic alteration, although having said that the house in question has been run down for years and needs everything doing to it. Car parking is an issue too - I don't want a CPZ. But I welcome the mix of families (so long as the children are well behaved!). They are great houses, comfortably sized for couples and sharers as well as those with children, though the gardens are a bit small.

The reason why it is a boys' school is because the governors of the old Waverley voted against the co-ed proposal a few years ago, and there's already an overwhelming number of girls' places in the area. 5 forms of entry is small by most standards and almost the minimum necessary to generate enough (roll driven) budget to fund teachers for a broad curriculum. The sixth form is really the issue - it will take years before it's established, and if the pressures on the site are as bad as people say, student will vote with their feet at 16 and it will remain at 750 or thereabouts. If it's a big success, then the site issues will pale into insignificance because they want to be there. In any case, the sixth form is only in the building half the time because of the sharing with the girls and the way teaching is done these days. If there are real complaints from neighbours about behaviour, being a small school it won't be hard to identify them. The thing about starting from scratch is that the ethos is established from the beginning and is then established as the norm for the next year group when they arrive- not the same as trying to turn round an existing school, that's a whole lot harder.