Transport in south london

[rendelharris]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

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

Aye, just need "MAMILS" and "lycra louts" for a full house in cycle-hater's bingo.

[DulwichLondoner]

So this means I will not have the honour of knowing what the source of that piece of information was (about cyclists outnumbering other road users), nor of knowing why it is wise to build v2 of a project without assessing v1. Deafening silence, but I have become used to that.

Since you find my

[DulwichLondoner]

Since my choice of words is so objectionable, I'd ask you how you'd define the cycle lobbies that (and it's a fact) have dedicate more time and energy to successfully lobby for those 'motorcyclists and cyclists stay back" stickers to be changed with a wording leas offensive to the poor snowflakes, than to actually educate fellow cyclists of how idiotically suicidal it is not to stay back from a large vehicle. And I say this as a motorcyclist, who didn't find those stickers offensive, and who is still in one piece after many years of riding also because he obeyed that common sense rule.

[Applespider]

This link supports both rendelharris and DulwichLondoner - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/cyclists-make-up-70-of-blackfriars-bridge-traffic-a3409351.html so perhaps to a certain extent they are both right.

It says that at peak times, over 70% of traffic at Blackfriars is now cyclists (e.g. outnumbering other road-users) and that it has added 10-15 minute delays along the length of the Embankment for motorists (I'm not familiar enough with that route to know if it's private motorists or whether it includes bus lanes).

I do use Vauxhall Bridge (by bike and by bus) and the changes there (going southbound) have impacted both groups on the approach to the bridge as the phasing of the main Embankment/Bridge lights really isn't optimised for either group. The difference on a bike, is that it's easier to hop off and get around a delay/red light. Which is one reason why when you're sitting in a queue of traffic, you rarely see the cycle lane full - it tends to be flowing far better.

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> Since my choice of words is so objectionable, I'd

> ask you how you'd define the cycle lobbies that

> (and it's a fact) have dedicate more time and

> energy to successfully lobby for those

> 'motorcyclists and cyclists stay back" stickers to

> be changed with a wording leas offensive to the

> poor snowflakes, than to actually educate fellow

> cyclists of how idiotically suicidal it is not to

> stay back from a large vehicle.

Not as "nazis," that's for sure.

(And unless you have actual proof that cycling groups have done what you suggest - which would require access to their detailed budgets and timesheets - "and it's a fact" does not actually make it a fact)

[DulwichLondoner]

@ rendelharris , I remember articles in the press but I don't expect you to take my word for it.

How about the cycling website road.cc talking about

http://road.cc/content/news/121876-transport-london-agrees-scrap-stay-back-stickers

"LCC, CTC, RoadPeace, London Boroughs Cycling Officers Group, Road Danger Reduction Forum, the Association of Bikeability Schemes and Stop Killing Cyclists were all involved in lobbying TfL"

Is this fact enough for you? Should it not be, more evidence is just a few keystrokes away on google.

I remember looking up the websites of these organisations for any kind of stay safe tips, and I remember finding no mention whatsoever of even the slightest correlation between staying the **** back from large vehicles and not dying in a very stupid and easily avoidable way. Remember, this is what I do myself as a motorcyclist, so I know what I'm talking about from direct experience.

Instead, these organisations find it appropriate to write to TFL that:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2014/jun/12/the-madness-of-stay-back-cyclist-stickers

"?implication that cyclists are second-class road users who should defer to motor vehicle users?"

As for the 'nazi' word, I never meant you are a nazi, nor to generalise that cyclists are. I meant to refer to certain extremists, like the lobbies I have described above, or those who say that any solution which adds misery to the life of motorists is good, which is extremely stupid, if it were only because that means more pollution for all (and let's ignore for a second that not all motorists have alternatives, e.g. delivery vans and white vans).

In other conversations (in person, not here) I said that the Motorcycle Action Group are talibans because, if I remember correctly, they were founded to protest against helmets being made compulsory, and celebrate as a hero some guy who served time instead of paying a fine for riding without a helmet. I appreciate some of the work they do (e.g. lobbying TfL on the plight of motorcyclists), but this doesn't mean they weren't extremists wrt helmets.

Or I called the Association of British Drivers car-nazis because they say that the car is the most efficient means of transportation and that the congestion charge should be abolished. Again, I appreciate some of the work they do, e.g. challenging the abuses of some local councils, but this doesn't mean they are not extremists when it comes to the congestion charge.

I appreciate we live in a world of snowflake sensitivity where everything can be offensive. Maybe I can replace nazi and talibans with 'unreasonable extremists' if you deem this more appropriate, but the concepts remain identical.

[DulwichLondoner]

Applespider Wrote:

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

> This link supports both rendelharris and

> DulwichLondoner -

> https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/cyclists

> -make-up-70-of-blackfriars-bridge-traffic-a3409351

> .html so perhaps to a certain extent they are both

> right.

This article does not contradict a word I have said. I have never said cycle lanes are not used during rush hours. I have said they tend to be almost empty outside of rush hours, while the lanes for motorists are not. The result? More congestion and more pollution for all. Those who think that motorists are evil and should be punished, so anything that adds misery to their evil lives should be applauded, should remember that this means more pollution for all.

Not to mention that there isn't always an alternative to the pushbike. If you know of someone who drives to his office job in zone 1, please, please, do introduce him, I'd be curious to meet him (what I mean is that clearly almost no one does). White vans and delivery vans cannot be replaced by pushbikes, however.

Also, Blackfriars bridge and the Victoria Embankment are not the best examples, because, AFAIK, they have never had a huge volume of busses. How about Vauxhall Bridge, where the southbound bus lane has been removed? What's the impact there? Or the new cycle path between Marble Arch and Notting Hill Gate?

The article does mention that traffic queues on the Embankment now tend to be 15 minutes worse thanks to the cycle lanes. How much more pollution and congestion does that mean? This is all the more serious because the Embankment is almost the only main route from East to West. Motorcycles and cars might try some back routes; for larger vehicles it's harder, if not impossible.

Oh, and narrower lanes make it harder, if not impossible, for motorcycles to filter. Again, the result is more congestion and more pollution for all. But no, we should all hail the cycle lanes...

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> I appreciate we live in a world of snowflake

> sensitivity where everything can be offensive.

> Maybe I can replace nazi and talibans with

> 'unreasonable extremists' if you deem this more

> appropriate, but the concepts remain identical.

Oh please stop being silly. I'm a forty-nine year old former rugby player who can take - and hand out, when necessary - any amount of "offensive" language and it takes more than silly insults to upset me. But calling people Nazis just because you disagree with them is utterly pathetic and disrespects the suffering and valour of all those who were subjugated by, and fought against, the Nazi regime. That's not being a "snowflake" (another bloody stupid meaningless term much beloved of Daily Mail readers and other idiots - whatever else you are, you're not an idiot, you can express yourself very well without the need to resort to such foolishness), it's simply having a sense of what is disrespectful and in extremely questionable taste.

[NewWave]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

> Why do people bang on about poor transport links

> in East Dulwich.

> There are excellent Transport Links here.

>

> Basic Breakdown of transport links

>

> 12 Peckham - Camberwell - Elephant & Castle -

> Westminster - Oxford Circus West End

>

> 37 Brixton - Clapham Junction - Putney

> 37 Peckham

>

> 40 Camberwell - Elephant & Castle - London

> Bridge - (The City Fenchurch Street - Aldgate

>

> 63 Peckham - Elephant & Castle - Farringdon

> Station - Kings Cross (Trains to the North)

> 63 Crystal Palace

>

> 176 Camberwell - Elephant & Castle - Waterloo -

> Trafalgar Square - West End

> 176 Forest Hill Station - Penge

>

> 185 Camberwell - Oval - Vauxhall - Victoria

> 185 Forest Hill Station - Catford - Lewisham

>

>

> Trains,

>

> East Dulwich - London Bridge -The City

>

> Peckham Rye - London Bridge - The City

>

> Denmark Hill - Blackfriars - The City

>

> Forest Hill - East Croydon - Gatwick

>

> What do people want? Private Heliport facilities -

> Hovercrafts -

> You may have to walk 500 Metres. Well that is

> tough.

>

> DulwichFox

Sorry transport is still pants.

its still a two bus at least journey to get anywhere in west london.

I'd love to cycle but Im 58 years old, can't ride a bike and doubt wobbling from the Horseman Museum to Bond street would be an option for me even if I did get a bike with stabilisers!

[Peckhampam]

But you can't expect to be able to get a direct bus from any point a to any point b! That's impossible in any large city

[DulwichLondoner]

To be fair, relying on the bus for more than a couple of miles at rush hour is going to be a nightmare pretty much anywhere in London. I think the problems are more the unreliability of the trains, and the rarity of som bus services (176 and 185 are OKish, the 37 to Brixton is a nightmare, you could wait for it 25 minutes).

[Penguin68]

Transport in London (and indeed in the UK) is City of Westminster/ City of London centric - the majority of public transport routes head towards that. So, living south we find east: west travel problematical - if you lived in Ealing getting east into Town isn't an issue, but travelling north and south is and so on. Double decker busses with us head into Town, it is the single decker (and less frequent) busses that tend to have more of an east:west orientation. Hence we get the ridiculous situation when for many Londoners it is easier to travel into Town and then out again to get to some places than to try to get there directly. [The east: west Jubilee line (via Canada Water) has been a real boon for me]. To get to most places I need to change transport at least once, more often twice - but then even amongst the 'tubed' several changes are quite common. What I find infuriating in ED are not the public transport routes per se - but the inability frequently to deliver against the promises of these routes. As I have said before.

[Abe_froeman]

You can get a direct bus from the heart of East Dulwich to Picadilly Circus and Oxford Circus without having to change. It takes just over an hour which is not too bad considering the number of stop over the six / seven mile journey.

Alternatively the train form ED to London Bridge takes 15 minutes and it's a further 8 minutes on the underground to bond Street. I did it myself this morning.

[DulwichLondoner]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

> Alternatively the train form ED to London Bridge

> takes 15 minutes and it's a further 8 minutes on

> the underground to bond Street. I did it myself

> this morning.

That's very much a hypothetical, best-case scenario. Even if trains are not cancelled, run on time, London bridge station isn't packed, the tube entrance is not closed because of overcrowding, you can get on the very first Jubilee line train at London Bridge, etc., it will still be AT LEAST 35 minutes before you make it from East Dulwich to Bond Street. In reality, it will often be way more, especially at rush hour, because of at least one of the factors above; I know this from very direct experience. There have been times when it took me longer to get from the platform at London Bridge to the Jubilee line platform, than from ED to London Bridge.

In fairness, with the exception of the ridiculous delays and cancellations which plague our line more than others, all other issues are common to the whole of London. Ever tried to take the tube from Victoria at 8am? You often can't! But the fact remains that 15 + 8 minutes is very much a hypothetical, not a real-life scenario.

I find that, in order to get to Marble Arch - Bond street, the train from Denmark Hill or Peckham Rye to Victoria, then one of the many buses to Marble Arch is a better option: roughly the same time (sometimes more, sometimes less), but less stressful, and it's surprisingly easy to find a seat even at rush hour.

Also, taking another train from London Bridge to Charing Cross, now that they have reopened the line, is a decent way to get to the Strand - Covent garden area.

[Earl Aelfheah]

In almost any other part of zone 2 /3 London you're a short walk, or bus ride from a tube. I don't expect to have a tube station in ED, but how does anyone justify the fact that 90% of SE London is completely absent from the tube network and there is no plan to address it (indeed we keep adding new lines to already well served areas)?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Camberwell still not having a tube station after 60 odd years of campaigning is ridiculous.

[mary123]

Buses are a main option to fill in gap to get to the train stations and a 30 min half mile journey is no joke..

[KidKruger]

"how does anyone justify the fact that 90% of SE London is completely absent from the tube network and there is no plan to address it ?"

This is a fair point.

When I moved to ED in 1990 I checked with TfL the plans for tube extensions and I was advised that in 11yrs ED would have a tube station, however which line would be extended was still under debate they said. I thought even if it takes 5yrs longer I'm OK with that (that'd be 2006). Not bothered about the tube now though, just need a reliable predictable train service.

I've read somewhere that the entire of the area from the Thames to Camberwell is pretty much reclaimed marshland and have always assumed that's why we can't have tube lines down here. But E&C has one !

[rendelharris]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> I've read somewhere that the entire of the area

> from the Thames to Camberwell is pretty much

> reclaimed marshland and have always assumed that's

> why we can't have tube lines down here. But E&C

> has one !

Pretty much - North London is heavy clay, quite easy for tunnelling, whereas much of South London is on Lambeth & Thanet sand, which shifts a lot. It wouldn't be a problem for today's machinery but it was back in the day. Also when the first tube lines were built North London was already getting well built up whereas areas like Camberwell were still semi-rural.

[Clifton]

It seems to me that the real issue with South London's rail transport is not about whether it's actually under the ground (though I accept the points about tunnelling above), but rather whether it follows the London Underground (Tube) model.

Lots of the "tube" lines north of the river aren't underground, but they follow a different approach from those to the south. The lines (with a few exceptions) don't go very far, and aren't shared with lines that do (though they may run alongside). The pattern of service is standard (making the Tube map a lot simpler than the train map south of the river), and the trains run frequently. Trains are typically arranged to run through the centre, rather than stopping on the edge of it.

This is all represented clearly on the Tube map that everyone knows, and the effect is that people believe that the Tube works, so they use it. Because they use it, it flourishes.

Trains south of the river aren't so clearly represented and are, in most cases, not so frequent and not so standard, and they feel (and to some extent are, partly because some of them go so far) more complex to come to understand. The result is that people don't use them as much as they use the Tube, so they are neglected. (I know the trains seem heavily used because they are full, but that reflects the service frequency as much as the people numbers.)

The relatively new Ginger line (the Overground from Highbury & Islington to Clapham Junction, West Croydon, New Cross and Crystal Palace) is an example of the Tube-ised model which would benefit South London immensely. As happened when the North London Line was Tube-ised, the switching of existing lines to the Tube model has transformed the service and dramatically increased usage. Almost that entire network was built on existing or previously mothballed lines (I think the curve including Shoreditch High Street is the only exception). New, clean, secure trains and the Tube model (and, critically, putting it on the Tube map) caused people to adopt it, and it's a great success.

It seems that what we need is not lots of digging on a Bakerloo line extension (though I'm happy for that to happen as well), but the much simpler and cheaper approach of Tube-ising more lines. For example, if the Sevenoaks via Otford line were diverted at Bromley to run fast into Victoria (no doubt delighting users from Kent), we could Tube-ise the Catford Loop line and transform the quality of service on the London section.

I realise I'm oversimplifying enormously by leaving out lots of practical problems, but doesn't this approach have promise?

[DulwichLondoner]

This morning, at least 3 consecutive trains from ED to London Bridge were cancelled; on the Denmark Hill to Victoria line, at least one train was cancelled and those which weren?t were very late. Indeed, the Denmark Hill station was dangerously overcrowded this morning, with people dangerously stepping in the middle of the road on Champion Park. I say ?at least? because I don?t know if more trains were cancelled after I took the 185 bus to Victoria.

In the meanwhile, other Southern Fail lines (e.g. Balham to Victoria) were running almost normally: a few minutes? delays, but no cancellations. Is it too much to ask why? Am I too paranoid in thinking that Southern has decided to sacrifice our lines while minimising disruptions to other lines, or is there a logical explanation as to why that is? Are our tracks older? Or what? Have local councillors or MPs ever brought up the matter?

I?ll be leaving the area for this very reason, but 1) not immediately 2) I?d still like to understand what on Earth has been going on.

[Abe_froeman]

"Is it too much to ask why?"

It seems so.

If you are actually interested in why, a simple internet search would tell you that there were two points failures near Tulse Hill which meant no trains could run until Network Rail had fixed them .

[DulwichLondoner]

Let me rephrase: the fact remains that these incidents seem way more frequent on our lines than on other lines run by the same Southern Fail. Is this impression wholly wrong and unfounded, or is there a logical explanation as to why that is? Are the tracks and the equipment on our lines older? Are our lines used by less healthy and less well-behaved people, who are therefore constantly falling ill on the trains, trespassing on the tracks etc, way more than passengers on other lines?

Yesterday there was a fire at Waterloo which caused a lot of disruptions. However, as far as I remember, and based on what friends and relatives commuting into Waterloo tell me, this kind of incident is, luckily, very rare, so yesterday's delays are not particularly representative. Today's delays on our lines are, instead, way more frequent and more representative. Just a case of bad luck?

[Abe_froeman]

Is this impression wholly wrong and unfounded... ? YES

Are the tracks and the equipment on our lines older? NO

Are our lines used by less healthy and less well-behaved people, who are therefore constantly falling ill on the trains, trespassing on the tracks etc, way more than passengers on other lines? NO, MAYBE YOU ARE A LITTLE BIT TOO CYNICAL.

[Cardelia]

Clifton Wrote:

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

> It seems that what we need is not lots of digging

> on a Bakerloo line extension (though I'm happy for

> that to happen as well), but the much simpler and

> cheaper approach of Tube-ising more lines. For

> example, if the Sevenoaks via Otford line were

> diverted at Bromley to run fast into Victoria (no

> doubt delighting users from Kent), we could

> Tube-ise the Catford Loop line and transform the

> quality of service on the London section.

>

> I realise I'm oversimplifying enormously by

> leaving out lots of practical problems, but

> doesn't this approach have promise?

The reason it worked so well in north London was the existing segregation between urban tracks and long distance tracks meant that the metro-style services could be brought under TFL control with relatively little disruption and cost. Options for doing that south of the river are limited because there are too many junctions and crossing points which serve both long-distance and urban trains. Lewisham and Tulse Hill spring immediately to mind, but there are others. These would need to be rebuilt with flyovers to segregate the long-distance services from the stopping services, thereby enabling more frequent urban trains to run. The cost of this would likely run into the ?billions, at which point digging new tube lines (or extending existing ones) starts to become economically viable.