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

[rendelharris]

You stick with your mindset old chap, as I said, I'm out.

ETA: "When did I talk about a conspiracy by TFL?"

Here:

"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."

[ianc]

healey Wrote:

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

> 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.

>

At 8am, the 40 takes at least 45 mins to E&C. If you can board a Northern Line train from there, you're lucky (now working near St. Paul's). Bakerloo is admittedly better. Buses seem to grind to a halt several stops before E&C at that time too. If you go earlier / later, I'm sure you can do it.

Trains are sometimes an option, but too often are heavily-delayed and getting back on a bus at Denmark Hill is difficult.

Granted, you can probably still find routes that are faster than mine, but I no longer want to fight to find them.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> 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.

The western extension to the CCZ would have made very little difference to the traffic flow on Vauxhall Bridge. As you correctly point out, most private cars using Vauxhall Bridge are through traffic, heading to/from the M4, M40, M1 and A1. They use the west cross route/Embankment, or Park Lane/Vauxhall Bridge Road, because these are major traffic arteries through west London. These routes were/are entirely exempt from the CCZ because of their huge importance in maintaining traffic flow.

> 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.

How many of those 2000 people are KSId by private cars, as opposed to buses, delivery trucks, construction vehicles, taxis etc. which will still need to use London's roads even if you were to entirely ban the private car?

How much of that air pollution is caused by private cars, as opposed to diesel buses, diesel trucks, diesel lorries, diesel taxis etc. which will still need to use London's roads even if you were to entirely ban the private car?

You talk about making it even more awkward, time-consuming and expensive to use a private car. How easy do you think it is now? The only time I drive in London is when I'm leaving London to go somewhere else, where public transport is expensive, time-consuming and awkward to use. Fix that and I'd give up my car.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

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

> How many of those 2000 people are KSId by private

> cars, as opposed to buses, delivery trucks,

> construction vehicles, taxis etc. which will still

> need to use London's roads even if you were to

> entirely ban the private car?

No figures available that I can find, be interested to see them if anyone else knows. My subjective impression from reading the news is that around 75% of serious accidents seem to involve private drivers, but that is entirely subjective and may be wildly wrong.

> How much of that air pollution is caused by

> private cars, as opposed to diesel buses, diesel

> trucks, diesel lorries, diesel taxis etc. which

> will still need to use London's roads even if you

> were to entirely ban the private car?

I would guess that's actually impossible to estimate. I did say that there were other measures necessary, such as banning HGVs at peak times, encouraging offloading of goods outside London onto smaller, greener vehicles, using the river etc. The mayor's plans to penalise diesel vehicles are already a huge step in the right direction, as are plans for hybrid buses etc. The new zero emissions taxi is quite exciting: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/revealed-londons-new-green-black-cab-ready-to-hit-the-capitals-streets-a3453026.html

[DulwichLondoner]

TFL's website has quite a lot of data on collisions, injuries and deaths: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/road-safety

There are tables for how many people get hurt in each category (pedestrian, car drivers, etc), but I haven't found data showing which kind of vehicles are involved (e.g. in a collision between a big truck and a Smart I'd expect the truck driver to walk away unhurt).

Like I said earlier, I'd be interested in understanding if there is data on traffic volumes by vehicle type in central London and/or in the congestion zone, and specifically if there is any data on minicabs and cars excluding minicabs (I do wonder if we have too many in London).

[Bic Basher]

I'm closer to Forest Hill station, so can get the Overground or Southern from there or within walking distance or P13 to West Dulwich for trains to Victoria.

[rendelharris]

Very interesting article for those who say there's no point trying to limit private car use when we've got buses, HGVs etc: modern diesel cars produce twice as much toxic pollution as HGVs: not twice as much by engine size, just twice as much full stop (ten times as much on a capacity comparison): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/06/diesel-cars-are-10-times-more-toxic-than-trucks-and-buses-data-shows

[KidKruger]

It's an interesting one. I thought a several years ago there was a big push (if not by Govt, then by manufacturers but with support / no complaint from Govt) for diesel to be the engine type that car buyers opt for.

Now there's to be penalties for those swayed in that direction. On the surface that seems a bit disengenuous.

[rendelharris]

KidKruger Wrote:

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

> It's an interesting one. I thought a several years

> ago there was a big push (if not by Govt, then by

> manufacturers but with support / no complaint from

> Govt) for diesel to be the engine type that car

> buyers opt for.

> Now there's to be penalties for those swayed in

> that direction. On the surface that seems a bit

> disengenuous.

There was a massive push from the (Blair) government, giving diesels zero ratings for VED. This was because the government was desperate to meet European Co2 emissions targets and diesel cars theoretically produce less Co2 than petrol ones (in practice they produce almost exactly the same). The push ignored the fact that diesels produce far more nitrogen oxide and dioxide (responsible for lung problems and inflammation, low birthweight, retarded lung development in children, heart attacks and strokes) and particulates (carcinogenic). The current government are already talking about a limited diesel scrappage scheme but it'll have to be extended if it's to be truly effective. I do feel sorry for people who fell for the government line, though there were a lot of dissenting voices at the time predicting the environmental disaster it's now become.

[KidKruger]

Thanks for clarifying rendel, I did think there'd been some kind of diesel 'push'.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Very interesting article for those who say there's

> no point trying to limit private car use when

> we've got buses, HGVs etc: modern diesel cars

> produce twice as much toxic pollution as HGVs

Just out of curiosity, who says there is no point?

To be clear, I said something very different: that driving into central London is such an expensive and miserable experience that I struggle to believe many people who have an alternative willingly choose to drive. How many people do you know who commute to zone 1 by car?

I think it would probably make more sense to limit the number of minicabs and to disincentive vans and delivery vehicles, eg charging them more to enter the congestion charge zone before 9am and after 4pm.

Of course I cannot be 100% sure; mine are impressions based on my experience and a bit of common sense. The first step in tackling London's traffic would of course be understanding what it is made up of: what kind of vehicles at what times etc. I don't have hard data because it is not my job to collect them; I did search TFL's reports but couldn't find much on this.

I do, however, find it wrong and inexcusable that:

1) TFL does not collect or publish this data

2) That major revolutions to transport, like the segregated cycle lanes, were carried out before collecting and studying this data

3) That more and more money is being spent on more cycle lanes without a proper study of the impact of the existing ones

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> You stick with your mindset old chap, as I said,

> I'm out.

I understand; it is, after all, the most logical step to take if you cannot answer very specific and detailed questions. By all means, carry on with your views unchallenged - after all facts and details have a nasty habit of interfering with ideology.

> ETA: "When did I talk about a conspiracy by TFL?"

>

> Here:

>

> "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."

??? Again, putting words in my mouth seems to be your favourite sport. I was complaining that TFL does not publish this data. I never said I knew for a fact it collected it, but kept it hidden! What I meant is that I looked for it on its website and in its annual reports, and I didn't manage to find anything.

[rendelharris]

Still out where you're concerned, thanks.

[James Barber]

Bus route 176 is being re contracted. New buses new timetables. New service started June. The plan is to rebalance the service for when greater use occurs - the negative consequences are less with the one hour bus ticket concept Caroline Pidgeon campaigned for.

Either way, in response to concerns about the degree of rebalancing:

"

Subject: REPLY: Bus Route 176

Dear Caroline

Thank you for your email.

We carry out regular reviews to the bus network to allow us to determine the needs of a given route and ensure the level of resources is matched to the demand experienced.

When we make changes to the frequency of a service, we aim to ensure the capacity offered is sufficient to accommodate the regular route usage, based on our passenger usage data. For example, if a route sees relatively low usage throughout the day but there is a narrow timeframe where a higher frequency is needed, a low frequency would be sufficient for the majority of the day. Rather than running a high frequency route at all times, which would lead to considerable cost without an accompanying passenger benefit, we would look to introduce a low frequency route with additional trips in place only for the period of higher usage. This enables us to ensure that our limited financial resources are used in the most effective way, and reduces unnecessary vehicle levels on London?s streets, as well as helping to reduce unnecessary emissions across the network.

In the case of route 176, we are looking to reduce the Monday-Saturday daytime and weekend night frequencies to better match actual usage. We developed this proposal following a review of passenger usage on route 176, however I would add that we are also looking to include additional journeys in the peak towards Tottenham Court Road in the morning and towards Penge in the afternoon, to accommodate extra usage at these times. These changes are due to occur in June 2017.

I hope this information is helpful.

"

[Penguin68]

This correspondence rather ignores the fact that the 176 Northbound in the early evenings (which is when I use it) regularly terminates well away from its sign-boarded destination (the destination signed when I have boarded it in East Dulwich). More often than not, in my experience, it terminates on Waterloo Bridge (north end), rather than reaching its initially intended destination - which means that as a route into the West End/ Charing Cross Road it is a failure. With fewer buses the wait for one which is actually going where it promises will be even more extended I fear. It would be interesting to know what %age of buses are re-designated whilst on their journey - that is how many have to change their destination sign during their journey. The one-hour re-use rule was, I'm sure, a remedy to the cost of re-issuing tickets for early terminated trips - far too common on this and other routes (i.e. 63) in my experience.

[drew]

I would recommend Sydenham.

Transport there is much better via access to three train lines (via Sydenham, Lower Sydenham and Sydenham Hill/Penge East). I am regularly at Canary Wharf in 30mins door to door. It will also further benefit from the Bakerloo Line extension passing via New Cross, with the possibility of directly linking to Lower Sydenham in the future.

Sydenham also has improving schools and a number of lovely parks. While the choice of restaurants is not as great as ED, two of the restaurants have recently made the Top 10 in London on TripAdvisor.

The Greyhound should re-open in the summer after its refurbishment, and rumour has it that a cinema will also open this year. The local gym is great, with excellent access to new equipment and classes.

And its far cheaper, with larger houses. The Lawrie Park Triangle, Cator Road and The Thorpes are all examples of nice pockets to live.

The locals are friendly as well. A good mix of young couples and families are regularly moving to the area.

And it borders the trendy areas of Penge and Crystal Palace.

Worth a look.

[Willard]

I was almost convinced until..... "And it borders the trendy areas of Penge"

Joking aside, I also hear good things about Sydenham.

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

I'll try and find that out for you.

Hi rendellharris, DulwichLondoner,

I think you're both missing the point that in the last 20 years the population of London has risen from 6.5M to 8.5M inhabitants. The forecasts are for a similar increase in the next 20 years.

Whatever you do, without a huge decrease in the ratio of people owning and using cars you're going to get much more congestion. In fact London has been seeing a small decrease in the proportion of residents owning cars - but so many more people more than counter this I absolute numbers of cars. Hence why the Congestion Charging Zone is now congested again!

IF we were to reach Amsterdam or Copenhagen levels of people cycling it would largely counter this huge increase in population.

[helew]

Moved to Honor Oak, much, much better rail links with both Crofton Park and Honor Oak and the East London Line.

Spoilt for choice. Also with the homogenisation of East Dulwich, now populated by aspirational Lookalikes, we sold up ( for a huge profit ) and got out :-) Honor Oak is more diverse and a much friendlier neighbourhood. Also much better and bigger properties. It's probably no secret anymore and I'm sure Honor Oak will attract all the robots now, and we'll be beset with pale green picketfences and shutters :-/ and spiralling house prices ( rubs hands with glee)

[Nigello]

With such growth in population and our history/experience of local govt. vs national govt. I doubt we will ever have a transport system that will approach the nirvana we all seem to want.

If you boil it right down, the best way to be "in control" is to walk or cycle, but not everyone can do so for the kinds of distances we need to travel.

"Suck it up" is not a phrase I like and I don't apply it to this, but I do think an elastic amount of acceptance is needed as much as congestion/diesel charges, cycle lanes, bus hopper fares, etc. etc.

[Jeremy]

helew Wrote:

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

> It's probably no secret anymore

I don't think it ever was a "secret". Honor Oak has always been a pretty decent (if rather sleepy) little area.

Although it sounds like it's starting to go downhill, with condescending new residents who think they've "discovered" it, and making crass boasts about house prices...

[rendelharris]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> "Suck it up" is not a phrase I like and I don't

> apply it to this, but I do think an elastic amount

> of acceptance is needed as much as

> congestion/diesel charges, cycle lanes, bus hopper

> fares, etc. etc.

One can't have an "elastic amount of acceptance" about something that's killing double digit thousands every year and stunting the growth of our children, one really can't.

[helew]

Aw Jeremy, sorry you don't understand satire

[DulwichLondoner]

Is it true that the Penge East - West Dulwich - Victoria service will be reduced in the coming years, or is it just a rumour?

As for pollution, is there any assessment / estimate of the contribution of vehicles vs other sources? For example, some foreign cities have strict limitations on winter heating (indoor temperature shouldn't be above certain thresholds). This is impossible to police in private houses, but not impossible to enforce in stores and offices.

[Bovine Juice]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> Is it true that the Penge East - West Dulwich -

> Victoria service will be reduced in the coming

> years, or is it just a rumour?

>

I suspect you are referring to the loss of 3 Thameslink trains a day weekdays to Bedford on part of that route. The 4 an hour Southeastern service to Victoria is unlikely to be cut.