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

[titch juicy]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > But if a cyclist has been

> > stupid/wreckless/impatient (cycling down the

> > inside of a large vehicle indicating left at a

> > junction) then irrespective of how distasteful

> it

> > is to call them so, it could well be that they

> are

> > stupid (and/or wreckless and/or impatient).

> >

> > None of those points you've made about

> extenuating

> > circumstances above would stop a cyclist from

> > waiting behind a large vehicle until it had

> > turned. Nearly all large vehicles now have a

> > large, bright yellow sticker on the back

> warning

> > cyclists not to cycle down the inside in those

> > circumstances.

>

> Agree with your first paragraph, not so sure about

> the second - of course cyclists shouldn't ride up

> the inside of stationary lorries, but when one of

> these awful accidents occurs we do tend (or I do

> anyway) to assume the cyclist has done just that

> whereas it often later comes out when the lorry

> driver has been prosecuted that they overtook the

> cyclist and turned across them (in at least one

> case last year without signalling). There was a

> case last year where it was proved that the driver

> of the fatal truck would have had the woman he

> killed in his vision in front of him for over

> twenty seconds, but he still turned across her.

> Sometimes it's the cyclist doing something stupid;

> often it's not.

Oh yes, I know the case and it was horrible and of course there are exceptions.

But, I think my second paragraph still holds. If a large vehicle is at a junction indicating left (perhaps i should have been a little more specific), then not riding down the inside of that vehicle means that that vehicle will not be a risk to your life.

[Jim1234]

The transport situation should improve from 2018 when the thameslink programme finishes, right?

[Elphinstone's Army]

reckless people, not wreckless - unless it has an Eric following on -

I agree the quality of bus driving is dire, ccasionally I have to alight as I feel sick, especially in the mornings, the stop start.

The volume of passengers has increased exponentially over the years this is only to be expected. I agree with whoever said, reliability is as important as regularity, when I consider the times I have missed the train at Denmark Hill by the skin of my teeth as it has been 2 minutes early??? and have waited 12 minutes!!! outside the PO for a bus, then had to sit on a 40 chugging to LB.

As people have pointed out, in life we cannot have everything - we live in a leafy part of a major city with a fairly static population which is unusual is it not, and has been pointed out, a tube station is not conducive to this happy state, attracting as it will, a more fluid commuter.

Anyone who has moved around London will know that it is a collection of villages, each one bearing it's own separate and different identity. If one is happy and at home here why move. Why take the chance and not be able to return should things not work out in Balham Clapham or Tooting.

If this is where you live then THIS IS WHERE YOU LIVE and not a dormitory. For myself I find it hard to credit that anyone would leave these leafy environs for Earlsfield.

You have presented a prolonged argument for a ready made decision inviting validation. No one can be sure - you will not know whether or not you have done the right thing or made a dreadful mistake until you have moved, and this could take a while.

Good luck with your decision/move as it isn't easy, and moving itself is stressful, but imagine if in a couple of years time you discover that ED has better more frequent/reliable/clean/smooth/faster/complex PT links.

[DulwichLondoner]

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> I can't understand why people don't get the bus

> though. It's comfortable, reliable and gives you

> time to relax with a book or music. The extra 15

> mins it takes to get in are a luxury to me rather

> than a chore.

Maybe because it's not always a feasible option?

Maybe because in many cases it takes way more than 15 minutes longer?

If it only takes you 15 minutes longer you're lucky - just don't assume everyone is in your same situation

Am I the only one who often sees busses along Lordship lane and Grove Vale so packed they don't even stop?

A few times I had to go to Vauxhall by bus in the morning it took me about 50 minutes, once I managed to get on; that would mean at least an hour from here to Victoria + the time to wait for a bus you can actually board. Compared with the circa 12 minutes from Denmark Hill (let's say 25-30 if you do ED - Peckham Rye - Victoria), it's a big difference; of course, when trains don't work properly it's probably over an hour both by bus and by train!

Last time I went to Waterloo by bus (on a Sunday, early afternoon) it took me 1h 15 min. According to google maps, that's exactly the time it takes to walk from here!

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

>There are a mass of other factors which

> also affect traffic flow - the huge rise in

> delivery vans (especially as people are apparently

> now taking to having Amazon deliveries made to

> their offices instead of homes)

Totally agree! I also wonder if we have too many minicabs in London, contributing to too much congestion.

>there

> were four lanes on the bridge before, there are

> four lanes now, yet sit on a bus in a jam on

> Blackfriars and it won't be long before someone

> says "If that bloody cycle lane wasn't there..."

I am not as familia with that road. The examples I made were of clear cases in which the bus lane was removed to make way for a segregated cycle lane, which has two effects: buses waste time entering and exiting the bus lane (when the bus lane ends, they have to move to the right into another lane, and this wastes time), and of course they no longer have a lane to themselves. This is the case from Oval to Vauxhall, and on Vauxhall Bridge southbound. I think they're doing something similar along Hyde Park, between Marble Arch and Bayswater, too.

[DulwichLondoner]

Beulah Wrote:

> Please stop describing people who are killed in

> road accidents as "stupid" and "idiots", they are

> almost always not.

I really struggle to follow you. I never said that every single individual who gets killed in a road collision is stupid. But some are. A pedestrian crossing a 3-lane, 40-mph road when it's red, a cyclist or motorcyclist intentionally undercutting a large vehicle which is turning left and had very clearly signalled its intention to do so, a motorcyclist who dies because he was doing a wheelie at a crazy speed, these are all cases of stupid behaviour which causes avoidable tragedies. How would you describe these cases? If maybe 'stupid' is too harsh for you, can we at least agree that these tragedies are the fault of the individuals, not of society, road layout, the government, the council, etc?

You'll notice I made examples of multiple categories because I wasn't trying to single out any group, but to point out that raw collision figures don't tell the whole story, because some of those tragedies depended on stupid behaviour of the individuals involved, not on the inherently dangerous nature of the form of transport, of the city, or of whatever else.

> [...]HGVs with huge blind spots that cyclists

> are not aware of;

Cyclists are not aware of blind spots? If they aren't, it's their fault! I won't mention common sense, but, with all the publicity involved, and with 99% of large vehicles (busses, vans, etc) displaying huge stickers warning cyclists not to undertake because of blind spots, I really struggle to see how any cyclist with half a brain cell couldn't possibly be aware of blind spots. Oh, by the way, blind spots are one of the first things taught to those learning to ride a motorcycle.

> [...] What you term "stupid behaviour" may actually be a

> logical outcome of those factors.

I didn't exactly follow every single point you raised, but, yes, of course, there are accidents which are not the cyclist's fault. This is self-evident. I have never said the opposite!

The point stands: cyclists and motorcyclists should stay back when a large vehicle is turning. They have no excuse not to!

[rendelharris]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

The examples I

> made were of clear cases in which the bus lane was

> removed to make way for a segregated cycle lane,

> which has two effects: buses waste time entering

> and exiting the bus lane (when the bus lane ends,

> they have to move to the right into another lane,

> and this wastes time), and of course they no

> longer have a lane to themselves. This is the case

> from Oval to Vauxhall, and on Vauxhall Bridge

> southbound. I think they're doing something

> similar along Hyde Park, between Marble Arch and

> Bayswater, too.

This is exactly what I mean about people misremembering what was there before. Have a look at Vauxhall Bridge on Google earth, the satellite image is pre-cycle lane. You'll see that there are four traffic lanes and a bus lane heading north. There never was a bus lane heading south. Vauxhall Bridge still has four lanes and a northbound bus lane, exactly as it did before, plus now it has a cycle lane. The space for the cycle lane was achieved by removal of the central reservation and narrowing the existing lanes slightly. You see, you're so convinced that the cycle lane has "stolen" a bus lane you've imagined a bus lane where one never was! Look, I'll save you the trouble:

Pre-cycle-lane:

http://i.imgur.com/1kgqKic.jpg?1

Four lanes and a northbound bus lane.

Post-cycle-lane:

http://i.imgur.com/pepEZOe.jpg?1

Four lanes and a northbound bus lane and a cycle lane.

[DulwichLondoner]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> If this is where you live then THIS IS WHERE YOU

> LIVE and not a dormitory. For myself I find it

> hard to credit that anyone would leave these leafy

> environs for Earlsfield.

Why? It's a genuine question - don't misunderstand me.

In fact, we all sort of got off-topic a bit, debating cycle lanes and alternative travel options; my initial intention was to compare thoughts and opinions on other areas, on why people chose those areas over East Dulwich or viceversa, etc.

I am not sure what you mean by "this is where you live". I am not married to East Dulwich. My vows were to my wife, not to Dulwich! :)

> You have presented a prolonged argument for a

> ready made decision inviting validation.

No. See above. I may have been a bit unclear, but I wanted was to compare thoughts and opinions on other areas. Something like:

"Area X has good schools but almost no high street.

Area Y has good links but no parks"

Something to help me make a more informed decision.

With respect to East Dulwich, I like the state schools, the parks, the baby-friendly activities (at the libraries, at the local pools, etc) and the high street is OK. I don't like the transport links, and am terrified that the SouthernFail shambles will continue for a very long time.

I very much doubt it will be possible to find a clone of East Dulwich, with much better transport links, and comparable prices! Of course I'd have to compromise on something.

Earlsfield is an option I considered because the trains are way more frequent and AFAIK more reliable. Commuting and getting around by public transport at weekends (to Victoria, Southbank, battersea Park, Putney and all the area easily reachable from Clapham Junction) would be much easier. Parks are nice there, too. The high street sucks compared to Lordship Lane, so that would be a compromise. Schools are a big question mark; I get the impression Wandsworth schools are more oversubscribed than those in ED, but need to look into it. Of course there may be some major flaw about Earslfield I have overlooked - this is the whole reason for this post!

We considered Forest Hill and Tulse Hill before buying in ED, but the prices there seemed almost identical; we like ED better, and at the time the connections in ED didn't seem worse.

[DulwichLondoner]

rendelharris Wrote:

> There never was a bus lane heading south.

> Vauxhall Bridge still has four lanes and a

> northbound bus lane, exactly as it did before,

> plus now it has a cycle lane. The space for the

> cycle lane was achieved by removal of the central

> reservation and narrowing the existing lanes

> slightly.

In the image you posted, the red lane is the northbound bus lane. Isn't the greyish one the southbound bus lane?

It's not too clear from your picture, but if you go on google earth and zoom to the maximum, you will actually see the text "bus lane" in the southbound greyish lane, too.

Also, this PDF from TFL's website mentions that "Segregated two-way cycle track replaces central eastbound bus lane"

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/cycling/79cb7538/user_uploads/section-4---vauxhall-bridge.pdf

[rendelharris]

Bugger, I do believe you're right. I could have sworn there was a central reservation there. I concede my error (about that, not about the general goodness of cycle lanes!).

Having enjoyably dragged the thread off topic a bit, back on topic Earlsfield is a total hole, soulless, terrible traffic, crap pubs...yes the rail is good but moving somewhere just for the rail is a bit like they used to say about Birmingham, the best thing about it is it's easy to get out of.

[Elphinstone's Army]

Thank you RH for having the bottle to say what I was too dainty in describing .. Earlsfield ! Garrett Lane? a poor relation of Clapham and Wandsworth Common, souless, absolutely. This is what I mean by one cannot have everything. You get one or the other but not both.

and.. to paraphrase Joni Mitchell - or is it Melanie Safka, 'You don't know what you've got till it's gone'

RH the mayor should employ you as the Cycle Czar (or is there something you are not telling us?!)

[DulwichLondoner]

Fair points about Earlsfield :)

How do you people feel about Balham, assuming we can stretch our budget to buy there (not certain)? The high street seems comparable to Lordship Lane. We would probably not use the tube for commuting, just the train, and the fact it's Southern scares me.

[jimlad48]

I work in Whitehall, and found that it took me the same time to train from DMK and tube from Blackfriars, train to Victoria and walk, bus in via various routes, or just run home (all took about 40 minutes).

I end up running home a lot as its free exercise and cheaper!

[rendelharris]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> RH the mayor should employ you as the Cycle Czar

> (or is there something you are not telling us?!)

I wish - I'd do it for nowt!

DL - Balham's certainly much nicer than Earlsfield, but you'd need a really substantial extra wedge to exchange like for like with ED (obviously that goes double the closer to Clapham Common one looks). Have you thought of Brixton? I lived there years ago and liked it, and you have tube and train...don't know what the prices are like though these days. I often cycle through Josephine Avenue at the top of Brixton Water Lane and think what a lovely street it would be to live on.

[DulwichLondoner]

Not sure about primary schools in Brixton, though, compared to ED, Earlsfield and Balham

[Elphinstone's Army]

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> Fair points about Earlsfield :)

> How do you people feel about Balham, assuming we

> can stretch our budget to buy there (not certain)?

> The high street seems comparable to Lordship Lane.

> We would probably not use the tube for commuting,

> just the train, and the fact it's Southern scares

> me.

I lived in Balham, in a garden flat in Ritherdon Road, twixt the Main drag and Bedford Hill quiet and leafy.

A good choice of transport, tube, train and bus and on road parking. Balham Tooting Bec/Broadway is busy, traffic full, frequent buses. There is a Waitrose near Clapham Common and Sainsbury in Balham. There are fine tall houses, surrounded by and close to commons,

something of an oasis and constantly improving.

[DulwichLondoner]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

> I lived in Balham, in a garden flat in Ritherdon

> Road,

How long ago was this? Did you find catching the tube on weekdays was feasible? We would probably commute by train, but, just to get your thoughts. We know people who live in Clapham and commute by bike or bus because they say there is no point in even trying to take the Northern line in the morning.

Do you have experience of the Balham to Victoria line? Reliable?

In what do you find ED different compared to Balham?

[Elphinstone's Army]

It is a while ago since I lived in Balham, which is northern line, fed up coming home with a face full of smuts - the northern line is the deepest. Yes it was busy, I cannot honestly say if the Balham to Victoria line is

reliable nowadays, sorry. I found the buses to be better, for me, to Clapham Junction and then onwards.

East Dulwich is a good place to be, it is civilised, between parks, good schools,

and the wondrous Horniman museum and Gardens a walk/busride away and an arty crafty network and most importantly for many of us, it is a safe area, the occasional mugging notwithstanding.

And a mix of ages, backgrounds, social and economic.

East Dulwich has made itself what it is.. years ago it was a well dodgy area and pubs you would avoid, as described by

locals here most descriptively.

That image has long been discarded.

The EDF is largely responsible for the taming of the streets, and resourcefulness and self policing of its usually worthy and good citizens, and Foxy on the prowl, keeping our streets in order.

I don't believe that the Police Station should have abandoned us without a replacement and allowed burglaries and thefts of and from cars and motor bikes to proliferate, but that will peter out soon when we tighten our security.

I have no idea what the crime rates are in Balham but there are sites which advise of this?

If you are resolved to move then I would think that Balham is a good bet. There is a thread up somewhere of 'where to go after East Dulwich' with some worthy suggestions amongst the more unusual ones from ED wags.

I hope this helps.

[????]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

>

>

>

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

> ago it was a well dodgy area and pubs you would

> avoid, as described by

> locals here most descriptively.

> That image has long been discarded.

>

>

This is bullshit - the painting of East Dulwich as some inner city hellhole and Dickensian rookery before gentrification is enough to make me join Louisa's corner

[steveo]

Although, you wouldn't have gone into the back room of the Magdala without a cosh

[titch juicy]

steveo Wrote:

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

> Although, you wouldn't have gone into the back

> room of the Magdala without a cosh

Is that an elaborate euphemism?

[Elphinstone's Army]

???? Wrote

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

> Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> >

> >

> >

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

> > ago it was a well dodgy area and pubs you would

> > avoid, as described by

> > locals here most descriptively.

> > That image has long been discarded.

> >

> >

> This is bullshit - the painting of East Dulwich as

> some inner city hellhole and Dickensian rookery

> before gentrification is enough to make me join

> Louisa's corner

suit yourself - years ago I knew someone who worked on Railton Road and would only come to LL with 'one of the lads'

I don't think it's bs and I don't appreciate your hostile tone

Besides which I did not paint LL in the terms you describe, as an inner city hellhole what nonsense, join Louisa's corner, and anyone else who lived/worked/loved here during the seventies.

and do not be using Louisa as a prop

[Otta]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

>

> Also the constant stop-start movement (and

> frequent poor driving) makes me feel sick, and

> certainly rules out book/kindle/phone/tablet.

That's a fair point, the start/stop, jerking motion can make me feel pretty queasey, and I curse the drivers sometimes. 176 seems particularly bad for this for some reason.

[Otta]

Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

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

> ???? Wrote

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

> -----

> > Elphinstone's Army Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

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

> years

> > > ago it was a well dodgy area and pubs you

> would

> > > avoid, as described by

> > > locals here most descriptively.

> > > That image has long been discarded.

> > >

> > >

> > This is bullshit - the painting of East Dulwich

> as

> > some inner city hellhole and Dickensian rookery

> > before gentrification is enough to make me join

> > Louisa's corner

>

>

> suit yourself - years ago I knew someone who

> worked on Railton Road and would only come to LL

> with 'one of the lads'

>

> I don't think it's bs and I don't appreciate your

> hostile tone

>

> Besides which I did not paint LL in the terms you

> describe, as an inner city hellhole what nonsense,

> join Louisa's corner, and anyone else who

> lived/worked/loved here during the seventies.

>

> and do not be using Louisa as a prop

I was born and grew up in East Dulwich, and can confirm that whilst it wasn't the (dull) ED of today, it was never particularly rough. The Mag (as Steveo says) was the pub my old man told me to avoid, but ED was never a rough area.

[Louisa]

I also can confirm ED has never been a 'rough' area, working class yes, rough no. I guess it depends on what your depiction of 'rough' is. Some people call Penge and Sydenham 'rough', but I find them useful shopping centres with far more to do than around here. Horses for courses I suppose.

Louisa.