Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just received a letter from TFL about the proposed extension of the No. 42 bus route through Red Post Hill, East Dulwich Grove and Grove Vale as far as Sainsburys - currently it terminates on Sunray Avenue. It's a good addition to our local bus services. You can have your say here (consultation closes March 6th):

https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/buses/bus-route-42?cid=route-42

Very interesting as this provides a potential new commuting route into the city for lots of people in East Dulwich, but the proposed extension could be vastly improved.


TFL propose making Sainsburys the terminus for buses travelling north, after which the bus returns south, loops through North Dulwich and Red Post Hill and continues north to Liverpool St:

http://i63.tinypic.com/2qwfxwo.png


It would be better for East Dulwich if the bus went north from Sainsbury's, completing the loop. Then any residents between East Dulwich Grove and Dog Kennel Hill could catch no. 42 travelling north into the city.


If you would like to express interest in this altered route, either e-mail TFL at [email protected] or fill in the online survey at tfl.gov.uk/route-42.


Deadline for submitting views is 6 March 2016.

Thanks for this - I have responded via the online survey. I am in favour and also thought that this had already been agreed some time ago, however I cannot see how a double decker will be able to use Red Post Hill, even if the traffic islands are removed - it is very narrow with cars parked on both sides and I can imagine tail backs and hold ups if there are double deckers having to pass from opposite directions, or indeed a double decker and the P4 or large truck.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Is a double decker wider than the current single

> decker 42s? Sunray Avenue has similar parking

> issues.


Yes but currently only the 42 goes down (and not up) Sunray Avenue, whereas Red Post Hill already has the P4 going both ways and the 42 going up.

Blackcurrant Wrote:


>

> It would be better for East Dulwich if the bus

> went north from Sainsbury's, completing the loop.

> Then any residents between East Dulwich Grove and

> Dog Kennel Hill could catch no. 42 travelling

> north into the city.

>

No, please, no. There are already lots of buses going North up DKH- like the 176, 185, 484 and 40 to name just four.


The great thing about the proposed route it gives real options to residents within reach of East Dulwich Grove so that they can have realistic commuting options. There is ony the 37 going along EDG and that basically goes West not North


Plus, for people needing to visit either Dulwich Hospital or King's Coll. Hosp. it will be a real plus.

Looks a good idea and especially for the elderly living on the Sunray Estate wanting to get to Sainsburys.


Like sanity girl I can see traffic tailbacks and chaos on Red Post Hill though if the route from Sunray Avenue is taken away. Can't imagine two double deckers trying to pass each other on the hill.

Duvaller Wrote:

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

> minder Wrote:

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

> -----

> Can't imagine two double deckers trying to pass each other on the hill.

>

> All the buses are the same width ie 2.54m , 8'6".


I regularly follow P4 and (single decker) 42 up Red Post Hill and it is a tight squeeze for them around the traffic islands.

Apart from the width does a double decker have the same length and turning circle as current single deckers on the route? If not then changes may well be needed.

slarti b Wrote:

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

> Duvaller Wrote:

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

> -----

> > minder Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > Can't imagine two double deckers trying to

> pass each other on the hill.

> >

> > All the buses are the same width ie 2.54m ,

> 8'6".

>

> I regularly follow P4 and (single decker) 42 up

> Red Post Hill and it is a tight squeeze for them

> around the traffic islands.

> Apart from the width does a double decker have the

> same length and turning circle as current single

> deckers on the route? If not then changes may

> well be needed.


Agreed, the traffic islands are detrimental to flow because the parking spaces are too close to them. A bit of adjustment would solve the problem.

Just to clarify, the consultation addresses the issue of traffic islands:


"In order to facilitate the extension along Red Post Hill, we would need to make alterations to the traffic islands to enable buses to use the road. We would also need to extend the double yellow lines at the bottom Red Post Hill junction with Sunray Avenue, to enable buses to easily continue serving along Red Post Hill.


The length of the disabled parking bay on Red Post Hill junction with Denmark Hill will need to be reduced. However, this reduction in length will still allow one vehicle to park in this bay."

Since the Southwark lunatics installed those daft chicanes at enormous cost in Red Post Hill, there are already huge problems with congestion with vehicles trying to squeeze through dangerously small gaps. Double deckers would be a complete non starter methinks.

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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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