Borough market to disappear?

[Giles]

In the real world, people do have choices. They weigh up the numerous factors that lead to making a particular decision.

There don't seem to be any natural limits to the distance people will travel to do something, only to the amount of time and money they're prepared to spend. Given that all transport has significant environmental costs (though ironically generates positive wealth), trying to suppress demand for transport is a good thing.

Is it a right or fair way to make people do what you want?

Of course, and it happens all the time. The more that the cost to individuals is aligned with the external costs of something, the better.

But just making people's necessary journeys difficult - presumably by making the trains overcrowded, infrequent or uncomfortable etc, is just plain nasty.

And who decides how much they can charge other people for the "environment"?

Giles..

 

[untethered]

But just making people's necessary journeys difficult - presumably by making the trains overcrowded, infrequent or uncomfortable etc, is just plain nasty.

And who decides how much they can charge other people for the "environment"?

From an environmental perspective, I'd rather have people on the train than in their cars. But it's often forgotten that trains have environmental costs, too.

It's not about being "nasty", it's about trying to get people to act in a way that's long term sustainable.

Without looking at this particular project in detail, it's hard to say what the right approach is. However, I know that the wrong approach is always to make people's journeys as cheap, quick and comfortable as possible. That inevitably leads to transport growth, which is bad.

Who decides? It's a public debate. I'm contributing my view, not trying to enforce it on the country.

 

[Roadkill]

From an environmental perspective, I'd rather have people on the train than in their cars. But it's often forgotten that trains have environmental costs, too.

Not nearly as much as cars do, and if we want more people to use trains then we have to start eliminating some of the bottlenecks in the network - of which London Bridge is one of the worst.

Building a couple of new tracks there wouldn't destroy the market altogether, and I think forcing it to give up a bit of space is a reasonable price to pay for much quicker rail journey times in London and the south east.

 

[editor]

Pics here: http://www.urban75.org/london/borough-market.html

 

[dash]

I like walking through the market at night. It's got a lot of atmosphere. Can't be bothered with it during the day, too expensive for me.

 

[kyser_soze]

Fucks sake, it's going to knock down a couple of old buildings (cos there's a shortage of those in London) and force the market to replan slightly. In return for which London Bridge station will be able to handle a higher throughput of passengers.

Cannot believe the NIMBYISM here - in favour of expanding public transport so long as it doesn't involve making any actual changes to bits of London we like...

 

[zoltan]

Londons public Transport needs will always take precedence over overpriced cheeses in my book.

 

[maximilian ping]

eek

i wish we could change the title of the thread cos its all wrong.

 

[Roadkill]

Fucks sake, it's going to knock down a couple of old buildings (cos there's a shortage of those in London) and force the market to replan slightly. In return for which London Bridge station will be able to handle a higher throughput of passengers.

Cannot believe the NIMBYISM here - in favour of expanding public transport so long as it doesn't involve making any actual changes to bits of London we like...

In fairness, it'd be nice to think they'd do it reasonably sensitively; try and blend the new viaduct in with its surroundings a bit rather than just plonking a great slab of concrete across the site of the market. But yes, it does need to be done.

 

[kyser_soze]

I dunno - if they tried to do that you'd end up with some awful pastiche of Victorian heavy bridging work, and it's not like the area is of outstanding beauty, natural or otherwise really.

I suppose they could spray all the nice steel brown or something, to attempt to merge it with the brickwork...

 

[maximilian ping]

Pics here: http://www.urban75.org/london/borough-market.html

good pics. i love this part of London. southwark cathedral is very welcoming - did some carol singing there at xmas one lunchtime (fuck knows what got into me). i like the way everyone starts turning into feeding frenzy sharks stuffing food in their gobs and it going all over their chins in the market

 

[beeboo]

In fairness, it'd be nice to think they'd do it reasonably sensitively; try and blend the new viaduct in with its surroundings a bit rather than just plonking a great slab of concrete across the site of the market. But yes, it does need to be done.

There's a bit of an 'artists impression' below (I don't know if these are 'official' or not, they're from the anti-viaduct campaign website).

I've seen prettier things, but looking at the existing viaduct behind reminds you that similar scale structures are very much part of the area. In fact I think the whole viaduct thing with the trains rattling overhead is big part of the character of the market.

Hopefully the local interest groups can accept that the viaduct is going to go ahead and have a constructive dialogue with the developers to help agree a design which is the most acceptable to them, rather than being obstructive.

 

[Roadkill]

I don't think that looks too bad at all. It's reasonably in keeping with the existing viaducts, and it's a whole lot better than some sort of concrete motorway-flyover-style bridge.

Hopefully the local interest groups can accept that the viaduct is going to go ahead and have a constructive dialogue with the developers to help agree a design which is the most acceptable to them, rather than being obstructive.

Agreed, but I reckon a fair few of them will dig their heels in and refuse to co-operate.

 

[beeboo]

Agreed, but I reckon a fair few of them will dig their heels in and refuse to co-operate.

Exactly. If they accept the viaduct in principle and play their hand well, they've got a good chance to get some positive developments for the area out of this - the cost of throwing in a few extra 'sweeteners' for the area are going to be a drop in the ocean of the Thameslink 2000 budget.

It's really frustrating when people just go into 'anti' stance and become obstructive to that kind of extent.

 

[johnnypd]

But people need to travel.

Unless we all start working within walking distance of our houses.

and in the 60s/70s the powers that be thought it was absolutely essential to build a motorway through Covent Garden - another historic marketplace. The existing bridges round Borough add some character to the area but Crossrail is overkill.

 

[beeboo]

and in the 60s/70s the powers that be thought it was absolutely essential to build a motorway through Covent Garden - another historic marketplace. The existing bridges round Borough add some character to the area but Crossrail is overkill.

Thameslink 2000 - Crossrail is something entirely different

 

[johnnypd]

Thameslink 2000 - Crossrail is something entirely different

oops, thanks for the correction.

 

[Monkeynuts]

Well, Crossrail is underground of course.

Thameslink isn't exactly overkill. For the addition of one bridge you get a dramatic increase in capacity on the national rail network. Most of the market will not be touched.

All it is is widening the existing route a tadge so that it is something like wide enough to stop causing so many problems. It isn't like sticking a whole new motorway through Oxleas Wood, or making Fleet St eight lanes or something.

 

[kyser_soze]

Incidentally, will this extension enable TOCs to run trains from the North, thru London via Kings X, out to the South via Ldn Bridge?

 

[Monkeynuts]

Far as I know it's mainly for (an expanded) Thameslink but it would be possible, yes.

There is also the other N-S cross London route too via Olympia and Clapham Junction that I'm sure could be better used.

 

[PacificOcean]

There is also the other N-S cross London route too via Olympia and Clapham Junction that I'm sure could be better used.

That doesn't link with the tube though (I know they have built a new station at Shepherd's Bush, but it's not exactly Central London)

Willsden Junction to Clapham Junction just seems a pointless route.

 

[kyser_soze]

That doesn't link with the tube though (I know they have built a new station at Shepherd's Bush, but it's not exactly Central London)

Willsden Junction to Clapham Junction just seems a pointless route.

Yeah it does - the Olympia branch line from Earl's Court terminates there.

And you'd be amazed at the potential number of people who currently have to go X-central who'd rather take a more direct route. It's the same as the Silverlink - I think it should be extended over the river to S. London so there's an overland 'Outer Circle' line...

 

[Monkeynuts]

That doesn't link with the tube though (I know they have built a new station at Shepherd's Bush, but it's not exactly Central London)

Willsden Junction to Clapham Junction just seems a pointless route.

District goes to Olympia and West Brompton - ? Not great I know.

That section is a bit pointless yes but trains do go through, to Manchester and to Brighton via Gatwick. So it could be a great way of getting through London without the hassle of changing, for some people.

 

[Monkeynuts]

KS, we must stop this double act

 

[kyser_soze]

What we should do, along with Garf and a couple of others, is storm the GLA and declare ourselves Transport Overlords of London, line any dissenting councillors up against a wall and enact our fantasy transport policies for the capital...

 

[chegrimandi]

its a yuppy infested, rip-off over priced market for people with too much money....

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

It has become very trendy, very expensive and very crowded and appears to be moving upmarket at a worrying rate of knots.

A victim of its own success, perhaps?

Yeah, it used to be worth going there but I just don't see the point anymore. Only fancy stuff at crazy prices (even for fancy stuff) now.

 

[PacificOcean]

Olympia doesn't count as a tube connection as it's a branch line to Earl's Court with a only 20 to 30 minute service.

West Brompton is zone 2 and is on the wrong line for the West End or the City.

 

[Monkeynuts]

Olympia doesn't count as a tube connection as it's a branch line to Earl's Court with a only 20 to 30 minute service.

West Brompton is zone 2 and is on the wrong line for the West End or the City.

You're back pedalling now. First you said it wasn't on the Tube... now it's not on the "right Tube"!

West Brompton is on a branch, granted...but that line does indeed go to the W End(ish - Embankment) and the City.

KS and I will be adding you to our list for compulsory transport re-education when we take charge

Remember though that cross-London links are not just for those in London, but also for those who want to go somewhere else with minimum fuss. In fact, we already have plenty of lines to cross the city so it is probably more for those coming from outside. The less they get enmeshed in all the fuss of central London the better from their perspective, and it also relieves the pressure on the system to our benefit.

Hence it may be better that such routes skirt the centre, no disadvantage at all that they cross in Zone 2.

 

[trashpony]

Yeah it does - the Olympia branch line from Earl's Court terminates there.

And you'd be amazed at the potential number of people who currently have to go X-central who'd rather take a more direct route. It's the same as the Silverlink - I think it should be extended over the river to S. London so there's an overland 'Outer Circle' line...

Did you know they've killed the silverlink from stratford to woolwich?