Tram

[Undisputedtruth]

The business case behind the Bakerloo line extension is to increase capacity to Charing Cross from other routes.

Anyone who have read the 'green light for trams' document will know that trams are a very cost effective option and more importantly a green mode of travelling. There is no reason why there should be a conflict between cyclists, cars and trams with appropriate traffic management technology. More trams on the road means a greater number of buses off the roads. Trams are cheaper to run than buses. Cost of trams can be offset by the cost of running a bus service. All trams are electrified and so no harmful gas emissions for people to breathe in.

The Edinburgh tram fiasco is a project management problem rather than tram chosen as a mode of transport option.

[eddie]

Ken Livingston once told us the Olympics would cost ?2.2b. Now the costs are running at about ?11b. So we are told ?55m to build a tram link. Get real. That would just be the management fee!!

[Michael Palaeologus]

The tram for Euston to Peckham was cancelled because there was no money for it. It was a Ken Livingstone pipe dream created as an election teaser.

I like the idea of trams, the route for the Euston-Peckham route seemed do-able, just need to find the cash.

St Thomas' to Guys seems to be a very short and limited route. To justify the investment a longer route would be needed to generate more income.

[computedshorty]

A bit in the future but has anybody come up with the Cable Car Link, from the top of the Salvation Army Memorial Tower facing Denmark Hill Station using high rise buildings along the way to The Shard Tower close to London Bridge Station and the Hospital.

[Jeremy]

It wouldn't make sense if the north terminal wasn't at a major central London interchange (i.e. Waterloo or London Bridge). Kings is close enough to Denmark Hill to consider it an interchange with mainline rail and Overground services.

[Jeremy]

computedshorty - nice idea, but I'd prefer a Barclaycard-style water slide!

[henryb]

> The Edinburgh tram fiasco is a project management

> problem rather than tram chosen as a mode of

> transport option.

Exactly. The Croydon Tramlink is a better comparison as it is in South London. I think that came in around 200m - 125m from the tax payer and it is more extensive than this project. It has been a huge success.

[Michael Palaeologus]

The problem with the Croydon Tramlink has been the short sightedness of the Councils! Various attemps have been made to expand the tram network, but neighbouring Borough are unwilling to cooperate because it is the "Croydon Tramlink".

[Undisputedtruth]

The Croydon tramlink goes to Wimbledon, located in Merton borough of London, since its inception.

[henryb]

You really think neighbouring councils aren't supporting tramlink because they don't want be associated with Croydon? Croydon it is not *that* bad.

[James Barber]

The proposed Southwark Supertram (http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/2012/07/20/catch-22-a-southwark-tram/)is effectively a pilot to show how trams could be reintroduced for a very low cost in London. If successful I would hope it would be extended.

Trams across Europe have and are being built for this price, ?55m for 5.5km.

Why should Brits be any less capable civil engineers?

Why London Bridge to Kings/Maudsley Hosps? All contained within one borough + TfL who control Borough High Street and E&C. Without any need for compulsory land purchases it would only need planning permission and not a Transpoer & Works Act making the overall process significantly simpler and shorter.

Why now? Trampower have virtually all the permissions they need to build their first line in Preston, Emirates Air Line was largely funded privately, coalition govt. have issued policies promoting trams. Until Trampower are building in Preston it will suffer credibility problems. The trampower appreciate and understand this.

This contrasts with the previous Cross River Tram that involved five boroughs + TfL and one of the boroughs Camden refused to have a tram gonig there. The costs ratched up from ?200 to ?1.5bn with over 40% set aside for contingency - the joys of public funding. They spent over ?50m just on the project team for so many wasted years!

A private enterprise can't afford such waste.

[Undisputedtruth]

James,

Are you able to suggest possible extensions to the scheme? Considering that the city is close by in the north and the tram could link to Forest Hill, with their London Overground service and possible future DLR service, in the south.

What are the risks, in terms of the public purse, to Southwark Council?

Will the utility companies be a potential spoiler in the project?

[neilson99]

Copy and paste from the Tram Power PR dept James? An explanation of the potential benefits to residents would be handy. In would imagine that would be the first place to start, though perhaps the reason why none are stated above is obvious.

To your point about why should Brits be any less capable civil engineers? Well who knows, but the evidence is there that we aren't - why did the cost of Wembley, the Olympics infrastructure, not to mention Cross Link, the Jubilee line (one could go on) spiral so fantastically out of control?

[healey]

Agree with those who argue that it would be better to push for the Camberwell extension to the Bakerloo Line that has been talked about for the last 60 years. They even statrted work on it before the war.

[Jeremy]

healey Wrote:

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

> Agree with those who argue that it would be better

> to push for the Camberwell extension to the Bakerloo Line

Yes that would be great. But it's like saying that you'd rather have an Aston Martin than a Citroen. No point pushing for something which is blatantly not going to happen.

[Michael Palaeologus]

The idea of an extension to the Bakerloo line is great, but very expensive and so not going to happen in our lifetimes. Trams are cheaper to install and run. OK, they take up road space, but if that squeezes cars off the road and people onto public transport, that is good.

[James Barber]

The Bakerloo line should be extended. It is a no brainer in theory.

But the proposed extension of the Northern Line from Kennington to Battersea was costed at ?250m but within two years once London Underground were involved has become ?500m.

The DLR was extended 2.5km, roughly the distance E&C to Camberwell, for ?180m including everything. DLR tunnels are much bigger than Bakerloo tunnels or Northern Line tunnels.

So bizarre London Underground unable to price match the DLR tunnelling but they can't.

So I don't see the Bakerloo Line being extended soon with London Underground being involved.

So the tram proposal is precisely because the Bakerloo Line will not be extended any time soon.

[neilson99]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> The idea of an extension to the Bakerloo line is

> great, but very expensive and so not going to

> happen in our lifetimes. Trams are cheaper to

> install and run. OK, they take up road space, but

> if that squeezes cars off the road and people onto

> public transport, that is good.

Good for you personally perhaps. You might want to ask those people who have to drive - I'm sure that most people who don't use public transport every day for every trip, drive out of choice - I certainly don't.

There are people who have to drive as public transport won't get them to where they need to be, or back again, quickly, or convenientlty enough.

I appreciate cars etc have their down sides but a broader view on this rather than a biased myopic tree hugging frenzy by those that live and work within a 3 mile radius of their homes would refreshing.

[henryb]

Reducing traffic and the number of car journeys benefits everyone - including car commuters. If you drive around a European city with an extensive trams network you'll find it quite easy.

[Undisputedtruth]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

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

> The idea of an extension to the Bakerloo line is

> great, but very expensive and so not going to

> happen in our lifetimes. Trams are cheaper to

> install and run. OK, they take up road space, but

> if that squeezes cars off the road and people onto

> public transport, that is good.

MP, I sometimes wonder if too much m&s food has affected your judgement! The Bakerloo line extensions offers significant benefits. No one disputes this. Network Rail is supportive of this scheme as it will allow decongestion and greater reliability on trains running through the Lewisham area. TfL have said that the Bakerloo construction work could start in 2020 at the earliest. Funding for the Bakerloo line could be obtained in 2017 when the government decides on the next round of spending. These information are in the public domain.

And by the way MP, the Croydon tramlink already goes to Bromley and Merton boroughs, in answer to one of your earliest post.

[Jeremy]

could start in 2020 at the earliest

Oh silly me. Sounds like a dead cert.

[Nero]

Trams are good but expensive. Guided bus systems are much cheaper and do more or less the same job. A Bakerloo extension to Denmark Hill or beyond would be a dream. Is it actually being thought of or just a 'what if' dreamt up by transport geeks?

[Undisputedtruth]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> could start in 2020 at the earliest

>

> Oh silly me. Sounds like a dead cert.

Unlike this statement "so not going to happen in our lifetimes".

Perhaps you don't understand how governance works, silly you, where reports after reports are commissioned before a final announcement is made on a major transport project. Crossrail, as an example, was not the result of a knee jerk reaction.

Is it actually being thought of or just a 'what if' dreamt up by transport geeks?

The Bakerloo project has gone beyond the thought process for quite some time, Nero.

Trams are good but expensive.

There are no documents to support the idea that trams are an expensive mode of transport compared to buses. All the evidence suggests trams are more cost effective mode of 21st century transport.

[Zak]

No word from James as yet in defence of his inspired idea - although I'm sure he's following this thread very closely.

In the right place trams are great, but there's little evidence to suggest that what is being proposed is the right place and furthermore the gearing of benefits to likley cost seems exceptionally poor.

This may sound a little uncharitable, but I can't help feeling that this is as much about promoting James Barber, as it is about promoting trams.

If you're interested in a low cost eco-friendly transport solution, James, how about a new 21st century trolly bus route? That would be a first!

[Zak]

Oops, looks like I missed a few posts and particular the comments from James.