Bakerloo Line extension petition through Camberwell and Peckham

[cle]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> I hate the way that we look at it as some sort of

> gift from 'developer money', when in fact it's a

> massive taxpayer subsidy for investment

> properties. How about the tax we pay being used to

> provide us with transport services, minus the

> siphoning off of loads of it from vested private

> interests.

>

> cle Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Is 2.5k homes that big a deal compared to

> > the existing population of Walworth and

> > Camberwell? I hate this obsession with

> > regeneration and new developments - god forbid

> > anyone builds something to serve a

> long-standing

> > area. I know it's for developer money

> primarily,

> > but also an obsession with shiny new rubbish.

> Are

> > there no developer-ready sites along the

> Walworth

> > Road catchment?

Exactly. See Nine Elms and why that bloody Northern Line extension is going there instead of down Camberwell New Road or Brixton Road, for example.

[Earl Aelfheah]

The northern line extension is ridiculous. It provides a couple of extra stops were there is little existing demand, at massive public cost and with the main people to profit being property speculators. It also diverts the line off it's natural course, driving it into a dead end with little opportunity for future extension.

Still residents of Camberwell, whilst crawling along the Walworth Road on the 176, can at least ponder how their taxes are helping boost some Singaporeans investment portfolio.

[JamesViktor]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The northern line extension is ridiculous. It

> provides a couple of extra stops were there is

> little existing demand, at massive public cost and

> with the main people to profit being property

> speculators. It also diverts the line off it's

> natural course, driving it into a dead end with

> little opportunity for future extension.

>

> Still residents of Camberwell, whilst crawling

> along the Walworth Road on the 176, can at least

> ponder how their taxes are helping boost some

> Singaporeans investment portfolio.

I'll agree with that. Instead of having 2 Bakerloo branches, the Northern could have gone to Camberwell and Peckham and then to Lewisham, and the Bakerloo the Walworth, Old Kent Road route.

[cle]

It is ludicrous. It doesn't even stop at Vauxhall, which might have been vaguely useful. Even if it does go to Clapham Junction one day, they already have about 50 trains each hour to Waterloo and Vauxhall!

I hate the Northern line compared to others, but certainly wouldn't kick it out of bed. Camberwell would have been such a natural extension from Kennington. A station running under C New Road could have interchanged with a new Thameslink station by The Bear at one end, with a station at the Green at the other end.

[michael_FH]

I still don't see why, if the issue is better transport links for Camberwell, that an extra stop between Loughborough Junction and Elephant and Castle is not a better (cheaper) solution. With trains passing over Camberwell every five minutes, I don't really see that a new line is the best solution for this location (when Old Kent Road is an alternative). Can anybody explain this underground need at Camberwell to me?

With Crossrail 2 looking like more of a certainty, and deliberately designed to relieve overcrowding on the Victoria line, it would make sense to reconsider a Brixton Overground station as part of this programme. To provide orbital connections from a major inner London town centre, and better connections to West London/West End from South East London.

The extension of DLR from Lewisham to Catford would be tricky, but logical if it can be achieved (and supported by large development opportunities). Taking DLR much further would be counterproductive due to capacity issues.

Extension of Overground from New Cross to Lewisham, possibly terminating at Hither Green, would make use of an otherwise pointless branch line. But should not be at the expense of existing longer trains into London Bridge.

With all these lower cost solutions out the way, we can consider how best to use Bakerloo line extension. And I continue to believe this would be best in a tunnel to provide high frequency service without impact other (longer) train services above ground.

Possible Routes (from north to south):

1. Jubilee line relief - Down to Old Kent Road, then across to Isle of Dogs, and possible down to Sidcup or anywhere else

2. Lewisham (there is little value continuing beyond Lewisham following existing routes that have sufficient capacity for the next 20 years)

3. Catford route via Old Kent Road, Crofton Park, Catford and continue underground to Bromley town centre

4. Forest Hill route via Old Kent Road, Peckham Rye, Barry Road, Forest Hill, and on to Beckenham

5. Crystal Palace route via the Old Kent Road and underground following the old High Level Line

My view is that route 1 is a missed opportunity (although demand may justify it), route 2 is a waste of an opportunity (just like Nine Elms route of Northern Line). Routes 3-5 make more sense, 5 is particularly sensible if there are major plans to rebuild Crystal Palace.

But I would support any route through South East London if it increased capacity on the rail network.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here is a map with a 0.5 mile radius around every train and tube station. You'll notice a hole:

http://i1153.photobucket.com/albums/p519/mclellanstuart/Untitled_zps9966a58a.jpg

[Earl Aelfheah]

Three notable holes in transport provision in inner South London - Brixton Hill, the South of East Dulwich, and North Camberwell / Walworth. North Camberwell probably has the highest population density of the three is the largest 'hole' as well as the most central:

http://i1153.photobucket.com/albums/p519/mclellanstuart/Untitled_zps5ca3bacb.png

[Zebedee Tring]

I live in the south part of East Dulwich, i.e. one of the transport "holes". So much therefore for the person on this thread who said that it would be a "shame" if the Bakerloo Line was extended via The Plough to Forest Hill (unlikely though this might be).

[Earl Aelfheah]

The option to extend via Burgess Park, Honor Oak and onto the Hayes line, clearly makes the most sense if you're interested in providing frequent, rapid transport services to large inner city populations. Of course, there are always other interests.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Interesting to cross reference the above with this map, showing population density in London:

http://luminocitymap.org/

What's notable is that the northern line extension serves an area with low population density and good existing transport options. It seems to me that this illustrates the point that the existence of a large, poorly served community is not the main driver in service development, but rather the ability to do a deal which enriches investors via a large taxpayer subsidy.

[JamesViktor]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The option to extend via Burgess Park, Honor Oak

> and onto the Hayes line, clearly makes the most

> sense if you're interested in providing frequent,

> rapid transport services to large inner city

> populations. Of course, there are always other

> interests.

Although, as I said before, Bromley Council is "strongly opposed" to a Bakerloo Line Extension taking over the Hayes Line.

[Zebedee Tring]

I find this hard to believe. Why should Bromley not want their borough to be linked into the Underground? The Hayes line is already a commuter line, but at the moment commuters can't go any further than Charing X, whereas they would be able to travel to Oxford Circus and Baker Street on the Tube.

However, Bromley Council have always had a very negative attitude to public transport, as they were the local authority that challenged the GLC's Fairs Fair policy in the early 80s

[JamesViktor]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> "strongly opposed" to a Bakerloo Line Extension

> taking over the Hayes Line >

>

> I find this hard to believe. Why should Bromley

> not want their borough to be linked into the

> Underground? The Hayes line is already a commuter

> line, but at the moment commuters can't go any

> further than Charing X, whereas they would be able

> to travel to Oxford Circus and Baker Street on the

> Tube.

>

> However, Bromley Council have always had a very

> negative attitude to public transport, as they

> were the local authority that challenged the GLC's

> Fairs Fair policy in the early 80s

It's because they do not want that line to lose direct services to London Bridge and Cannon Street.

[Lin Henden]

If you would like to live near to a tube line why not try moving?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes you're quite right we shouldn't want to see any improvements in transport infrastructure anywhere. Cancel cross rail, hs3, people can just move. Maybe everyone could live next to Clapham junction station.

[Medley]

There's also the point that moving to be on a tube line is a financial impossibility for most tube stations. Which rather undermines the Bromley-type attitude of "no Tube here, thanks very much". Bromley did of course build a 'class' wall to keep out the proles. http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11008018.Bromley_s__class_wall___a_7ft_barrier_between_rich_and_poor_stood_here_less_than_100_years_ago/?ref=mr

There are indeed those public transport access holes. There is a data set called public transport access levels - this website's useful

http://www.webptals.org.uk/

high scores are good, postcode searches need a space in the middle

[cle]

Ironic really, as I think Bromley is just proles.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Thanks for the link Medley - it's a bit difficult to understand. What is the scale for the PTAL number? My address scored 3, but there is no explanation of what this means, or where it sits in the scale.

[Zebedee Tring]

The fact that I would like a tube line to be built near me doesn't mean that I want it enough to move near an existing tube line. Your argument is a non sequitur.

[Jeremy]

Is Bromley even in London? I know it's a London Borough in the same way that say Croydon, Enfield or Romford are, but in practise these places are separate towns in their own right, with "suburbs" of their own. I'd say that fast rail links into major London hubs are a better solution for these places than a tube line.

[JamesViktor]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Is Bromley even in London? I know it's a London

> Borough in the same way that say Croydon, Enfield

> or Romford are, but in practise these places are

> separate towns in their own right, with "suburbs"

> of their own. I'd say that fast rail links into

> major London hubs are a better solution for these

> places than a tube line.

Then places such as Barnet, Edgware and Richmond should be removed from the tube and given these services too!

[????]

I STILL DON'T WANT ONE

[Jeremy]

Unfortunately what's done is done...

[Zebedee Tring]

What don't you want, ????? A bonus? A Mercedes?

If you're talking about the tube, what about those people who are clearly less fortunate than you and who have inferior public transport? Don't you care about them? After all, we're all in this together.

And why the capital letters? There's no need to shout.

[d.b]

I really don't understand the opposition to improving transport links.

Southern rail is a sad substitute for the tube, as anyone who has lived in North london will know. Trains run every 10-15 mins, worse at weekends, with frequent delays and cancellations, completely jam packed every workday at rush hour. Witness trains filling up to standing in the morning and emptying out in the evening at ED station and you'll realise how totally over-capacity this particular spot is.

Buses get just as full but are a total misery as they crawl down walworth road to/from camberwell, along with the umpteen other bus routes that go to E&C. Camberwell is a particular traffic black spot and rail services from Denmark hill are not frequent into central london (the Overground is great but doesn't go into town).

Then some people (presumably not the same as those of us who suffer on the trains each week) worry that the tube will "change" ED irrevocably into some kind of lesser area of London? It is incomprehensible - ED is nice but not unique, plenty of places with and without tube stations have independent shops and character etc. Please get over your stick-in-the-mud objections, the tube would be a godsend for the area and the people here.