Bakerloo Line extension petition through Camberwell and Peckham

[Renata Hamvas]

Yes, helped by Peter John's lobbying, it has moved up the agenda!

edited to be more correct (thanks to replaced with helped by)! I think this is really good news.

Renata

[James Barber]

Renata that a bit cheeky.

Cross party motions at full council.. Southwark and Lewisham MP's, GLA Assembly Members, letters, emails to Boris. AND recently a petition organised by Peter John.

The money would need to come from the govt. And if it does fund it in these times it shows up all the past govts who didnt provide funding when they were relatively flush in comparison.

The route then becomes critical...

[michael_FH]

And my question to Boris Johnson at People's Question Time in Catford two weeks ago - http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/10277136.Catford_audience_boos__coward__Boris_Johnson_over_Lewisham_Hospital/

But I'm sure Boris is more responsive when lobbied in Cannes than in Catford.

[James]

Just out of curiosity, would houses have to be destroyed in our area for this? As a Peckham Rye homeowner I am a bit worried...

[Nigello]

I really do hope this comes true. The pressure on local buses here in SE22 is growing. Many a morning, poor sods have to wait ages, haplessly looking on at the relatively lucky passengers ('relatively' because squeezed in like sardines) on the 176 or the 40. Does anyone know whether the operators of these routes have put on more buses at peak times, by the way?

[Renata Hamvas]

Yes, | should add, many others lobbying too! I am sure Michael, that your question also helped. So I should have added the word "helped" into my posting.

It is a long term project, but this is a significant step towards it becoming reality. I think James, Peckham Rye Homeowner, that when it goes above ground it will follow existing train lines.

Renata

[lane lover]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I really do hope this comes true. The pressure on

> local buses here in SE22 is growing. Many a

> morning, poor sods have to wait ages, haplessly

> looking on at the relatively lucky passengers

> ('relatively' because squeezed in like sardines)

> on the 176 or the 40. Does anyone know whether the

> operators of these routes have put on more buses

> at peak times, by the way?

I am not sure why they would need to put on more buses. The local population is hardly expanding ...

[edhistory]

Prospective route looks good.

Should by-pass East Dulwich.

John K

[esmeonline]

Can the proposed route be seen online?

[alice]

I propose a feasibility study costing ?3 million

[henryb]

From the article it sounds like they wont do any of the three on the wiki page about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell (one of which would include a useful stop at Peckham Rye Park) but rather go from Camberwell to Peckham then go overground along the line to Nunhead and Brockley.

Kinda makes more sense financially than digging a hole from Peckham to Honor Oak Park

[James Barber]

I sincerely hope this extension proceeds. Three routes were being proposed through Southwark (http://jamesbarber.mycouncillor.org.uk/?p=989):

1. Old Kent Road,

2. Camberwell/Peckham,

3. Camberwell Herne Hill.

When Ken Livingsotne was supporting the Cross River Tram with words he also provided money for detailed planning. He never provided the money to do the thing but at least the detailed plans were prepared.

We need to see Boris allocate real money for detailed planning and consultations. Then we can believe it's more than just fine words postering with Cllr Peter John on the French Riviera.

The ideal scheme for Southwark would be an extension involving two branches. Each branch staying in Southwark for as long possible. This would double the areas benefitting. Perhaps splitting at Camberwell.

For East Dulwich this could bring tube station at Peckham Rye Common (the old Lido area) and Herne Hill.

When the last Southwark Plan was developed I ensured the Bakerloo line extension was safe guarded to some degree based on the historic route that had parliamentary approval. It took some arm twisting. So its crucial that this is now expanded to ensure sites are protected to make this a reality.

Let's be really clear ot build this extension the contruction works will need big areas for site works. This means Southwakr Council NOW putting out a SPD or simialr. Places like Cmaberwell Green, Heygate estates, Peckham Rye Common where the Lido were will be saught after to lower and recover tunnel boring machines. We'll have many many 10,000 of lorry movements. Fine. They would all be in a good cause. But the detailed planning and actions for this need to start.

[Nigello]

I disagree, lanelover. Over the past five years at least there have been more passengers at bus stops and the buses have been fuller at peak times at least. I try to get on at Dulwich Library but by the time you get to two stops after that (Townley Road) the 176, 40 (185 not so much) are getting close to full. Does anyone else support this view?

[MarkE]

The population doesn't need to increase for the demand for public transport to do so.

[mynamehere]

I completely support planned extension as described by James

[Nigello]

James - Is there a visual plan/diagram of what the plans - all of them, yours included - might look like? Has anyone even done a mock-up of the Tube map? I do hope it happens, even if it is only to Camberwell or Denmark Hill. Also, don't assume that we all know what an SPD is. I don't and would like to know!

[michael_FH]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The ideal scheme for Southwark would be an

> extension involving two branches. Each branch

> staying in Southwark for as long possible. This

> would double the areas benefitting. Perhaps

> splitting at Camberwell.

Common sense dictates that this would end up costing at least twice as much to build and would result in half the number of trains on each branch. The idea that *both* branches should stay in Southwark for as long as possible is frankly as ridiculous as keeping all the tube north of the river.

My view is that a single branch should go as far as possible towards Bromley connecting as many rail lines and communities as possible. The Peckham/Catford route makes as much sense as any. But the most important thing is to get any route for the Bakerloo line into South East London. We will all benefit from the increased travel options and the extra capacity that will be created (assuming it doesn't just use existing lines and take away capacity from these).

[Toldyouso]

I am in favour of the idea and have signed the petition

[henryb]

> Is there a visual plan/diagram of what the plans?

http://www.steveprentice.net/tube/TfLSillyMaps/southlondontube.jpg

How about this one?

[Zebedee Tring]

henryb Wrote:

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

> > Is there a visual plan/diagram of what the

> plans?

>

> http://www.steveprentice.net/tube/TfLSillyMaps/sou

> thlondontube.jpg

>

> How about this one?

What exactly is this map supposed to show? A fantasy Underground?

[Townleygreen]

It's the present Underground map turned on its head so that the south London lines are north of the river and vice versa.

The stations are - as Zebedee suggests - just fantasy. Real places just to illustrate I guess.

I like the way our picture gallery has become a major hub!!

[lane lover]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I disagree, lanelover. Over the past five years at

> least there have been more passengers at bus stops

> and the buses have been fuller at peak times at

> least. I try to get on at Dulwich Library but by

> the time you get to two stops after that (Townley

> Road) the 176, 40 (185 not so much) are getting

> close to full. Does anyone else support this view?

I travel at a variety of times - ranging from 5:30am through to 9am in the morning. I dont have any issue getting on a bus on LL. I do notice that most of ED seems to pile on buses for a period of 15 minutes somewhere between 8am and 8:30am however. I cant see how jamming more buses on LL would help ease congestion for a very short time period - it would only clutter the road, making travel even more slow. People need to be a little more organised and avoid the "crazy" peak times if they are having trouble getting on the bus.

Also, its annoying to see so many people get on the bus on LL, only to get off at ED station a few stops down. The walk would take 5 minutes, and save alot of space on the bus. Exercise is not a bad thing!

And before I get a slagging from all the PC readers on this forum, I am not referring to the diabled, elderly or parents with children.

[HopOne]

michael_FH is right. If this scheme is just seen as a Southwark thing then it will die a death. Wherever the new Southern terminus is will need suffcient space to turn around and stable lots of trains, there will need to be plenty of links with existing public transport along the route and, I think crucially, will need to integrate with areas that need development in order to raise finance and help the business case along. Peckham and Camberwell certainly tick this box but so do Lewisham and Catford.

Though tunneling under One Tree Hill would certainly be expensive, I don't think it should be discounted out of hand as I understand that once Tunnel Boring Machines are installed it is cost effective to keep them going. Also, there is a risk that using existing lines above ground will cause knock on adverse affects on other services - this would be a high frequency service after all.

[James Barber]

Hi HopOne,

Whatever route is chosen the proposals are terminaring in outer boroughs - Bromley or Beckenham depending on the speficis for each of the three main proposed routes. Those routes pass through SOuthwark in all three, but variety of Lambeth, Lewisham, Croydon and Bromley.

[HopOne]

Ok, thanks James.

I was getting the impression that there was a new route proposed that went Camberwell, Peckham then overground to Bromley which was the thrust of the mayor's statement. If you are referring to the 3 routes here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell

only option 1 comes close to this but it doesn't go overground straight away south of Peckham.

I understand the route specifics need to be determined but am wondering whether it is these 3 routes that are on the table or others?