Bakerloo Line extension petition through Camberwell and Peckham

[Huguenot]

I don't imagine that a transport system like this is sensible if all it's intended to do is make sure there's an empty seat for every traveller - it's got to deliver some greater benefit than that.

The obvious benefit is unexploited resource - residential or industrial land.

Putting up local house prices is not included in that 'unexploited resource' nor is rising house prices wealth generation (it only creates more debt).

I have no doubt that local councillors of all colours will pursue this vote-winning campaign with great enthusiasm, but I don't think there's a chance in hell of winning it until there's a vast tract of unexploited resource exposed at the heart of the ED community.

[James Barber]

I'll be signing this petition as I've signed other with the same stated aims over the years.

It wont come into East Dulwich but a station at Peckham Rye Common - which I suspect would be used as a huge construction site for any such tube - would be 5-10 mins walk for many ED residents.

But I think Southwark Council could take a real leadership role on this beyond the odd petition.

Where proposed stations are planned could southwark could agree planinng policies allowing tall building with no S106 except to fund a tube extension. Developing over the current London Road Bakerloo line depot could raise large sums - similar to Empire Square.

I also suspect any successful business case would include reducing or removing some of the bus routes that duplicate any new tube route. The average bus route is subsidised by ?4m pa.

Borrowing will never be this cheap so ideal time for Southwark to really try and make this happen.

[GEEKASAURUS]

Really couldn't agree more James. What's needed is a plan Of action to take this forward. Can you tell us what's happening at southwark regards this?

Shaun

[????]

Er, I remain in a small minority no doubt, who don,t want the tube down here. Change SE22 for the worst, couldn't give a sh1te about what it would do to my 'equity'

[Huguenot]

I think you'll be pretty safe Quids - lots of arguments on here about how a local tube might make people more comfortable and they could manage the damage.

No case yet for actually putting one in (that's not to say that there isn't one, I just haven't seen it yet).

I think it's misguided to imagine you can vote for a tube - there has to be a logical economic justification.

Southwark have probably looked at it and realized there isn't one.

[Jeremy]

I don't think that the justification would have to be purely economic (or at least I'd hope not).

[LondonMix]

It isn't. Within the cost benefit analysis, shorter commuting times, relieving pressure on London Bridge services etc are all given a value. Regeneration and job creation though is important.

[Huguenot]

I don't really agree LM, although those criteria have the appearance of qualitative measures, they're actually tangible economic factors in increased productivity (shorter commutes) and untapped labour resource (pressure at London Bridge limiting capacity for human resource exploitation and residential land usage).

The problem is that both those factors have a smaller impact than urban redevelopment for industry and commerce. Recent developments of the DLR, Jubilee Line and the projected NL extension are a reflection of that.

Hence to build a tube to ED, you have to change the nature of ED (something which nobody appears to be interested in).

I don't think that a Southwark/Lewisham tube extension will gain planning prominence unless that factor can be proven - and Lewisham has a better case to make (which is why they're further along the 'track' in terms of a coherent proposal).

[Zebedee Tring]

As I remember it (and I was growing up in Walthamstow at the time) the construction of the Victoria Line was held up for years because there was supposedly no economic justification for it. However, after a considerable delay, the line was given the go ahead on the ground that it would relieve congestion in the central area. And what a success it has been - can you imagine getting from Victoria to Oxford Circus any other way than by direct Victoria Line link? Similar arguments could be used for extending the Bakerloo Line today.

And, remember, the Victoria Line was built at a time when the car was king, they were about to built a succession of urban motorways in London (including one through Covent Garden!) and railways were supposed to be old hat (hence Beeching) - indeed tube travel numbers were on the decline. A very different situation from today.

[LondonMix]

I agree with you H on all points. I only included commuting times etc to show the "indirect economic" factors that are considered to provide some greater detail. In one of the documents I read, it appears the regeneration of New Cross or Catford (including greater residential development to deal with population growth) is trying to be included in the business case for the reasons you've stated. Extending the tube into the suburbs cannot otherwise be justified even according to Lewisham Councils own analysis.

[GEEKASAURUS]

It would be interesting to see the economic cases for previous lines or extensions to compare to the current justifications for bakerloo extension.

[Huguenot]

Well, the DLR and Jubilee line extensions don't need bits of paper, it's about 300m high and made out of glass and steel.

The Northern Line to Battersea has already been shared on here.

[Jeremy]

I dunno, it just seems a bit cynical to say that there has to be a financial incentive, rather than just social benefit.

DLR/Jubilee/Northern line to Battersea all had/have an element of private funding, so naturally the financials were the main driver. I guess the new London Overground routes - although admittedly far cheaper than a tube extension - would be an example of a new scheme designed to improve the overall infrastructure, without an immediately obvious economic driver.

Saying that, I suppose any scheme which strengthens the transport network and allows future scalability is bound to have long term financial benefits.

[StraferJack]

"Er, I remain in a small minority no doubt, who don,t want the tube down here."

don't know if it's a small minority, but I'm in the same group

[edhistory]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Saying that, I suppose any scheme which

> strengthens the transport network and allows

> future scalability is bound to have long term

> financial benefits.

Not much scalability in running the line into the dead end of the East Dulwich and Nunhead valley.

Go east young man.

John K

[Jeremy]

I'd be happy to have a tube as long as the property prices didn't rise even further. But I guess you can't have your cake (and latte) and eat it.

[Medley]

I could be wrong, but I think the Overground is linked to property development (as, arguably, should any transport infrastructure investment) - at least at Shoreditch High St, where in the end there's to be a load of office etc space around that station.

In general I think SE London remains a poor relation in terms of transport, and improvements are to be welcomed. But any extension would need private funding or contributions of some kind I imagine, sensible routeing and a sensible end point to provide a reliable service. The time to start pressing for it is now as TfL starts to make the case for monies beyond 2015 and the Bakerloo is well overdue an upgrade (I think that's roughly pencilled for the early 2020s). A lot would depend on political will, the councils all along a potential route extension getting enthusiastically and collectively on board etc.

[LondonMix]

My husband is there with you. I'm somewhat on the fence depending on the details though maybe slightly leaning in the 'pro' camp...

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> "Er, I remain in a small minority no doubt, who

> don,t want the tube down here."

>

> don't know if it's a small minority, but I'm in

> the same group

[Dun]

Come on, only 800 signatures so far, if you don't ask you don't get so go and take 1 minute to sign the petition!

[bil]

Dun Wrote:

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

> Come on, only 800 signatures so far, if you don't

> ask you don't get so go and take 1 minute to sign

> the petition!

I agree.. last thing we want is Crossrail 2 to be selected over a much needed South east london tube line because it is receiving more support

[edhistory]

Dun Wrote:

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

> Come on, only 800 signatures so far

Only that many because there is no "NO" option.

John K

[????]

NO.....can u put that on your petition

[GEEKASAURUS]

Thankfully they aren't appealing to you but to the quiet majority who would benefit from this, would like it to happen but for various reasons (inertia?) haven't yet signed it. Is resisting improvements in transport for a huge swathe of south east London the new black?

[edhistory]

GEEKASAURUS Wrote:

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

> Thankfully they aren't appealing to you but to the

> quiet majority who would benefit from this, would

> like it to happen but for various reasons

> (inertia?) haven't yet signed it. Is resisting

> improvements in transport for a huge swathe of

> south east London the new black?

The GEEK's magic counting machine.

John K

[????]

Nope, destroying the one of the things that makes the area I live in a bit different and adds to its appeal is. fook me I can be in London Bridge in 20 mins as it is. You could maybe move to Clapham if you want the Tube soooo much.