Bakerloo Line extension petition through Camberwell and Peckham

[henryb]

Because it isn?t just about existing transport provision - it is also about the potential for economic development. OKR area clearly has big potential for development and why it is likely to be chosen if only route is. Tunnels are very expensive to build so usually some major economic benefit is needed for them to be justified.

Hopefully both routes will get chosen. Failing that I hope local politicians get behind a tram scheme from south Southwark to Elephant and Castle ? I believe James Barber proposed one a couple of years ago.

[worldwiser]

Have you ever taken a bus up the Walworth Rd? It's quicker to walk. That's why the tube needs to go to Camberwell.

[henryb]

I've tried getting on the north bound 63 at burgess park in the morning rush hour.

[James Barber]

Hi cle,

I beg to differ. Greenwich Council funded a ?50,000 report into rail options for Woolwich and possible extending the DLR. It directly led to the DLR being extended to Woolwich and ?180M spend.

WRT to Bakerloo extension Lewisham have talked about it a number of times and had TfL present. So those TfL officials are clear Lewisham wants it. It must help increase the chance of some form of Bakerloo gonig into Lewisham.

Hi picmic,

Yes Camnerwell has a high PTAL - which is calculated by number and frequency of each publci transport option. But it doesnt factor how effective timewise each public transport option is to get somewhere or the variability of time it takes.

[Medley]

James, agree about the Camberwell PTAL point.

But you must be aware, or should be aware, that the idea that the cost of that DLR extension to Lewisham was exorbitant - so there may be an element of 'once bitten, twice shy' there.

[Righty]

Fingers crossed it will go to Catford (where we are shortly moving to!!).

[michael_FH]

The main problem with DLR extension is that it is already running close to capacity heading south from Canary Wharf. Taking it all the way to Bromley would only work if there was an increased frequency of services or longer trains, I don't think either are particularly simple (otherwise they would already be in the pipeline without an extension).

It is great to see more people coming out in support of the Bakerloo line extension. All the talk of different routes is likely to increase support for the eventual route(s) that are recommended. A good choice of route(s) should be of benefit to a much larger area of South East London, assuming interchange is possible from other transport hubs, so I will welcome almost any route, even if it doesn't come straight through Forest Hill.

My only concern is that this must not be a pre-election gimmick by any party in the run-up to May 2015. A concerted effort needs to be made to explain how this vital transport improvement will be funded, otherwise it will probably go the way of the South London tramways.

[JamesViktor]

I still think (even more so now) that if two branches are going to be made, they should meet again at Lewisham, then one should take over the Hayes Line, and the other take over the Bexleyheath Line.

[cle]

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> I still think (even more so now) that if two

> branches are going to be made, they should meet

> again at Lewisham, then one should take over the

> Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> Bexleyheath Line.

As long as they are 100% separate with no mixing between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town or Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.

[JamesViktor]

cle Wrote:

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

> JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I still think (even more so now) that if two

> > branches are going to be made, they should meet

> > again at Lewisham, then one should take over

> the

> > Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> > Bexleyheath Line.

>

> As long as they are 100% separate with no mixing

> between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town or

> Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.

Would it be easier to have 2 or 4 platforms at Lewisham?

[cle]

JamesViktor Wrote:

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

> cle Wrote:

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

> -----

> > JamesViktor Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I still think (even more so now) that if two

> > > branches are going to be made, they should

> meet

> > > again at Lewisham, then one should take over

> > the

> > > Hayes Line, and the other take over the

> > > Bexleyheath Line.

> >

> > As long as they are 100% separate with no

> mixing

> > between them - to avoid a mess like Camden Town

> or

> > Earls Court and to a lesser degree, Kennington.

>

> Would it be easier to have 2 or 4 platforms at

> Lewisham?

Four - two separate lines by that point with no intertwining to keep things tidy. The quicker route to Lewisham should go on the longest journey, I guess.

A bit like pretending the Victoria and Piccadilly from Kings Cross were the same line in Central London, but then split off and Lewisham would be the 'Finsbury Park' - cross platform changing, but separate.

[Medley]

It IS great to see people talking about it more. There's such a case for it, to my mind. Time and again, developments come to London public transport:

DLR, resignalling and so hiked frequency (Jubilee, Victoria), new trains (Met, Circle etc. lines), London Overground expansion and new trains, Crossrail, talk of Crossrail 2, even the flipping cable car, Barclays/Boris/Ken bikes.

But most of them are for other bits of London. 'Nuff's enough.

[Zebedee Tring]

South London has benefited in the last 20 years from the Jubilee Line Extension, DLR extension to Lewisham, Overground expansion to Clapham Junction, Croydon, New Cross and Crystal Palace and the resignalling of the Jubilee and Victoria Lines. There is also the impending Northern Link extension to Battersea.

Things could have been better and a Bakerloo Line extension is way overdue. But the situation is a darn sight better than when we moved from NE London to Greenwich 36 years ago and then to Dulwich 27 years ago.

And there's also the Croydon Tramlink, not to mention the much improved bus services.

[chellbirdse15]

Hi James

If this is the case then I will be more than pleased to sign the petition, as this would be an excellent addition to our areas.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[cle]

I agree with all of that, with one exception. East London has had far more investment in transport than West for the last 20 years or so. Yes a lot has been Docklands and Olympics led, but it still stretched far and wide across East London.

[Medley]

Oh East London is transformed - but not SE London.

And of Zebedee's projects, JLE is to the far north of SE London (so to speak), DLR extension is fair and square in it, London O network likewise, Vic lines - er, not at all. Likewise the Battersea extension.

[Zebedee Tring]

Brixton is in South London and has benefited from the Vic Line resignalling. Likewise Battersea is in South London. Dulwich may technically be in S-E London but it is v. close to S-W London - if there was a S postal area akin to the N area in North London, it would be right in it.

[JamesViktor]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> Battersea extension >

>

> Brixton is in South London and has benefited from

> the Vic Line resignalling. Likewise Battersea is

> in South London. Dulwich may technically be in S-E

> London but it is v. close to S-W London - if there

> was a S postal area akin to the N area in North

> London, it would be right in it.

There used to be an S Postcode area. SE19-27 and SW11-20 were it but Anthony Trollope removed this (and NE) as well as retracting the London Postal Boundary (it used to go to Croydon, Bromley, Kingston etc.) S is now Sheffield duck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_postal_district#mediaviewer/File:Londonpostal_iln_1857.jpg

[Medley]

To repeat - I'm talking about S E London, not S London. I'm not doubting Brixton is in S London!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Brixton is spiritually SE in my mind. SW starts at Clapham and just grows in obnoxiousness all the way out through Surrey.

[cle]

I think Clapham is the ground zero. Mind you, Putney and Wimbledon are also hubs for the worst of people.

I see Brixton as just 'south', neither east or west. Camberwell and East Dulwich are similar, but sneak into SE. Peckham definitely so.

[JamesViktor]

Yeah living as far out as I do places like Dulwich, Forest Hill and Sydenham seem much further than Lewisham or Peckham. I'd say true SE London covers the NE part of Southwark, all of Lewisham except the far SW part, all of Bromley except the far NW part and all of Greenwich and Bexley.

[nxjen]

Boris Johnson has launched a public consultation for a London Infrastructure Plan that includes proposals for an extension to the Bakerloo line ... for the year 2040.

http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/7757

[Zebedee Tring]

Well, if I'm still around in 2040, I'll be 92 years old and almost certainly unable to enjoy any Bakerloo extension.