Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Even if you're generally happy getting the bus or the overground, I can't really see why you would be against the tube. It's another option and it combines the best characteristics of train / bus - frequency and speed.

Camberwell in particular needs some other options, be it the reopening of Camberwell Green train station, or the Bakerloo line extension.

[StraferJack]

" I do use buses, but not for time critical journeys where I have a set deadline or appointment. They're not reliable enough. "

not once in 12 years have I been late for a meeting (many of which start anytime between 7am and 10am)

The number of colleagues who tube/train it who are late sometimes is...... a lot

if you use buses regularly you pretty much know to within 5 mins of when you'll get there

When things go wrong (traffic snarl ups etc) , you know how to get off, walk to another route and continue - but that is rare

that said I bussed in in the mornings and sometimes trained back in evenings - just because roads/people get more gnarly in the evenings

[bob]

Under ground tube in Camberwell I don't think so any one ever wonder were the name comes from.

Bob S

[Nigello]

I agree with SJ that the bus is more reliable and reasonable than others (perhaps non bus-users) make out, but I still think the providers should do more to reduce overcrowding on certain stretches of their routes. The X68 from Waterloo to Croydon (?) runs at peak times; would a 176 or 12 with similar restrictions help?

Instead of a Tube/tram/monorail/cable car, boroughs really ought to consider the guided bus. It's much cheaper than any of those modes of transport just mentioned but lacks their cachet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus

[indiepanda]

I've found the bus route from ED to Blackfriars much more reliable than the trains. Might take a little longer if you compare to arriving exactly in time for a train, but so often the trains get delayed or cancelled and the gaps in service are much longer than buses. If I really need to ensure I get somewhere on time I just get an earlier bus not switch to the train.

And talk of buses not being used by commuters is hogwash, plenty on the buses I get seem to be mainly commuters upstairs - might be different downstairs where the people doing short journeys tend to sit.

Have to admit my fondness of the bus is linked to getting on at the second stop of the route - would be much less keen if I had to stand. A seat by the window upstairs on the bus is infinitely nicer than being on the tube even with a seat.

[sandyman]

That's an interesting idea. Just imagine how popular an X176 would be if it started at waterloo and ran non-stop to a bus stop on Lordship Lane...

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I agree with SJ that the bus is more reliable and

> reasonable than others (perhaps non bus-users)

> make out, but I still think the providers should

> do more to reduce overcrowding on certain

> stretches of their routes. The X68 from Waterloo

> to Croydon (?) runs at peak times; would a 176 or

> 12 with similar restrictions help?

> Instead of a Tube/tram/monorail/cable car,

> boroughs really ought to consider the guided bus.

> It's much cheaper than any of those modes of

> transport just mentioned but lacks their cachet.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bus

[wavyline girl]

Please, why don't you all just go back to Clapham or North London?

There is no tube round here?get used to it

[StraferJack]

Wavy girl, most people are agreeing with that point

Saying "you all go back to clapham"

Why don't you get your chip off your shoulder? As such a local, where have you been last 7 years of the forum, telling people to leave? Cheeky mare

[Louisa]

Oi wavyline girl it's my job to put the Clapham blow-ins in check, not yours, hands off! ;-)

Louisa.

[michael_FH]

Wavy girl: "There is no tube round here?get used to it"

There is also no cinema and a shortage or school places, perhaps we should just get used to that?

There is a serious problem looming in South East London with a lack of rail infrastructure. We can make trains a bit longer, and we might even manage to increase frequency on some of the lines, but in the next 10-20 years the predictions are that there will be a serious shortage of capacity of the railway in South East London.

The best way to solve this problem is to create a new frequent route into London that does not use the existing rail network and for the last 80 years or so there have been plans being developed to extend the Bakerloo line (this is not a new idea, but it is an idea whose time has come).

The exact route is not really so important as much as increasing capacity and intersecting with existing lines. This is why my preference is an underground extention to the Bakerloo line roughly following the 176 bus or possibly the 63 bus route. It should not take over existing lines (i.e. Hayes) but continue underground to zone 4, ending somewhere between Crystal Palace and Bromley.

However, if what is really wanted is a station in Camberwell / Walworth Road, then the fastest solution is to stick one on the National Rail line as there used to be. The Bakerloo line is a good answer but to a much larger question than the Camberwell issue.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Totally agree with michael_FH

[James Barber]

Extending the tube to Camberwell using DLR tunneling success would cost arond ?200M. With current interest rates that would take ?4M to service pa. The average bus route subsidy pa is ?4M. Terminate a couple of bus routes at Camberwell rather than E&C and you could pay for it.

But it would take political will to make it happen.

TfL don't want a little extension. They want a multibillion extension that annoys outer London tory boroughs such that they don't support it. Until TfL scales back the extension solely to inner London boroughs it will go knowhere with a tory Mayor of London. Sadly a Labour Mayor of London didn't and wont allocate the resources to it because the areas involved Peckham and Camberwell are rock solid Labour.

[The Minkey]

A Labour Mayor didn't and won't approve an extension because the areas involved are rock solid Labour?

[????]

....so no votes to be won......

[michael_FH]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> TfL don't want a little extension. They want a

> multibillion extension that annoys outer London

> tory boroughs such that they don't support it.

> Until TfL scales back the extension solely to

> inner London boroughs it will go knowhere with a

> tory Mayor of London.

The only reason outer London boroughs are apparently opposed is that the plans put to them would lose their fast services to central London (i.e. the Hayes line). This is another reason why the extension should stay underground as far as possible (out to zone 4 and the outer London boroughs). If the underground line connects a major town centre in outer London (Beckenham, Crystal Palace, Bromley) then they will attract more visitors from inner London without increasing traffic, so this is something that could be quite attractive to a council like Bromley, once the threat of slower train services is removed.

Slowly the debate is shifting within TfL and wider political discussion in favour of Bakerloo extension. This might be after Crossrail2, but we should be lobbying for Bakerloo extension to be the next major tunnelling project in London after Crossrail2 (or even at the same time). Over the next couple of years I hope that people of South East London will put pressure on all politicians to seriously consider the advantages of the Bakerloo line extension so that it becomes a manifesto commitment for all political parties in the 2016 elections. This is exactly the type of issue where out votes for GLA should be brought to bear as it is the most important issue for the development of South East London and is in the control of the GLA/Mayor (with funding necessary from DfT).

[cle]

I think people are obsessed with a new line taking over a National Rail line, and freeing up space for more overland trains.

The fact is that the Bakerloo is not like the Victoria line. It's slow, twisty and with closely spaced stops, it's more suited to being an inner city route, like a Paris metro line. Terminating at Lewisham or Catford, or Crystal Palace, or similar, is fine enough in terms of distance. Zone 4/5 people shouldn't have to switch to a tiny tube.

[Renata Hamvas]

James, a bizarre and unfounded comment re a Labour Mayor! I agree with Michael. I am wholly supportive of a Bakerloo line extension.

Renata

[Earl Aelfheah]

Renata / James - It was reported some time ago that Southwark Council had put ?50,000 towards the cost of a feasibility study into the proposed extension of the Bakerloo line beyond Elephant & Castle. Did anything more come of this / was it completed?

[the-e-dealer]

so why did ken propose the tram and overground to Peckham

[Bic Basher]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> I agree with SJ that the bus is more reliable and

> reasonable than others (perhaps non bus-users)

> make out, but I still think the providers should

> do more to reduce overcrowding on certain

> stretches of their routes. The X68 from Waterloo

> to Croydon (?) runs at peak times; would a 176 or

> 12 with similar restrictions help?

The X68 operates from West Croydon to Russell Square in the morning with an express section from West Norwood to Waterloo and in the opposite direction in the evening peak. It's designed so that passengers who live in on the 468 section of the route don't all cram on the 68 which gives that route capacity.

An X176 could work in a similar fashion. Serve all stops from Tottenham Court Road to Elephant & Castle and then run fast to East Dulwich station, terminating at Forest Hill. This would help solve the capacity problems on the 176 in the peaks which would give more seats on the main 176 for passengers travelling between Penge and the Elephant.