Bakerloo line extension

Appendices to the Consultation Report November 2020

1

Contents

Appendix A: Stakeholders Consulted ...... 2 Appendix B: Consultation questions ...... 8 Appendix C: List of Supporting Documents on the Consultation Website ...... 11 Factsheets ...... 11 Supplementary information ...... 11 Equalities Impact Assessments (EqIAs) ...... 11 Appendix D: Postcard leaflet ...... 13 Appendix E: Letter to properties along the tunnel corridor ...... 15 Appendix F: Letter to properties adjacent to a worksite...... 16 Appendix G: Email to customers ...... 17 Appendix H: Email to stakeholders ...... 18 Appendix I: Press Release ...... 19 Appendix J: Local press advert ...... 21 Appendix K: Digital advertising ...... 22 Appendix L: Radio advert script ...... 23 Appendix M: Public exhibition banners ...... 24 Appendix N: Back the Bakerloo campaign response ...... 29 Appendix O: Demographic profile of respondents to the consultation ...... 30 Appendix P: Code frame ...... 33

1

Appendix A: Stakeholders Consulted

The tables in this appendix list the stakeholders actively contacted and invited to respond to this consultation.

2

Political Alex Ingram, AM Borough of Southwark

Bob Stewart, MP , AM , AM , AM (MP) , AM , AM , MP Peter Whittle, AM , AM Shaun Bailey, AM , AM Sian Berry, AM , AM Sir Robert Neill, MP , MP Steve O'Connell, AM – Deputy Mayor , AM , MP , AM , AM , AM Joanne Mccartney, AM , AM , AM , AM , AM , MP , AM Ward councillors – London Borough of Bromley Ward councillors – London Borough of Ward councillors – Southwark London Borough of Lewisham

Business

Beckenham & Bromley BID ICE Street Area Partnership Imperial War Museaum Big Yellow Storage La Chatica cafe Bromley Experts by Experience CIC Lenos and Carbon restaurant Camden People First Group Lomax Studio CBI London Chamber of Commerce CECA London First Celia Hammond Animal Trust Ministry of Sound Constantine (Fine Art Logistics) New Civil Engineer Corsica Studios Learning Delancey New West End Company Elephant and Castle Shopping Centre NorthOne Management Federation of Small Business Old Road Business Network Halfords Ltd First BID

3

Palace Superbowl Southbank Art Company Penge BID Tesco Perry Library The Pool Recording Studio Poundstretcher Ltd The Stationery Office Public & Commercial Services Union Visit Chistlehurst Royal Museums Wickes Building Supplies Ltd Sainsbury’s Your Bromley BID

Transport Groups

Access in London London European Partnership for Transport Arriva Ltd London Taxi

Auto-Cycle Union London TravelWatch

British Driving Society National Association of Boat Owners

British Horse Society

Byways and Bridleways Trust Rail Safety & Standards Board

Campaign for Better Transport Railfuture Ltd

Chartered Institute of Logistics & Road Haulage Association Ltd Transport Confederation of Passenger Transport Stage Coach

Cross River Partnership Streatham Transport Action Group

Cycling UK Sustrans

Gatwick Airport TABP Limited

Heathrow Airport Ltd Transport Focus

Inland Waterways Association Transport for All

Living Streets Wheels for Wellbeing

London Cycling Campaign

4

Environmental & Heritage

Open Spaces Society

Friends of the Earth

Historic

Natural England

Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs The Environment Agency

Education

Ark Walworth Academy London College of Communication

Bird in Bush nursery and pre-school Lucas Vale Primary School

Bright Horizons – Day Nursery Notre Dame Roman Catholic Girls School

Busy Bees nursery Pilgrims Way primary school

Camelot Primary School St Dunstan's College

Charlotte Sharman St Francis Catholic Primary School

Cobourg Primary School St James Hatcham CE School

Deptford Green School St Jude's pre-school

Goldsmiths University St Peters C of E Primary School

Greenwich University St Saviour's and St Olave's Church of England School Harris Primary Academy Surrey Square Primary School

Hatcham College Townsend primary school

Hayes School Treasure House (London) CIC

Kia Mena Montessori School Victory Primary School

5

Resident & Community Groups

Action on Disability & Work UK Hayes Village Association All Saints Church and Community Centre Inspire at St Peters Archdiocese of Southwark church Lewisham Art House Baitul Rahman Masjid Lewisham Indo Chinese Community Beckenham Green Friends Lewisham Park Housing Association Beckenham Methodist Church Lewisham Way youth and community Beckenham Public Hall centre London Senior Social Beckenham Society Metropolitan Tabernacle Church Besson Street Residents New Covenant Church Bethesda Building New Cross Gate Trust Blackheath & Bromley Harriers Our Community Association Blackheath Joint Working Party Our Lady of the Rosary Blyth Hill Fields Residents Peabody Brayards Estate Tenants & Residents Association Perronet House & Princes Street Brockley Tenants Co-Op Residents Association Bromley and Beckenham Hockey Club Pullens Tenants and Residents Chapter Living Association Christ Church Peckham Ramblers Association Community Southwark Redeemed Christian Church of God Copers Cope Residents Association Rockingham Community Tenant & Resident Association Cossall Tenants & Residents Association Rotary Club - Bromley County Hall Owners and Residents Assoc Rushey Green Assembly Crosslinks Christian Mission Salvation Army Community Church Crossway Church Somali and Somaliland London Dashwood Studios Community Draper Together Southwark Advice Plus East Street Islamic Resource & Dawah Southwark Law Centre Centre Southwark Social Services - Vietnamese Elephant and Castle Urban Forest Southwark Travellers Action Group Elephant Park Southwark Wellbeing Hub Evelyn Community Centre St George’s Cathedral Southwark Evolution Quarter Residents Association St George's Church Friends of Brockley and Cemeteries St Germans Terrace Association Friends of Burgess Park St Peters Church Friends of Hither Green Triangle Sundridge Park Working Mens Club Haddonhall Baptist Church The Blackheath Society Haddonhall Resident's TMO The Corbett Society The Everlasting Arms Ministeries Harry Lambourn House The Langton Way Association Hatcham Park Conservation Area residents group The Telegraph Hill Society

6

The Westcombe Society Vietnamese Family Partnership Care Home Vital OKR Tower Bridge Road Alliance West Beckenham Residents Association Vanbrugh Court Residents Association

Other

Church Commissioners Royal Mail Coal Authority Royal Princess Hospital Design Council South East London Vision Health & Safety Executive The Crown Estate Commissioners Office of Rail Regulations The Theatres Trust Public Health England

Emergency services

City of London Police Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) London Fire Commissioner

Special Interest Groups

Action on Hearing Loss Lewisham Disability Coalition Age UK Lewisham Nexus Service Age UK Orpington & District London Vision Alzheimers Society NCT- Beckenham Anxiety Alliance NCT- Bromley & Chislehurst Asian Peoples Disability Alliance NCT- Crystal Palace Bromley Mencap NCT- Dulwich Bromley Mobility Forum NCT- Lewisham Bromley Voice NCT- Orpington Camden People First NCT- West Wickham Care for Accessible Environments RNIB Women’s Institute St Mungo's Broadway DeafBlind UK TfL Youth Panel Disability Rights UK The Bike Project Disability Sports Board Transport for All Disabled Motoring UK Vietnamese Network Federation of Refugees from Vietnam In XbyX Bromley Lewisham (FORVIL) Guide Dogs UK Human Rights & Equalities Network Independent Disability Advisory Group

7

Appendix B: Consultation questions

Core consultation questions

Question 1: Please let us have any comments about our proposals, including how these may impact you whether in a positive or negative way.

Question 2: Please let us have any comments on our proposals for a new combined Bakerloo line and Northern line ticket hall at Elephant & Castle.

Question 3: Please let us have any comments on our proposed new route for the Bakerloo line extension between Lambeth North and Elephant & Castle.

Question 4: Please let us have any comments on our proposed route for the Bakerloo line extension between Elephant & Castle and Lewisham.

Question 5a): We have considered three possible primary tunnelling worksites for the proposed extension at New Cross Gate, Hither Green and Catford. Our proposal is for the primary tunnelling worksite to be at New Cross Gate. Please let us have any comments on the possible primary tunnelling worksites.

Question 5b): In our previous consultation in 2017 we discussed that there would be a worksite at Old Kent Road 1 to build the station. We have updated our proposals and we are now also considering carrying out tunnelling activities from the site towards Lambeth North. Please let us have any comments on our updated proposal for how we could use the Old Kent Road 1 worksite.

Question 6: Please let us have any comments on our proposals for the Wearside Road Council depot site where empty trains would be stabled.

Question 7: Please let us have your views on the name of Old Kent Road 1 station. Suggestions for this station have included Old Kent Road or Burgess Park. There is a popular park nearby and there is a history of Tube stations being named after parks (eg Green Park, Regents Park). We welcome your views on the name of the station. Please note we reserve the right not to proceed with any of the suggestions received. We will liaise with the council on any suggestions received.

Question 8: Please let us have your views on the name of Old Kent Road 2 station. Suggestions for this station have included Old Kent Road or Asylum which reflects the nearby road of that name and the history of buildings in the area. We welcome your views on the name of the station. Please note we reserve the right not to proceed with any of the suggestions received. We will liaise with the council on any suggestions received.

8

Question 9a): We are considering a further extension of the route beyond Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham Junction. This would involve a conversion of the National Rail line via Catford to Hayes to an Underground operation.

Do you support or oppose our plans for a further extension of the route beyond Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham Junction? Closed question: strongly support/partially support/neither support nor oppose/partially oppose/strongly oppose

Question 9b): Please let us have any comments about our proposals for a further extension of the route beyond Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham Junction.

Questions about the respondent

Question 10: Name

Question 11: Email

Question 12: Post code

Question 13: Are you? Please tick all boxes that apply. Local resident/ Employed locally/ Not local but interested in the scheme/ A resident living above the proposed tunnel alignment/ Visitor to the area/ A taxi/private hire driver/ Local business owner/ Commuter to the area/ Other (please specify)

Question 14: If you are responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name of the organisation Please note: if you are responding on behalf of an organisation it should be in an official capacity.

Question 15. How did you hear about this consultation? Please tick one box - the main way by which you heard. Received an email from TfL/ Read about it in the press/ Social media/ Received a letter from TfL/ Heard an advert on the radio/ Other (please specify)/ Received a leaflet from TfL/ Saw it on the TfL website

Q16. Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.) Please tick one box for gvery good/good/adequate/poor/very poor.

16a Website structure and ease of finding what you needed

16b Written information

16c Maps, images and written information

9

16d Online survey format

16e Website accessibility

16f Events and exhibitions

16g Promotional material

Q16h. Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation materials? (open question)

Equality monitoring

Questions on age, ethnic group, sexual orientation, faith, health/disability.

10

Appendix C: List of Supporting Documents on the Consultation Website

Factsheets Factsheet 1. New alignment of tunnels from Lambeth North to Elephant & Castle Factsheet 2. Alignment of tunnels from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham Factsheet 3. Elephant & Castle combined station entrance Factsheet 4. Old Kent Road 1 station and tunnelling worksite Factsheet 5. Old Kent Road 2 station Factsheet 6. New Cross Gate station and tunnelling worksite Factsheet 7. Lewisham Way shaft and head house Factsheet 8. Lewisham underground station Factsheet 9. Wearside Road Council depot Factsheet 10. Hither Green tunnelling worksite option Factsheet 11. Catford tunnelling worksite option Factsheet 12. Constructing the Bakerloo line extension Factsheet 13. Environmental Impact Assessment Factsheet 14. Possible extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction Factsheet 15. Transport and Works Act Order Factsheet 16. Bakerloo line upgrade Easy read version of consultation

Supplementary information Background to Consultation summary report Elephant & Castle station summary report Tunnelling Worksite summary report Further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction summary report

Equalities Impact Assessments (EqIAs) Catford Bridge Worksite EqIA

11

Elephant & Castle Station EqIA Hither Green EqIA EqIA Lewisham Way Shaft EqIA New Cross Gate Station and Worksite EqIA Old Kent Road 1 Station and Worksite EqIA Old Kent Road 2 Station EqIA Wearside Road Worksite and End of Line Facilities EqIA

12

Appendix D: Postcard leaflet

13

Updated leaflet including additional events

14

Appendix E: Letter to properties along the tunnel corridor

15

Appendix F: Letter to properties adjacent to a worksite

16

Appendix G: Email to customers

17

Appendix H: Email to stakeholders

18

Appendix I: Press Release

19

20

Appendix J: Local press advert

21

Appendix K: Digital advertising

Digital advert visual

Mobile banner

22

Appendix L: Radio advert script

Sound: General ambient background of a Tube train travelling through a station

Voice over:

TfL is proposing to extend the Bakerloo line beyond Elephant & Castle to Lewisham, connecting the Old Kent Road and New Cross Gate.

There could also be a further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction.

The proposals are part of the commitment by the Mayor, and TfL to improve public transport, helping London grow by supporting new homes and jobs.

To have your say, search TfL consultations.

Consultation ends Sunday 22nd of December.

To the and TfL. Every journey matters.

23

Appendix M: Public exhibition banners

We designed 11 exhibition banners in the format below.

The next four pages contain the content of the 11 boards.

24

25

26

27

28

Appendix N: Back the Bakerloo campaign response

29

Appendix O: Demographic profile of respondents to the consultation

Gender Total % Male 4,271 49% Female 3,422 39% Trans female 16 0% Trans male 5 0% Gender neutral 38 0% Prefer not to say 394 5% Not Answered 603 7% Total 8,749 100%

Ethnic Group Total % Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 37 0% Asian or Asian British – Chinese 80 1% Asian or Asian British – Indian 195 2% Asian or Asian British – Other 77 1% Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 43 0% Black or Black British – African 159 2% Black or Black British – Caribbean 207 2% Black or Black British – Other 41 0% Mixed – Other 131 1% Mixed – White and Asian 95 1% Mixed – White and Black African 32 0% Mixed – White and Caribbean 62 1% Other Ethnic Group 44 1% Other Ethnic Group – Arab 23 0% Other Ethnic Group – Kurdish 5 0% Other Ethnic Group – Latin American 33 0% Other Ethnic Group – Turkish 27 0% Other Ethnic Group - Gypsy/Irish Traveller 9 0% White – British 4,842 55% White – Irish 235 3% White – Other 1,087 12% Prefer not to say 654 7% Not Answered 631 7% Total 8,749 100%

30

Age Total % Under 15 30 0% 16-20 181 2% 21-25 451 5% 26-30 877 10% 31-35 1,313 15% 36-40 1,227 14% 41-45 967 11% 46-50 680 8% 51-55 584 7% 56-60 510 6% 61-65 387 4% 66-70 273 3% 71+ 237 3% Prefer not to say 439 5% Not Answered 593 7% Total 8,749 100%

Sexual Orientation Total % Heterosexual 5,578 64% Bisexual 215 2% Gay man 640 7% Lesbian 88 1% Other 70 1% Prefer not to say 1,386 16% Not Answered 772 9% Total 8,749 100%

Religious faith Total % Buddhist 84 1% Christian 2,189 25% Hindu 101 1% Muslim 135 2% Sikh 22 0% Jewish 74 1% Other 167 2% No religion 3,947 45% Prefer not to say 1,271 15% Not Answered 759 9% Total 8,749 100%

31

Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health problem or disability? Total % Yes, limited a lot 143 2% Yes, limited a little 542 6% No 6,742 77% Prefer not to say 583 7% Not Answered 739 8% Total 8,749 100%

32

Appendix P: Code frame

Below is the ‘code frame’, this is essentially the list of issues raised in response to each question. This includes the frequency with which these comments were made by respondents. Q1 Please let us have any comments about our Number of As a % of proposals, including how these may impact you times comments whether in a positive or negative way. - Comments comment of made in this nature response to made in this response to question this question Generally supportive comments Proposals are a good idea / support the scheme / much 5,111 24% needed improvement / will make travelling convenient Don’t delay / get on with it / start work as soon as you 360 2% can Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 324 2% too long Support, but go even further / do Phase 2 too / go 1,096 5% beyond Lewisham Support scheme, but build all phases at once 37 0% Good - makes up for previously cancelled transport 1 0% projects Support, but first complete the section as far as New 18 0% Cross Gate before extending any further

Support, with caveats or conditions Disruption during construction, but worthwhile 111 1% Loss of Tesco supermarket (Old Kent Road), but 8 0% worthwhile Loss of Sainsbury's supermarket (New Cross Gate), but 15 0% worthwhile Costly / Expensive, but worth the money 4 0% Good, but take steps to avoid pricing local people out of 26 0% the area Support, but concerned about impact on / loss of 57 0% National Rail services

33

Support, but don’t need to extend line beyond 101 0% Lewisham Support, but introduce new trains and signalling 17 0% Support, but ensure good connections to National Rail / 26 0% overground services Support, but ensure ticketing is affordable / sensible 14 0% /ensure zoning remains the same Support, but concerned about new commercial 4 0% developments in the area Support, but concerned about new residential 32 0% developments in the area Support, but bicycle carriage is restricted on the 1 0% Underground - less convenient Support, but take steps to reduce car use (e.g. parking 11 0% enforcement / CPZ*) Support, but ensure good connections to bus services / 25 0% bus interchange for bus access Support, but ensure good connections to bus services / 1 0% bus interchange to minimise car use Support, if there will be a more frequent service 28 0% Support, if there are less weekend closures 12 0% Support, but also make existing Bakerloo line stations 8 0% accessible Support, but concerned about impact on residents / 46 0% local people Support, but ensure that housing growth is also 4 0% supported by adequate provision of services (schools, hospitals etc) Support, but ensure good design of development above 6 0% ground level Support, but ensure good connection between 6 0% Lewisham station and town centre Support, but minimise disruption to existing services / 11 0% stations while the new scheme is being built Support, but upgrade / improve capacity at New Cross 1 0% Gate station Support, but also upgrade the existing Bakerloo line at 2 0%

34

the same time

Reasons for support: Access / connectivity benefit Will improve access to London Underground in areas 1,018 5% with poor existing links Will provide better access generally (no location given) 399 2% Will be an improvement on existing bus and rail services 312 1% in the area Will provide better access to employment / easier 849 4% commuting / more job opportunities Will provide better access to / London 902 4% amenities Will make it easier to visit other parts of London / visit 251 1% family or friends Will provide better connections to London Underground 434 2% / Overground / DLR network Will provide better connections to other London railway 48 0% stations* Will make it easier to walk / cycle around London 17 0% Will improve mobility / urban mobility 53 0%

Reasons for support: Transport / Traffic benefit Will provide a new option for transport 643 3% Will provide an alternative during disruption to other 118 1% modes* Will reduce pressure/crowding on National Rail / 492 2% Overground services* Will reduce pressure/crowding on DLR services / 168 1% Will reduce pressure/crowding on buses 137 1% Will reduce pressure/congestion on the road network / 342 2% less traffic Will be a more frequent service* 245 1% Will be a more reliable service* 190 1% Will provide faster service / quicker / shorter journey 530 3%

35

times Will be good if this becomes part of the 24 hour 38 0% Underground service Will reduce pressure/crowding on existing London 172 1% Underground services Will provide a safer transport option (e.g. at night) 31 0%

Reasons for support: Local Economic benefit Will benefit local businesses 293 1% Will help attract investment / deliver regeneration / 544 3% development Will have a positive effect on property values 37 0% Will bring more visitors to the area 39 0% Will provide local jobs during construction 19 0% Underground line will be less expensive / cheaper to 54 0% use (e.g. compared to National Rail)

Reasons for support: Community / Social benefit Will benefit local residents / communities 867 4% Will bring more housing / developments 92 0% Will make this area more attractive as a place to live 119 1% Will help accommodate population growth / new 241 1% development

Reasons for support: Environmental benefit Will have a positive environmental impact generally 69 0% Will reduce the need to use private car / lower 318 2% emissions / fewer accidents / use greener transport instead

Support proposed design Pleased with the design (no further details) 1 0% Pleased with location of shafts 1 0%

36

Pleased that the updated design reduces the impact on 2 0% local residents during works

Support, but suggest design changes / considerations Ensure adequate bus stops are provided at stations 2 0% Ensure adequate cycle parking is provided at stations 6 0% Ensure good pedestrian access to stations 11 0% Lewisham station would need to be improved / 19 0% modernised / additional capacity Positive / supportive comments about worksites 4 0% Provide good cycle access / safe cycle routes 21 0% If full funding is not available, only complete the first 1 0% phase (to Lewisham) Also make other improvements to the Old Kent Road 6 0% environment Ensure adequate car parking is provided at stations 4 0% Ensure design is future-proofed 1 0%

Support, but also suggest improvements to other modes Support, but also would like extensions to DLR / 3 0% Docklands Light Railway Support, but also would like extensions to London 3 0% Overground Support, but also would like extensions to Other London 6 0% Underground Lines* Support, but also would like extensions to National Rail 2 0% services Support, but also would like new bus routes 2 0% Support, but also would like road improvements 1 0% Support, but also would like improvements to internet / 0 0% broadband network Support, but also would like improvements to 3 0% Bricklayers Arms junction

37

Support, but consider specific groups Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 6 0% younger people / under 30s Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of older 9 0% people / pensioners Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of all 1 0% blind / visually impaired users Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 23 0% with other disabilities Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 1 0% pregnant users Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 6 0% parents with pushchairs Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 3 0% on low incomes

More information needed Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 170 1% / doesn't affect me How will this affect national rail lines in the area? 27 0% Will supermarkets be rebuilt after construction? 6 0% Will supermarkets be moved to a new site after 3 0% construction? Will supermarkets be relocated during construction? 10 0% How long will this take to construct / what is the timeline 39 0% for the work? How much disruption from construction (i.e. noise, 35 0% vibration, working hours)? Will there be new trains / what will the trains on the line 5 0% be like? What will the capacity of the line be? 7 0% How will property owners be compensated? 7 0% Further consultation is required / looking forward to 1 0% being consulted further during the planning process

38

Unsure of impact Who benefits from any uplift in property values? 4 0% Worried about potential impact (not specified), but not 96 0% opposed Unsure of views on worksites 2 0% Will passengers still be able to board at Elephant & 4 0% Castle, or will trains arrive already full?

Suggestions / matters to account for… Suggested station name (Use Q8, Q9 codeframe if 13 0% which station is specified (OKR1 or OKR2) otherwise use this code) Ensure stations are disabled accessible - e.g. have lifts / 24 0% step free access Need to think carefully about what station names are 6 0% selected (e.g. not offensive) Avoid impact on heritage buildings / old buildings 9 0% Avoid impact on environment / green spaces 32 0% Ensure congestion at Lewisham station is managed / 8 0% reduced Ensure congestion at New Cross Gate station is 5 0% managed / reduced Ensure congestion at stations (unspecified) is managed 7 0% / reduced Ensure value for money is maximised / costs are 14 0% minimised Ensure congestion at Canada Water station is managed 4 0% / reduced Ensure the safety of construction workers 1 0% Increase the provision of affordable housing (generally - 3 0% doesn't specify for whom) Ensure congestion at Catford / Catford Bridge stations 2 0% is managed / reduced Increase the provision of housing (generally - doesn't 1 0% specify for whom)

39

Install noise barriers / insulation 5 0% Avoid disruption to bus routes during construction 1 0% Need to explore a range of funding options 8 0% Ensure safety / police crime 2 0%

Neutral view on proposals, but suggest improvements to other modes Suggest extensions to DLR / Docklands Light Railway 3 0% Suggest extensions to 3 0% Suggest extensions to Other London Underground 15 0% Lines Suggest extensions to National Rail services 8 0% Suggest new bus routes 2 0% Suggest road improvements 1 0% Suggest improvements to buses running on existing 6 0% routes Suggest relocation of an existing station on the Hayes 2 0% line

Neutral, but consider specific groups No view on proposals, but will need to ensure it meets 3 0% the needs of those with other disabilities

Generally Negative comments Proposal is a bad idea / not in favour of this 139 1% Proposal is pointless / isn't really needed / existing 65 0% transport is fine Oppose proposal, should have been the other 24 0% previously consulted option (via Camberwell) Object to proposed location of station on Bakerloo 1 0% extension (not specified / named) Object to proposed location of Old Kent Road 1 station 3 0% on Bakerloo extension Object to proposed location of Old Kent Road 2 station 6 0%

40

on Bakerloo extension Object to proposed location of New Cross Gate station 1 0% on Bakerloo extension There would be too much disruption during construction, 48 0% do not support National Rail fares are too expensive 4 0% London Underground / TfL fares are too expensive 10 0% Object to location of work site at New Cross Gate 8 0% Object to location of work site at Hither Green 16 0% Object to location of work site at Catford 23 0% Construction traffic would pose a danger to pedestrians 7 0% / cyclists / other vehicles Object to location of shafts 1 0% Object to having a station at New Cross Gate (should 1 0% skip this stop)

Suggest alternative to Bakerloo line extension Improve cycle infrastructure instead 2 0% Improve existing rail services instead 30 0% Improve bus services instead 2 0% Suggest extensions to DLR / Docklands Light Railway 1 0% Suggest extensions to London Overground 4 0% Suggest extensions to Other London Underground 4 0% Lines* Suggest extensions to National Rail services 2 0% Suggest new bus / tram routes 3 0% Suggest road improvements 1 0%

Reason to oppose: Access Oppose current proposal, plans need to go even further 5 0% / don’t go far enough

Reason to oppose: Transport

41

Loss of direct National Rail services / will worsen 176 1% access further from London Elephant & Castle station already cannot cope with 3 0% passenger numbers Elephant & Castle station will not be able to cope with 2 0% passenger numbers New Cross Gate station already cannot cope with 4 0% passenger numbers New Cross Gate station will not be able to cope with 1 0% passenger numbers Lewisham station already cannot cope with passenger 14 0% numbers Lewisham station will not be able to cope with 18 0% passenger numbers Bakerloo line extension will mean slower services into 56 0% London compared to now Extension will not be enough to cope with the projected 8 0% increase in number of commuters Would add pressure on crowded London Underground 10 0% lines / interchange stations

Reason to oppose: Economic Complete waste of money 21 0% Concerned about cost / too costly / too expensive 17 0% Use this money for other improvements ( 2) 2 0% Use this money for other improvements (National Rail 1 0% elsewhere) Improve the service between Queens Park and Harrow 2 0% & instead Spend the money on other important projects 10 0% (unspecified) Will have a negative impact on property values (for 2 0% existing property owners)

Reason to oppose: Social Could increase property prices and price local people 33 0%

42

out / gentrification Could be less safe - more crime / antisocial behaviour 13 0% Could have a negative impact on residents or property 43 0% (not specified) Could have a negative impact on residents or property 30 0% (noise / disturbance) Could have a negative impact on residents or property 8 0% (visual intrusion) Do not support proposal if green space is lost / 14 0% environmental impact Will bring too much development / over-development 32 0% Concerned about loss of jobs 3 0%

Concerns about specific groups Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 3 0% the needs of those with other disabilities Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 1 0% the needs of those on low incomes

Comments on consultation Positive comment about consultation 10 0% Negative comment about consultation 25 0% Now more difficult to do than if it had been done earlier 1 0%

Suggested alternative / additional locations for the Bakerloo line to serve* Beckenham 147 1% Beckenham Junction 185 1% Bexley 4 0% 5 0% Bromley 76 0% Bromley South 13 0% Burgess Park 2 0%

43

Camberwell 33 0% Canary Wharf 1 0% Catford 339 2% Catford Bridge 17 0% Charlton 2 0% Croydon / East Croydon / West Croydon 10 0% Crystal Palace 6 0% Denmark Hill 2 0% 3 0% Eden Park 3 0% Greenwich 7 0% Grove Park 12 0% Hayes 407 2% Heathrow Airport 1 0% Hither Green 37 0% Ladywell 35 0% Orpington 13 0% Peckham 30 0% 4 0% Sydenham / Lower Sydenham 62 0% Thamesmead 1 0% West Wickham 6 0% Blackheath 5 0% Eltham 20 0% Clockhouse 10 0% Bellingham 10 0% Bromley North 14 0% 5 0% Walworth Road 5 0% Kidbrooke 8 0%

44

Dartford 1 0% West Norwood 1 0% Herne Hill 1 0% Lee / Lee Green 10 0% Anerley 1 0% St John’s 4 0% Loughborough Junction 1 0% London Bridge 2 0% Dunton Road 2 0% Camberwell Green 1 0% Chislehurst 2 0% Bickley 1 0% Elmers End 3 0%

Suggested locations for stations on the Bakerloo line route* Bricklayers Arms 48 0% Brockley 9 0% Lewisham Way 1 0% Walworth Road 1 0% Dulwich 7 0% New Cross Station 2 0% 3 0% 3 0% Shortlands 2 0% Peckham Rye 9 0% 4 0% 1 0% Bromley town centre 1 0% 2 0% Denmark Hill 1 0%

45

Penge 7 0% Forest Hill 9 0% Rotherhithe 2 0% Surrey Quays 4 0% Tower Bridge Road South 3 0% Clapham 1 0% Streatham 1 0% Tulse Hill 1 0% Biggin Hill 1 0% 1 0% New Beckenham 4 0% Morden 1 0% North Dulwich 1 0% 1 0% Sunridge Park 1 0% Cannon Street 1 0% Abbey Wood 1 0% Walworth 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% Petts Wood 1 0% Norwood 1 0% 1 0% Welling 1 0% Southwark 1 0% Lambeth Bridge 1 0% Queens Road Peckham 2 0% South Bermondsey 1 0% South End 1 0% Selhurst Road 1 0%

46

West Greenwich 1 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 40 0%

Q2 Please let us have any comments on our Number of As a % of proposals for a new combined Bakerloo line and times comments Northern line ticket hall at Elephant & Castle station. comment of made in - Comments this nature response to made in this response to question this question Support ticket hall proposal Good idea / support this idea 3,899 51% Don’t delay / get on with it / start work as soon as you 41 1% can Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 68 1% too long Will improve interchange / connections 558 7% Less crowded / much easier to move around inside the 139 2% station Better station layout needed / current layout is confusing 373 5% Would make it easier to buy tickets 13 0% Good, as part of wider regeneration of the area / 163 2% supports jobs and homes Station will be safer / feel safer 42 1% Will look much nicer (above ground) than the existing 13 0% station Will improve access within the station 170 2% Will improve access into and out of the station 78 1% Will provide a better connection to bus services 7 0% Will improve access within the station for disabled 42 1% people / pushchairs / mobility difficulties Good idea as requirement for multiple / large ticket halls 9 0% with staff has reduced with increase in people using Oyster and contactless

47

Will be cost efficient to combine 26 0% Will save time (in general, unspecific) 18 0% Easier to staff / manage 4 0% Will reduce congestion at London Bridge 3 0% Support as it will reduce traffic on the roads 12 0%

Support ticket hall proposal, with caveats/conditions Good idea - as long as it is larger than current ticket hall 15 0% Good idea - but concerned about impact on cycle lanes 3 0% Good idea - but concerned about impact on bus 16 0% services / bus stops / bus access Good idea - but ensure it is accessible for disabled 11 0% people (e.g. it has a lift) Do this, but minimise construction disruption (including 33 0% to the train service) Entrance will be further away, but worthwhile 2 0% Good idea - but ensure step free access is provided / is 73 1% disabled accessible Good idea - but ensure sufficient staff at station 17 0% Good idea - but ensure it is safe 10 0% Good idea - but ensure design fits in with local character 21 0% / comments on design Good idea - but ensure crowds are well-managed 16 0%

Suggestions for new ticket hall Install escalators 57 1% Install lifts 24 0% Install travellators 3 0% Ensure enough ticket barriers 9 0% Ensure enough ticket machines 6 0% Ensure enough space in the ticket hall 100 1% Good signage / clear signage is needed 24 0%

48

Ensure that this does not result in a long walk 31 0% underground / minimise walking when changing lines

Suggestions for Elephant and Castle station Connect Underground station with Thameslink Train 154 2% Line / National Rail Provide accessible toilet for disabled people 2 0%

Support, but consider specific groups Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 2 0% younger people / under 30s Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of older 4 0% people / pensioners Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of all 2 0% blind / visually impaired users Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of all 1 0% deaf / hearing impaired users Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 13 0% with other disabilities Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 6 0% parents with pushchairs Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 3 0% on low incomes Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of job 2 0% seekers / those seeking work Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of all 2 0% races among users

Nothing to add / say No comment / nothing to say / n/a 644 8% Bakerloo line extension will be sufficient improvement 14 0% (i.e. no view on station proposals, just happy that Bakerloo line is being extended) A lot of work /nice to have - not essential 31 0%

49

Unsure of impact Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 96 1% What will the impact be, if more people use the station 17 0% due to improved access? Concerned about impact on nearby business / 18 0% supermarkets What will be the impact or removing the northern 2 0% entrance to the Bakerloo line? What does a ticket hall need in order to be able to serve 2 0% 2 lines?

Suggestions / matters to account for… Concern about how this aligns with other developments 10 0% in the area Concerns about what would happen to old station 25 0% building / heritage asset Neutral, suggest other transport improvements come 3 0% first Suggest retaining existing entrances 63 1% Better to have more entrances / multiple entrances 46 1% Consider ways that people will not have to cross / have 26 0% a better and safer way to cross the road from the station Consider cycle storage at stations 1 0% Integrate area into a transport hub / connect to other 8 0% modes Consider the needs of existing local businesses 9 0% Provide cross-platform interchange between lines 1 0% Also improve the National Rail station 1 0%

Suggest improvement to existing Bakerloo line stations Improve existing stations on the Bakerloo line (not 1 0% specified) Improve other Bakerloo Line Station - Paddington 1 0%

50

Neutral, but consider specific groups No view on proposals, but will need to ensure it meets 1 0% the needs of those on low incomes

Generally Negative comments on ticket hall proposal Proposal is pointless / isn't really needed / no use to 84 1% most commuters Waste of money / too expensive 18 0% Oppose removal of the northern entrance to the 12 0% Bakerloo line There would be a safety issue that people need to cross 3 0% the road to catch a bus Oppose, will make access to buses more difficult 5 0% Oppose use of lifts in station / prefer not to have to use 62 1% lifts Concern that combined ticket hall will lead to more 17 0% overcrowding / health and safety concerns Works will be disruptive 3 0% Should make improvements to existing wayfinding / lifts 2 0% / station environment instead It will lead to more traffic around Elephant & Castle 2 0% Risk to cyclists' safety from construction traffic 1 0%

Concerns about specific groups Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 1 0% the needs of younger people / under 30s Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 3 0% the needs of older people / pensioners Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 4 0% the needs of those with other disabilities

Other comments Suggestions for changes to the road system 4 0% Prioritise further extension of Bakerloo Line over 23 0%

51

construction of new ticket hall Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 48 1% not applicable to this question

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 50 1%

Q3 Please let us have any comments on our Number of As a % of proposed new route for the Bakerloo line between times comments Lambeth North and Elephant & Castle. - Comments comment of made in this nature response to made in this response to question this question

Reasons for supporting the proposed route Support route proposed / good idea / this is necessary 2,179 47% Don’t delay / get on with it / start work as soon as you 56 1% can Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 19 0% too long Route will be shorter / reduce journey time 247 5% Improved connections / easier to travel around 78 2% Will enable development / regeneration / jobs in this 43 1% area Will reduce congestion / traffic / improved air quality by 24 1% reduced emissions Right number of stations on this section of the route (not 9 0% too many, not too few) Less curves on route / more comfortable ride 53 1% Support as it will reduce crowding / be safer 10 0%

Support proposed route, but with caveats Good idea, but costly / expensive, supports most cost 25 1% effective option

52

Good idea, but concerned about construction disruption 63 1% Good, but suggest closing Lambeth North station 4 0% Good, but suggest modernising Lambeth North station 2 0% Good, as long as it doesn’t affect existing services 33 1% Good, but should be more Underground lines in South 1 0% London Good, but design with straighter platforms (reduced gap 2 0% between train and platform) Good idea, but consider another station on this section 8 0% of line Still retain the existing platforms at E+C for use in the 1 0% event of the extension being closed for a time

Support proposed route, but make suggestions for stations Good, but minimise walking time at stations when 12 0% changing lines Good, but needs to be accessible / useable by disabled 1 0% people Carefully consider station names (e.g. Asylum road) 7 0%

Nothing to add / say No comment / nothing to say / unable to comment 942 20% Don’t mind where the route goes 114 2%

Unsure / questions Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 107 2% Question about route alignment - where will route go? 2 0% How would the old tunnels* be used? 9 0% Unsure of cost / if good value for money 57 1% What disruption will happen during construction? 10 0% Question of what happens to existing Bakerloo Line 6 0% train depot

53

Concerned / unsure of crowding implications 4 0%

Suggestions / matters to account for… Consider re-using the old tunnels for other Underground 11 0% / rail services More station entrances needed 2 0% More trains needed / more frequent service 3 0% Neutral, suggest other transport improvements come 4 0% first Consider re-using the old tunnels / station / ticket hall for 7 0% other purposes Ensure tunnel design is safe 1 0%

Neutral, but consider specific groups No view on proposals, but will need to ensure it meets 1 0% the needs of those with other disabilities

Generally negative comments Proposal is a bad idea / not in favour of this 39 1% Proposal is pointless / isn't really needed / existing 101 2% transport is fine Oppose proposal, should have been the other 8 0% previously consulted option (via Camberwell) Too expensive / costly / not worth the money 48 1% Other improvements should come before this 25 1% Purchase of new trains would be too expensive 1 0%

Negative comment about construction impacts Construction will be disruptive to local business / 8 0% residents living near worksites (not specified) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 28 1% residents living above tunnels (not specified) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 5 0% residents living above tunnels (noise)

54

Construction will be disruptive to local business / 3 0% residents living above tunnels (vibrations)

Negative comment - not about route Negative comment about TfL 2 0% Negative comment about the UK Government 2 0% Comment about unequal treatment / inequality in 1 0% London

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 78 2% not applicable to this question

Comments on consultation Positive comment about consultation 3 0% Negative comment about consultation 4 0%

Suggested alternative / additional locations for the Bakerloo line to serve* Beckenham 6 0% Beckenham Junction 3 0% Bromley 6 0% Burgess Park 1 0% Camberwell 11 0% Canary Wharf 1 0% Catford 16 0% Charlton 1 0% Croydon / East Croydon / West Croydon 2 0% Grove Park 1 0% Hayes 12 0% Peckham 9 0% Sydenham / Lower Sydenham 4 0%

55

Thamesmead 1 0% Blackheath 1 0% Eltham 1 0% Bellingham 1 0% Bromley North 1 0% Nunhead 1 0% Walworth Road 2 0% Kidbrooke 1 0% Lee / Lee Green 1 0% St John’s 1 0% Camberwell Green 1 0% Chislehurst 1 0%

Suggested locations for stations on the Bakerloo line route* Bricklayers Arms 16 0% Brockley 1 0% St Georges Circus 2 0% Peckham 1 0% Forest Hill 1 0% Tower Bridge Road South 1 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 24 1%

Q4 Please let us have any comments on our Number of As a % of proposed route for the Bakerloo line extension times comments between Elephant & Castle and Lewisham. comment of made in this nature response to made in this response to question this question

56

Generally supportive comments Proposed route is good / support the proposals / much 3,348 39% needed improvement Don’t delay / get on with it / start work as soon as you 205 2% can Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 122 1% too long Support, but go even further / do Phase 2 too / go 110 1% beyond Lewisham Good - will bring the London Underground closer to me / 21 0% to my area Good - makes up for previously cancelled transport 1 0% projects Improvement compared to existing transport services 94 1% (e.g. bus / rail) Good - South East London is poorly served by London 340 4% Underground / poor relation Pleased with the design (no further details) 3 0% Pleased with location of shafts 2 0% Support due to positive impact on travel generally 52 1% Proposals seem cost effective / economical 6 0% Good as will see increased revenue for TfL 3 0%

Support proposed station location Support Old Kent Road 1 station proposal 26 0% Support Old Kent Road 2 station proposal 26 0% Support New Cross Gate station proposal 42 0% Support Lewisham station proposal 20 0% Support all station locations specifically / spacing 82 1% between stations

Support, with caveats or conditions Disruption during construction, but worthwhile 20 0% Loss of Tesco supermarket (Old Kent Road), but 4 0%

57

worthwhile Loss of Sainsbury's supermarket (New Cross Gate), but 4 0% worthwhile Good, but take steps to avoid pricing local people out of 1 0% the area Support, but don’t need to extend line beyond 9 0% Lewisham Support, but introduce new trains and signalling 2 0% Support, but ensure good connections to National Rail / 72 1% Overground services Support, but ensure ticketing is affordable / sensible 1 0% Support, but concerned about development in the area 10 0% Support, but take steps to reduce car use (e.g. parking 3 0% enforcement / CPZ*) Support, but ensure good connections to bus services / 16 0% bus interchange Support, but more stations are needed on this section of 38 0% route Support, but ensure costs are kept low / cost effective 13 0% Support, but keep route direct / minimum number of 16 0% stations Support, but ensure safety and security of certain areas 5 0% (eg. CCTV) Support, but ensure Lewisham stays in the same zone 2 0% (Zone 2/3)

Support, but also suggest improvements to other modes Support, but also suggest extensions to DLR / 1 0% Docklands Light Railway Support, but also suggest extensions to London 1 0% Overground Support, but also suggest extensions to Other London 1 0% Underground Lines* Support, but also suggest new bus routes 1 0% Support, but also suggest road improvements 7 0%

58

Support, but concerned about impact on National Rail services Support, but concerned about loss of / fewer National 9 0% Rail services generally Support, but concerned about loss of / fewer National 3 0% Rail services to Charing Cross station Support, but concerned about loss of / fewer National 3 0% Rail services to Cannon Street station Support, but concerned about loss of / fewer National 3 0% Rail services to

Reason to support: Access / connectivity benefit Will improve Underground access in areas with poor 13 0% existing transport links Will improve access generally (no location given) 20 0% Will improve access in South / South East London 255 3% Will improve access to employment / easier commuting 150 2% Will improve access to Central London / London 198 2% amenities Will be easier to visit other parts of London / visit family 74 1% or friends Will improve connections to London Underground 10 0% network Will improve connections to other London railway 6 0% stations Will be easier to walk / cycle around London 2 0% Will improve connections to the DLR network 24 0%

Reason to support: Transport / Traffic benefit Will provide a new option for transport 120 1% Will provide an alternative during disruption to other 21 0% modes Will reduce pressure/crowding on National Rail / 111 1% overground services

59

Will reduce pressure/crowding on DLR services / 23 0% Docklands Light Railway Will reduce pressure/crowding on buses 22 0% Will reduce pressure/congestion on the road network / 115 1% less traffic Will be a more frequent service 12 0% Will be a more reliable service 13 0% Faster service / quicker / shorter journey times 146 2% Good if this becomes part of the 24 hour / night 11 0% Underground service Will transform Lewisham into a transport hub 19 0% Will reduce pressure/crowding/congestion in general 9 0%

Reason to support: Local Economic benefit Will benefit local businesses 28 0% Will help attract investment / deliver regeneration / 146 2% development Will have positive effect on property values 14 0% Will bring more visitors to the area 26 0% Will help to deliver economic regeneration 64 1% Will generate jobs 32 0%

Reason to support: Community / Social benefit Will benefit local residents / communities 262 3% Will bring more housing / developments 37 0% Will make this area more attractive as a place to live 48 1% Will improve access to education 7 0% Will help meet growing demand / population 87 1%

Reason to support: Environmental benefit Will have a positive environmental impact generally 27 0% Will reduce the need to use private car / lower 32 0%

60

emissions

Support, but suggest design changes / considerations Ensure adequate bus stops are provided at stations 1 0% Ensure cycle access and parking is enhanced at 11 0% stations / better cycle connectivity and infrastructure Ensure good pedestrian access to stations 25 0% Lewisham station would need to be improved / 20 0% modernised / additional capacity Ensure the line has sufficient capacity 13 0% Provide additional 'fast tracks' to allow for express 3 0% services / non-stop Use cut and cover rather than a bored tunnel (i.e. Dig 3 0% trench in ground and then build roof deck above) Support, but ensure construction / tunnelling disruption 16 0% is minimised Station design suggestions 27 0% Ensure other infrastructure / development projects also 11 0% brought forward Support, but ensure route and tunnels minimise 6 0% disturbance while operational Ensure enhanced / affordable / sustainable car parking 3 0% facilities are made available Careful construction / construction safety / quality of 1 0% construction

Support, but consider specific groups Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 2 0% with other disabilities Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 1 0% parents with pushchairs

More information needed How will this affect national rail lines in the area? 3 0%

61

Will supermarkets be rebuilt after construction? 2 0% Will supermarkets be relocated during construction? 1 0% How long will this take to construct? 1 0%

Unsure of impact Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 39 0% Who benefits from any uplift in property values 1 0% Worried about potential impact, but not opposed 23 0% How much disruption from construction (i.e. noise, 11 0% vibration, working hours) No comment / does not affect me 384 4% Same as previous consultation 3 0%

Suggestions / matters to account for… Ensure stations are disabled accessible - e.g. have lifts / 5 0% step free access Need to consider the station names proposed 11 0% Avoid impact on heritage buildings / old buildings 5 0% Avoid impact on environment / green spaces 8 0% Ensure / enhance connectivity between New Cross 6 0% Gate and New Cross Ensure / enhance connectivity between Lewisham and 4 0% north of the River Ravensbourne Ensure compensation given to affected / disrupted 5 0% residents along line of route (insurance) Ensure / enhance connectivity between OKR1 site and 1 0% Bricklayers Explore southern access point for Lewisham / assist 2 0% overcrowding mitigation Passive provision for a Station at Bricklayers Arms 2 0% Provide alternative supermarket / will the supermarkets 6 0% be relocated? Ensure worksites redeveloped after construction / 1 0% restore public realm

62

Generally negative comments Proposal is a bad idea / not in favour of this 50 1% Proposal is pointless / isn't really needed / existing 38 0% transport is fine Oppose proposal, should have been the other 24 0% previously consulted option (via Camberwell) Too expensive / costly / not worth the money 9 0% Other improvements should come before this 11 0% Object to proposed location of station on Bakerloo 3 0% extension (not specified / named) Object to proposed location of Old Kent Road 1 station 16 0% on Bakerloo extension Object to proposed location of Old Kent Road 2 station 12 0% on Bakerloo extension Object to proposed location of New Cross Gate station 6 0% on Bakerloo extension Object to proposed location of Lewisham station on 2 0% Bakerloo extension London Underground / TfL fares are too expensive 1 0%

Negative comment about construction impacts Construction will be disruptive to local business / 13 0% residents living near worksites (not specified) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 1 0% residents living above tunnels (not specified) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 1 0% residents living above tunnels (vibrations) Object to location of work site at New Cross Gate 2 0% Object to location of work site at Hither Green 1 0% Object to location of work site at Catford 2 0% Negative comments about worksites / spoil sites 3 0% Concern about impact of tunnelling on building 9 0% foundations Concern about subsidence / sink holes as a result of 3 0%

63

tunnelling

Suggest alternative to Bakerloo line extension Improve bus services instead 1 0% Suggest extensions to London Overground 1 0% Suggest road improvements 1 0%

Negative impact: Access Needs to go further / go beyond Lewisham 4 0% Proposal ignores / misses Greenwich 3 0% Loss of access to retail, shops 1 0% Loss of access to Tesco supermarket (Old Kent Road) 6 0% Loss of access to Sainsbury's supermarket (New Cross 5 0% Gate)

Negative impact: Transport Loss of direct National Rail services / will worsen 6 0% access further from London

Negative impact on National Rail services Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 2 0% generally Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 4 0% to Charing Cross station Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 3 0% to Cannon Street station Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 3 0% to London Bridge station Bakerloo line extension will mean slower services into 2 0% London compared to now New Cross Gate station already cannot cope with 1 0% passenger numbers New Cross Gate station will not be able to cope with 2 0% passenger numbers

64

Lewisham station already cannot cope with passenger 3 0% numbers Lewisham station will not be able to cope with 1 0% passenger numbers

Negative impact: Economic Complete waste of money 4 0% Concerned about cost / too costly / too expensive 4 0% Use this money for other improvements (Crossrail 2) 1 0% Use this money for other improvements (National Rail 2 0% elsewhere) Concerned about loss of jobs / employment at 4 0% supermarkets

Negative impact: Social Could increase property prices and price local people 6 0% out Could be less safe - more crime / antisocial behaviour 2 0% Do not support proposal if green space is lost / 3 0% environmental impact Will bring too much development / over-development 5 0%

Other Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 99 1% not applicable to this question

Comments on consultation Positive comment about consultation 3 0% Negative comment about consultation 41 0%

Suggested alternative / additional locations for the Bakerloo line to serve* Support extending the Bakerloo line generally 14 0% Beckenham 19 0%

65

Beckenham Junction 13 0% Bexley 3 0% Bexleyheath 2 0% Bromley 18 0% Bromley South 2 0% Burgess Park 3 0% Camberwell 44 1% Canary Wharf 1 0% Catford 75 1% Catford Bridge 1 0% Croydon / East Croydon / West Croydon 1 0% Crystal Palace 4 0% Denmark Hill 5 0% Downham 1 0% Greenwich 6 0% Grove Park 4 0% Hayes 45 1% Hither Green 24 0% Ladywell 9 0% Orpington 3 0% Peckham 35 0% Sidcup 3 0% Sydenham / Lower Sydenham 16 0% Thamesmead 2 0% West Wickham 2 0% Blackheath 4 0% Eltham 14 0% Eltham High Street 1 0% Clockhouse 1 0% Bellingham 5 0%

66

Bromley North 4 0% Nunhead 4 0% Walworth Road 6 0% Kidbrooke 2 0% 1 0% West Norwood 1 0% Lee / Lee Green 8 0% Anerley 1 0% St John’s 11 0% Loughborough Junction 1 0% London Bridge 1 0% Dunton Road 1 0% Chislehurst 1 0%

Suggested locations for stations on the Bakerloo line route* Bricklayers Arms 62 1% Brockley 12 0% Walworth Road 4 0% Peckham 1 0% Dulwich 9 0% New Cross Station 8 0% Mottingham 2 0% Buckley 1 0% Deptford 5 0% Peckham Rye 5 0% Wearside Road Depot 3 0% Honor Oak 2 0% Denmark Hill 1 0% Penge 2 0% Forest Hill 3 0%

67

Rotherhithe 1 0% Surrey Quays 3 0% Tower Bridge Road South 1 0% Clapham 1 0% 1 0% Streatham 1 0% Telegraph Hill 1 0% Elmers End 1 0% Clifton's Roundabout 1 0% Tulse Hill 1 0% Ilderton Road 1 0% Biggin Hill 1 0% Crofton Park 1 0% 1 0% Queens Road Peckham 1 0% South Bermondsey 3 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 27 0%

Q5a) We have considered three possible primary Neutral, but Neutral, but tunnelling worksites for the proposed extension at consider consider New Cross Gate, Hither Green and Catford. Our specific specific proposal is for the primary tunnelling worksite to be groups groups at New Cross Gate. Please let us have any comments on the possible primary tunnelling worksites.

General supportive comments Good idea / support the proposal (proposed New Cross 1,984 28% Gate Site) Don’t delay / prefer site that allows work to start soonest 35 1% Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 8 0% too long

68

Disruption during construction is worthwhile 180 3% Support - Economic benefit / regeneration effect 39 1% Support as believe the best option will have been 50 1% chosen / trust experts Good idea / support any of the sites (no preference) 112 2% Support given existing infrastructure / connectivity / 105 2% interchange Support given existing land / space available 66 1% Support, will benefit young people / students 2 0%

Support, with caveats Support, but shame about loss of supermarket site 78 1% Support, but concerned about negative environmental 6 0% impact Support, but avoid damage to / loss of heritage 4 0% buildings Support, but avoid negative impact on Hither Green 2 0% Nature Reserve Support, but avoid negative impact on Waterlink Way 3 0% Cycle Route Support, but avoid negative impact on Jubilee Grounds 5 0% in Catford Support, but ensure a supermarket alternative is 45 1% provided Support, but ensure all disruption is adequately 24 0% mitigated (in general) Support, but ensure prioritised pedestrian access 3 0% through the former Sainsburys site Support, but ensure local people / community are 1 0% involved in consultation Support, but ensure local people / community are 1 0% involved in construction / part of workforce Support, but avoid negative impact on existing rail 2 0% infrastructure (e.g. stations / lines) Support, but improve roads 1 0%

69

Support, but ensure that affected local people / 2 0% businesses are compensated for disruption Support, but ensure parking facilities available for 1 0% construction workers

Comment supporting specific site Favour the New Cross Gate site (Least disruptive in 114 2% general / to residents / to businesses) Favour the New Cross Gate site (Smallest 42 1% environmental impact) Favour the New Cross Gate site (Redevelopment / 92 1% regeneration opportunity) Favour the Hither Green site (generally) 66 1% Favour the Hither Green site (Least disruptive in general 34 0% / to residents / businesses) Favour the Hither Green site (Smallest environmental 1 0% impact) Favour the Hither Green site (Redevelopment / 5 0% regeneration opportunity) Favour the Catford site (generally) 74 1% Favour the Catford site (Least disruptive in general / to 14 0% residents / businesses) Favour the Catford site (Smallest environmental impact) 2 0% Favour the Catford site (Redevelopment / regeneration 19 0% opportunity)

Support principle, but oppose specific site Support in principle, but do not use New Cross Gate site 10 0% Support in principle, but do not use New Cross Gate site 15 0% (Impact on residents / businesses) Support in principle, but do not use New Cross Gate site 1 0% (Environmental impact) Support in principle, but do not use Hither Green site 36 1% Support in principle, but do not use Hither Green site 60 1% (Impact on residents / businesses)

70

Support in principle, but do not use Hither Green site 45 1% (Environmental impact) Support in principle, but do not use Catford site 57 1% Support in principle, but do not use Catford site (Impact 47 1% on residents / businesses) Support in principle, but do not use Catford site 41 1% (Environmental impact)

Suggestions for sites Support least disruptive site / try to minimise disruption 242 3% Select the least expensive / cheaper option 106 2% Select the site that involves less tunnelling / work under 41 1% ground Support the quickest / most efficient option 101 1% Support option with least environmental impact 60 1% Ensure surrounding area has provision for active travel 5 0% users (pedestrians / cyclists) Provide green space / parks around the chosen 1 0% tunnelling site Select the site with the best transport connections 1 0% Select the option which best enables future extension 1 0% (e.g. to Hayes)

Suggestions for re-use of sites after construction Use as a green space (site not specified) 1 0% Use as a bus / transport interchange (site not specified) 1 0% Use as a cycle hub / cycle parking (site not specified) 2 0% Use for housing / affordable housing (site not specified) 1 0% Use as retail / supermarket (replacement) (site not 0 0% specified)

Suggestions for re-use of New Cross Gate site after construction Use New Cross Gate site as a green space 2 0%

71

Use New Cross Gate site as a bus / transport 5 0% interchange Use New Cross Gate site as a cycle hub / cycle parking 2 0% Use New Cross Gate site for housing / affordable 4 0% housing Use New Cross Gate site as retail / supermarket 4 0% (replacement)

Suggestions for re-use of Hither Green site after construction Use of Hither Green site as a green space 4 0%

Suggestions for re-use of Catford site after construction Use of Catford site as a green space 2 0% Use of Catford site for housing / affordable housing 1 0% Use of Catford site as retail / supermarket (replacement) 1 0%

Support, but consider specific groups Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 1 0% younger people / under 30s Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 1 0% with other disabilities Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 1 0% on low incomes

Nothing to add / say No comment / nothing to say / n/a 853 12% Indifferent / Does not affect me 108 2%

Unsure / questions Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 174 2% Question about impact of sites on local road network 9 0% Query about plans to redevelop the Sainsburys site 28 0%

72

Unsure about impact on Hither Green Nature Reserve 1 0% Unsure about impact on Waterlink Way Cycle Route 1 0% Unsure about impact on Jubilee Grounds in Catford 1 0% Unsure about impact on resident property 9 0%

Suggestions / matters to account for… Need to add a second branch to Bakerloo line 2 0%

Neutral, but consider specific groups No view on proposals, but will need to ensure it meets 1 0% the needs of older people / pensioners No view on proposals, but will need to ensure it meets 1 0% the needs of those on low incomes No view on proposals, but construction should not 13 0% impact cyclists

Comments opposing proposed sites Oppose all sites / generally oppose scheme 25 0% Oppose all sites - not needed / unnecessary 9 0% Oppose all sites - waste of money / expensive 11 0% Oppose New Cross Gate site 27 0% Oppose New Cross Gate site (Impact on residents / 82 1% businesses / community facilities) Oppose New Cross Gate site (Environmental impact) 12 0% Oppose Hither Green site 55 1% Oppose Hither Green site (Impact on residents / 117 2% businesses / community facilities) Oppose Hither Green site (Environmental impact) 49 1% Oppose Catford site 80 1% Oppose Catford site (Impact on residents / businesses / 129 2% community facilities) Oppose Catford site (Environmental impact) 63 1% Oppose due to negative impact on Hither Green Nature 78 1%

73

Reserve Oppose due to negative impact on Waterlink Way Cycle 6 0% Route Oppose due to negative impact on Jubilee Grounds in 123 2% Catford Oppose Catford option due to safety concern 2 0%

Concerns about site impacts (transport) Concerned about sites deliveries / construction vehicles 2 0% (no location specified) Concerned about disruption / road closures (no location 16 0% specified) Concerned about disruption to public transport (no 2 0% location specified) Concerned about sites deliveries / construction vehicles 16 0% (at New Cross Gate) Concerned about disruption / road closures (at New 135 2% Cross Gate) Concerned about disruption to public transport (at New 31 0% Cross Gate) Concerned about sites deliveries / construction vehicles 15 0% (at Hither Green) Concerned about disruption / road closures (at Hither 51 1% Green) Concerned about disruption to public transport (at Hither 23 0% Green) Concerned about sites deliveries / construction vehicles 12 0% (at Catford) Concerned about disruption / road closures (at Catford) 104 1% Concerned about disruption to public transport (at 14 0% Catford)

Concerns about specific groups Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 8 0% the needs of younger people / under 30s Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 1 0%

74

the needs of older people / pensioners Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 1 0% the needs of all deaf / hearing impaired users Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 1 0% the needs of those with other disabilities Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will impact 4 0% student population around New Cross Gate

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 125 2% not applicable to this question Respondent has misunderstood / respondent believes 138 2% there will be a station at Hither Green and Catford Alternative site suggestion for tunnelling 11 0%

Comments on consultation Positive comment about consultation 3 0% Negative comment about consultation 5 0% Keep informed / communicate with affected parties 10 0%

Suggested alternative / additional locations work site Croydon 1 0% Hayes 1 0% Ladywell 1 0% Orpington 1 0% Sydenham / Lower Sydenham 3 0% Deptford 1 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 39 1%

75

Q5b) In our previous consultation in 2017 we Neutral, but Neutral, but discussed that there would be a worksite at Old consider consider Kent Road 1 to build the station. We have updated specific specific our proposals and we are now also considering groups groups carrying out tunnelling activities from the site towards Lambeth North. Please let us have any comments on our updated proposal for how we could use the Old Kent Road 1 worksite.

General support for proposal Support proposal / good idea / best location 813 25% Don’t delay / get on with it / start work as soon as you 36 1% can Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 4 0% too long Good to reduce the number of work sites / good - less 6 0% work sites needed Support as believe the best option will have been 27 1% chosen / trust experts Will be disruptive, but worthwhile 43 1% Support use of Old Kent Road 1 site - economically 1 0% beneficial Support as closure of supermarket may provide a boost 1 0% to local retail Support, will allow spoil to be removed by rail / no need 4 0% to use road Support as loss of supermarket will reduce traffic and 1 0% free up car parking area

Content / Agree, but with caveats Support, but need to manage construction traffic 46 1% Support, but ensure pedestrians can move around the 6 0% worksite easily Support, but ensure cyclists can move around the 8 0% worksite easily Support, but reinstate the disused Old Kent Road 1 0% station

76

Support, as long as it is cost effective / cheap 18 1% Support, as long as it is least disruptive option / take 46 1% steps to minimise disruption Support, as long as this is the fastest option 49 2% Support, but tunnel from multiple locations / more than 8 0% one tunnelling site Ensure proposal is safe / safe option 7 0% Support, but ensure environmental impact is minimised 16 0% (incl. air pollution) Support proposal, if it reduces congestion / improves 2 0% traffic flow Support proposal as long as cut and cover is used 1 0% where possible Support, ensure bus access is maintained 3 0% Support as long as service is kept running 3 0% Support, but take opportunity to develop supermarket at 1 0% the same time Support, but ensure supermarket is not lost 2 0%

Suggested alternative locations to commence tunnelling Lambeth North 13 0% Perry Street 1 0% Suggest alternative location (non-specific) 9 0% Catford Hill 1 0% Camberwell 1 0% Bricklayers Arms 3 0% Hither Green 1 0% Catford 3 0% Beckenham 1 0% New Cross Gate 2 0% Mandela Road 1 0% Old Toys R Us site 3 0%

77

Suggestions for re-use of Old Kent Road 1 site after construction Use as a green space 10 0% Use as a bus / transport interchange 2 0% Use as a cycle hub / cycle parking 1 0% Use for housing / affordable housing 30 1% Use for commercial / retail purposes 25 1% Agree with proposal to use this site as a London 30 1% Underground station Community centre / social club 8 0% Connect station on this site to Crossrail 1 0% Equipment store / depot 4 0% Connect station on this site to London Overground 1 0% Use site as a maintenance training area 1 0% Use sustainable materials / recycle spoil for other uses 1 0% Sustainable energy facility 1 0%

Nothing to add / say No comment / nothing to say / n/a 1,198 37% Indifferent / no view either way 304 9% Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 102 3%

Unsure / questions Will tunnelling take place at night / overnight? 2 0% What will be the wider impact of this be on transport / 12 0% traffic? Is the long term plan to replace the supermarket? 17 1% What are the options for removing spoil / consider ways 3 0% to remove this What steps will be taken to minimise disruption? 1 0%

78

Not content / oppose proposal Oppose the proposed use of Old Kent Road 1 as a 36 1% worksite Don’t see any personal benefit from proposal, so 3 0% opposed Oppose Bakerloo line extension (generally) 5 0% Oppose use of Old Kent Road 1 as an Underground 1 0% station Oppose proposal, unless services are maintained / 6 0% alternative services are provided Oppose, will cause traffic problems / congestion / 11 0% disruption to bus services Oppose, costly / not worth the money 4 0% Oppose, will be too disruptive 3 0%

Concerns about site impacts (community / social) Negative impact on businesses (general) 3 0% Oppose loss of local supermarket as there are no 9 0% alternatives locally Oppose loss of local supermarket as it will leave lots of 1 0% people unemployed Oppose loss of local supermarket as it provides Petrol 4 0% Filling Station Object as it will block the delivery of housing 1 0% Oppose loss of supermarket (generally) 24 1% Oppose loss of supermarket - impact on old / infirm 1 0% people Negative impact on residents 9 0% Oppose, negative impact on schools 1 0%

Concerns about site impacts (environmental) Use of site will have a negative impact on the 1 0% environment Use of site will have a negative impact due to noise 7 0% disturbance

79

Use of site will have a negative impact on air quality 6 0%

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 127 4% not applicable to this question Consider training / education of local students 4 0%

Comments on consultation Positive comment about consultation 1 0% Negative comment about consultation 13 0% Don’t understand this question 6 0% Listen to / consult with local community 11 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 16 0%

Q6) Please let us have any comments for our Neutral, but Neutral, but proposals for the Wearside Road Council depot site consider consider where empty trains would be stabled. - Comments specific specific groups groups

Content / No issue / Agree with proposal Support proposal / good idea / best location 1,094 33% Don’t delay / get on with it / start work as soon as you 10 0% can Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 4 0% too long Good that this is already a council site 21 1% Good, will bring jobs / employment to the area 15 0% Support as believe the best option will have been 9 0% chosen / trust experts Support, the disruption during construction is worthwhile 3 0%

80

Content / Agree, but with caveats Support, but need to manage access for service 6 0% vehicles / construction traffic Support, but ensure pedestrians can move around the 5 0% stabling depot easily Support, but ensure cyclists can move around the 3 0% stabling depot easily Support, but minimise disruption on surrounding 29 1% residential properties Support, as long as it is cost effective / cheap 9 0% Support, as long as it is least disruptive option / take 28 1% steps to minimise disruption Support, but locate the stabling depot underground 16 0% Support, providing no disruption to activities at current 10 0% depot side Support, but provide sufficient screening from 10 0% surrounding properties Support, but consider impact on flooding 8 0% Support, but minimise impact on surrounding 38 1% environment / waterways / wildlife Support, but minimise impact on existing traffic / roads / 16 0% existing train service Support, but as long as green space is restored / 15 0% maintained / developed Support, provided it is large enough to 12 0% accommodate/service the trains

Support, providing there is adequate security 11 0% Support, but ensure the design can accommodate a 6 0% future extension to Hayes

Suggestions for the depot site Could build housing above the depot 15 0% Could build a public park at the depot 3 0% Could build shops/retail above the depot 3 0% Could build offices above the depot 1 0%

81

Suggest having extra facilities at the site in addition to 1 0% the Bakerloo line depot

Nothing to add / say No comment / nothing to say / n/a 1,319 40% Indifferent / no view either way 77 2% Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 110 3% Should listen to what local residents think 11 0%

Unsure / questions Question about location of Wearside Road / where is 32 1% this? What will happen to the existing council depot? 67 2% Unsure about suitability of road access to depot 6 0% Will this result in road closures? 1 0% Concern about land availability / acquisition / depot size 15 0% requirement / capacity Question about future of London Road depot 5 0% Suggest restricted hours of operation 1 0% Concerns / comment about depot roof 2 0%

Not content / oppose proposal Oppose the use of this land as the proposed train depot 34 1% site Residential area - not suitable for a train depot 6 0% Pick another location instead 20 1%

Concerns about impact of depot (economic / employment) Concerned about local employment impact 3 0% Concerned about oversite development 2 0% Concerned about impact on property prices 1 0%

82

Concerns about impact of depot (community / social) Concerned about late night working 6 0% Concerned about noise / disruption to local residents / 55 2% other pollution Concerned would attract crime 3 0% Concerned about effect on waste collection services 7 0% Concerned about effect on local bus services 2 0% Concerned about service vehicles accessing the depot 4 0% Concerned about impact on existing road network 11 0% Concern about the impact on surrounding environment / 9 0% waterways /wildlife around this site

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 68 2% not applicable to this question

Comments on consultation Positive comment about consultation 1 0% Negative comment about consultation 9 0% Don’t understand the question / unclear 2 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 35 1%

Q7 Please let us have your views on the name of Neutral, but Neutral, but Old Kent Road 1 station. Suggestions for this consider consider station have included Old Kent Road or Burgess specific specific Park. This is a popular nearby park and there is a groups groups history of Tube stations being named after parks (e.g. Green Park, Regents Park). We welcome your views on the name of the station*. - Comments

83

Support for suggested name Support for Old Kent Road option as proposed 847 15% Support for Burgess Park option as proposed 3,388 59% Both acceptable - support for both Burgess Park and 71 1% Old Kent Road

Suggested possible names for Old Kent Road 1 station Albany Road 11 0% Bricklayer's Arms 22 0% Burgess McPark face 1 0% Burgess Park East 5 0% Camberwell Green 1 0% Developers' Dream 1 0% Dun Cow 15 0% Dunton Bridge 1 0% Dunton Road 14 0% Halkin Park 1 0% Humphrey Street / Humphrey Station 3 0% Kenty McKentface 2 0% Kevin Beattie 2 0% Linear Canal 1 0% Mandela Way 47 1% New Kent Road 6 0% OKR 3 0% Old Kent North 1 0% Old Kent Road Fire Station 1 0% Old Kent Road South 5 0% Old Kent Road West 8 0% Station McStationface 5 0% Surrey Canal 4 0%

84

Surrey Square 6 0% The Trafalgar 1 0% Thomas A Becket 26 0% Towers of Illium 1 0% Tubey McTubeFace 29 1% Walworth 26 0% Wellington Baths 1 0% Wemmick Cottage 1 0% West Bermondsey 6 0% Willowbrook 3 0% Woolworth Road 1 0% Old Kent Road North 25 0% Burgess Park (Old Kent Road) / Burgess Park (OKR) 15 0% Mina 1 0% Burgess Park North 3 0% Burgess Park West 1 0% East Walworth 3 0% Peckham North 1 0% Old Kent Road (Burgess Park) 15 0% Watling / Watling Street 9 0% Old Kent Road 1 11 0% Walworth Academy 5 0% Square 1 Station 1 0% Prince George Line 1 0% Burgess Green 1 0% Leyton Square 1 0% Lower Old Kent Road 2 0% Bricklayers Old Kent Road 1 0% Bermondsey South 1 0% Michael Faraday 1 0%

85

Millwall / Millwall Station 3 0% New Old Kent Road 1 0% Elizabeth II Station 1 0% Asylum 3 0% Springfield 1 0% Old Fire Station 2 0% Thomas a Becket / Becket 26 0% Mountbatten 1 0% The Gin Palace 1 0% Boaty McBoatFace 2 0% Tubey 1 0% Bricklayer's Arm South 1 0% Abigail 1 0% Stanfordia 1 0% St Saviours 1 0% Southwark Central 1 0% Pilgrims Way / Pilgrim / Pilgrims 3 0% East Street 1 0% Rosalind Franklin Station 1 0%

Unreasonable suggestion 23 0%

Roman Station 1 0% Post Office Stop 1 0% Pearly Gates 1 0% PB Shelly Station 1 0% Agincourt 1 0% Old Kent Road Central 1 0% Greenslade 1 0% Gravy Park 1 0%

86

St Thomas a Watering 1 0% Burgess Road 1 0% Burgess Place 1 0% Burgess 3 0% Burgess Heath Park 1 0% Bowie 1 0% Henry Cooper 3 0% Garden of England 1 0% Fritz Boulevard Park 1 0% Edison Bell 1 0% Palmer Station 1 0% Chaplin / Charlie Chaplin 4 0% Ammonite 1 0% Monopoly Square 1 0% Chaucer 1 0% Burgess Old Kent Road 2 0% Livesey Station 1 0% Old Kent Road (Mandela Way) 1 0% Bermondsey Glory 1 0% Grove Park 1 0% Kent Burgess Park 1 0% Avondale Square 1 0% Brunel 1 0% Burgess Central 1 0% Old Kent Road 1 - Burgess Park 1 0% Burgess Park (OKR1) 1 0% Old Kent Park / O.K. Park 3 0% Old Kent Burgess 1 0% Tesco Park 1 0% Old Town Road 1 0%

87

Old Kent Tesco 1 0% Addington Square 1 0% Asylum Road 1 0% Old Surrey Canal 1 0% Fools & Horses 1 0% Burgess Town Station 1 0% Lord Nelson 1 0% Calypso Gardens 1 0% Newman Station 1 0% Burgess Park FB 1 0% Burgess Park Core 1 0% Burgess Park Asylum 1 0% Old Kent Wandworth Station 1 0% Great Dover street station 1 0% The Victory, Burgess Park Corner 1 0% Old Kent Road - "alight here for Burgess Park" / "for 2 0% Burgess Park" Old Dun Cow 1 0% Tesco OKR 1 0% Nelson Mandela 1 0% Ernesto "Che" Guevara 1 0% Albert Einstein 1 0% Constantin Caratheodory 1 0% Rosa Luxeburg 1 0% Karl Marx 1 0% Valentina Tereshkova 1 0% Sally Ride 1 0% Kent Road 1 0% Kent Park 1 0% Kent Junction 1 0% Portchester House 1 0%

88

Ye Jessie Burgess 1 0% Canterbury Tale 1 0% Mary Potter 1 0% Peckham 1 0% Lindsay 1 0% S&L 1 0% Marcia Rolls 1 0% Del Boy 2 0% Grill Park Station 1 0% Aylesbury 1 0% North\East Southwark 1 0%

Suggested name, but with reason for support Support Burgess Park, will make the park and area well- 68 1% known and popular Support Burgess Park, easy to locate on map 10 0% Support Burgess Park, would increase property value 1 0% nearby Support Old Kent Road, as it is iconic / famous / known 10 0% Support Old Kent Road, more specific to location 4 0%

Suggested name, but with concern Burgess Park, but unclear / specific local name better 9 0% suited Old Kent Road, but worry this may be misleading due to 1 0% length of road Support Burgess Park, if it is near to the proposed 3 0% station

Neutral comment No comment / nothing to say / n/a 232 4% Indifferent / no view either way 75 1%

89

Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 9 0% Should listen to what local residents think / further 12 0% consultation Both acceptable - support for both Burgess Park and 23 0% Old Kent Road One of the stations should be Old Kent Road 47 1% (conditional on other naming) Not a royal name 4 0% Name the station after local famous person 6 0% Name it after a famous pub 1 0% Name it after somewhere/something locally relevant 4 0% Don't use numbers in the station name 2 0%

Oppose Old Kent Road name Old Kent Road is too long road / difficulty working out 105 2% where on Old Kent Road station would be Old Kent Road is too long a name 2 0% Old Kent Road, unpleasant / confusing / negative 26 0% connotations

Oppose Burgess Park name Burgess Park is not well known / unclear 48 1% Burgess Park has negative associations with name 4 0% Burgess Park is quite a long way away / Burgess Park 8 0% is not close by

Oppose both options Don’t like either of the suggested option - oppose both 6 0% Burgess Park and Old Kent Road

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 46 1% not applicable to this question Oppose the extension generally (not relevant to naming) 4 0%

90

Made reference to the Monopoly board 113 2% Suggested local competition / school initiative 5 0% General negative comment on consultation 3 0% Not interested in the proposal 1 0% Don't sell station branding rights 2 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 33 1%

Q8 Please let us have your views on the name of Neutral, but Neutral, but Old Kent Road 2 station. Suggestions for this consider consider station have included Old Kent Road or Asylum specific specific which reflects the nearby road of that name and the groups groups history of buildings in the area. We welcome your views on the name of the station*. - Comments

Support for suggested name / reason for support Support for Old Kent Road option as proposed 1,880 30% Support for Asylum option as proposed 1,275 20% Support Asylum name option - unique / edgy / unusual / 101 2% memorable Support Asylum name option - historic value / 96 2% importance Support Old Kent Road from iconic London landmark / 124 2% historic value / Monopoly Support in general / no reference to station name 70 1% Support Asylum as it will help give a positive 5 0% endorsement to the word

Suggested name, but with concern Support Asylum option, but unclear / specific local name 12 0% better suited Support Old Kent Road option, but worry this may be 14 0% misleading due to length of road

91

Suggested possible names for Old Kent Road 2 station Almshouse 4 0% Asylum Chapel 17 0% Asylum Park 3 0% Asylum Road 192 3% Asylum Road Peckham 1 0% Bird 1 0% Bird in Bush 33 1% Bricklayers 2 0% Bricklayers Arms 4 0% Brimmington Park 33 1% Burgess Park 16 0% Caroline Garden 2 0% Caroline Gardens 68 1% Devonshire Grove 7 0% Gervase Street 3 0% Goldsmiths 2 0% Hairy Horse 1 0% Ilderton Road / Ilderton 12 0% Isle of Wight 1 0% Kent Park 1 0% Kings Grove 1 0% Lambourn 2 0% Ledbury 3 0% Livesey 12 0% Livesey Church 1 0% Lower Old Kent Road 2 0% Mammoth and Fort 1 0% Millwall 8 0% Montroe 1 0%

92

North Peckham 36 1% OK2 1 0% Old Kent Chapel 1 0% Old Kent Road North 7 0% Old Kent Road East 14 0% Old Kent Road South 48 1% Old Kent Road West 4 0% Old Town Road Station 1 0% Peckham Asylum 5 0% Peckham North 38 1% Pilgrims Way / Pilgrim 16 0% Queens Road 4 0% Queens Road Peckham 1 0% South Old Kent Road 4 0% Southwark Recycling Centre Station 1 0% St James Road 1 0% Station 272 1 0% Station McStationface II 1 0% Terry Hurlock 1 0% Towers of Illium 1 0% Train McStation 1 0% Tubey Tubey Doo 1 0% University Station 1 0% Victuallers Asylum / Victuallers 3 0% Watling Street 8 0% Willowbrook 4 0% Alan Turing Station 1 0% Arkham Asylum 1 0% Arkham 2 0% Art Asylum 1 0%

93

Asylum - Old Kent Road 4 0% Asylum House 1 0% Asylum Kent 1 0% Asylum Peckham 1 0% Asylum Square 1 0% Asylum Cuttings 1 0% Babbage 1 0% Becket 1 0% Berners Lee 1 0% Bermondsey 1 0% Bird in Bush park 7 0% Bird in the Hand 1 0% Canal Bridge 5 0% Canal Park 1 0% Canal Road / Canal 1 0% Centurion Station 1 0% Commercial Road 2 0% Chaucer or Neckinger 4 0% Commercial Way 7 0% Community Chest 1 0% Copeland Asylum 1 0% Devonshire Square 1 0% Dr Harold Moody station 1 0% Dunton Road 1 0% Dun Cow 3 0% Europa 1 0% Elizabeth II station 1 0% European Union 1 0% East Southwark 2 0% East Peckham 4 0%

94

George 1 0% Gas Containers 1 0% Hatcham 7 0% Humanity 1 0% Henry Cooper 1 0% Kent Road 2 0% Leo Street 3 0% Lindsay station 1 0% Livesey Museum 2 0% London Asylum 1 0% Marlowe Way 1 0% Mary Shelley 1 0% Meeting House 3 0% Michael Faraday 1 0% Montpelier 1 0% New Cross / New Cross Road 5 0% New Kent Road 6 0% New Peckham 1 0% North Kent Road 1 0% Old Kent Road Asylum (OKRA) / Old Kent Asylum 24 0% Old Asylum Stop 1 0% Old Commercial Road Station 1 0% Old Kent 6 0% Old Kent House 1 0% Old Kent industries 1 0% Old Kent Road Peckham 2 0% One London 1 0% Palmer station 1 0% Peckham 9 0% Peckham East 3 0%

95

Peckham Park Road 1 0% Peckham New Town 2 0% Portchester House 1 0% Recycling Station 2 0% Retail station 1 0% Roman Road / Old Roman Road 3 0% Sanctuary 2 0% St Marys 1 0% Southwark East 1 0% Sylvan Grove 2 0% 4 0% The Lions Station 1 0% The Eagle 1 0% Thomas a Becket 2 0% Trotters Tube Station 1 0% Upper Old Kent Road 3 0% West New cross 1 0% Eagle Way 1 0% Gasometer 1 0% Old Kent Road-Asylum Road 1 0% Albany Road station 1 0% Anglo Saxon 3 0% Argone 1 0% Arnold Toynbee 1 0% Kenty O'Kent Face 1 0% Asylum Building 1 0% Asylum McAsylum Face 1 0% Bermondsey Cross 3 0% Bethlam 1 0% Black is Beautiful 1 0%

96

Boaty McBoatface! 1 0% Borders 1 0% Bordiss square 1 0% Brexitville 1 0% Bricklayers Park Station 1 0% Bridgehouse Meadows 1 0% Brunel 1 0% Burgess Central 1 0% Busty McBoatface 1 0% Camelot 1 0% Chaplin Station / Charlie Chaplin 3 0% Charles Dickens 2 0% Clive 2 1 0% Dave 1 0% Del Boy 1 0% Diagon Alley 1 0% Eltham 1 0% Friary 1 0% frieze of Kentish Drovers 1 0% Gas Works 2 0% Gasworks Wall 1 0% Grand Surrey Canal 1 0% Heart of South East 1 0% Heritage Station 1 0% Hogwarts 1 0% Ivy House 1 0% Jane Austen 1 0% Joker 1 0% Jules Verne 1 0% Kent Boulevard 1 0%

97

Kentish Drovers 1 0% Knocked Em in the Old Kent Road 1 0% Lower Bermondsey 1 0% Man Like Fritz 1 0% Mandela station 2 0% Mark 1 0% Monopoly 2 0% Monopoly Brown 1 0% Nancy 1 0% Neil Armstrong 1 0% Nelson 1 0% New Cross Gate 1 0% New Old Kent Road 2 0% Number Two OKRd 1 0% Nut House 1 0% OKR Gas Works 1 0% Old Kent 1 Station 1 0% Old Kent Bermonsey station 1 0% Old Kent Road Watling Street 1 0% Old Kent route 1 0% Old Surrey Canal 2 0% Our Lady of Sorrows 1 0% Peabody 1 0% Peckham Parks 1 0% Penrose 1 0% Pilgrims' Route 1 0% Reggie Kray 1 0% Roast Dinner Road 1 0% Seacole Gate 1 0% Silver Birch 1 0%

98

Sir David Attenborough station 1 0% Sketchy Town 1 0% South Bermondsey 3 0% South Kent road 1 0% South London Intergalactic Terminal 3 1 0% Southwark Recyling 1 0% Stanfordopolis 1 0% Station 2 1 0% Station McStationface 2 0% Stationy McStationface 2 0% Stoppy McHerePlz 1 0% Surfers Hell 1 0% Surrey Canal 2 0% Tabernacle 2 0% The Boot 1 0% The Friary or Friary 1 0% The Peckham Gas Works 1 0% The Stan 1 0% Toys 1 0% Toys R Us 2 0% Traditional old Kent road 1 0% Tubey 2 1 0% Tubey McTube 1 0% Tubey McTubeFace 8 0% Tubey McTubeFace II 3 0% Tustin Estate 1 0% Upper Peckham 1 0% Wales Station 1 0% Willow Walk 1 0% Windrush 2 0%

99

Yuri Gagarin 1 0% Old Kent Road Almshouses 1 0% Old Kent Road no.2 22 0% Old Asylum 1 0% Leo 1 0% 2022 1 0% Publicans 1 0%

Unreasonable suggestion 16 0%

Neutral comment No comment / nothing to say / n/a 286 5% Indifferent / no view either way 71 1% Need more information / don’t know enough to comment 22 0% Should listen to what local residents think / further 18 0% consultation Both acceptable - support for both Asylum and Old Kent 38 1% Road One of the stations should be Old Kent Road 93 1% (conditional on other naming) Name should reflect local area such as a park or local 63 1% monument Suggestion that local schools should have a naming 4 0% competition Put it to a public vote 1 0%

Oppose Old Kent Road name Old Kent Road is too long road / difficulty working out 63 1% where on Old Kent Road station would be Old Kent Road is too long a name 6 0% Old Kent Road, unpleasant / confusing / negative 36 1% connotations Opposition to naming a station after a road in general 12 0%

100

Neither should be Old Kent Road to avoid confusion 12 0%

Oppose Asylum name Asylum, negative mental health/illness connotations 59 1% Asylum, unpleasant / confusing / negative connotations 710 11% / inappropriate / unattractive for area and residents Asylum, generic / geographically unclear 14 0% Asylum, historical connotations may be unknown 6 0%

Oppose both options Don’t like either of the suggested option - oppose both 39 1% Asylum and Old Kent Road

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 96 2% not applicable to this question Oppose the extension generally (not relevant to naming) 3 0% Respondent misunderstood / thinks both stations will be 13 0% named similarly

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 23 0%

Q9b) We are considering a further extension of the Neutral, but Neutral, but route beyond Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham consider consider Junction. This would involve a conversion of the specific specific National Rail line via Catford to Hayes to an groups groups Underground operation.

Comment supportive of extension to Hayes and/or Beckenham Junction Good idea / do it / extend Bakerloo line to Hayes and 2,075 17% Beckenham Junction Don’t delay / get on with it / start work as soon as you 191 2% can

101

Overdue / should have been done sooner / has taken 119 1% too long Support, but go even further / go beyond Hayes 69 1% Good - will bring the London Underground closer to me / 30 0% to my area Good - makes up for previously cancelled transport 5 0% projects Improvement compared to existing transport services 244 2% (e.g. bus / rail) Don’t miss this opportunity / should not terminate at 41 0% Lewisham Support that right decision has been made / trust 7 0% experts Support as it will reduce fares for some journeys 28 0% Support as would be beneficial / provide a boost to the 220 2% area (unspecific) Support as would use spare capacity / fill under-utilised 28 0% route Support as it is more suitable as a metro line 15 0% Support extension as it will maximise benefit/impact of 13 0% Phase 1 (Elephant & Castle to Lewisham) Support as it uses existing infrastructure 72 1% Support as it will improve services and travelling 18 0% conditions Support as it will reduce traffic 54 0% Support as it will be better if TfL run the service 49 0% Support as it will avoid / bypass London Bridge and 5 0% Charing Cross

Support, with caveats Support, as long as construction disruption is minimised 29 0% Support, as long as stations / trains are disabled 36 0% accessible / accessible in general / step-free Support, as long as affordable housing is provided as 3 0% part of the development

102

Will be disruptive, but worthwhile 20 0% Support, as long as there are more services 43 0% Support, as long as business case / economic case of 8 0% two Phases considered separately Support, as long as both Phases are taken forward 69 1% together / de-risk Phase 2 not occurring Support, as long as Phase 2 doesn't delay Phase 1 / 100 1% impact on delivery Will be expensive, but worthwhile 5 0% Support, as long as it provides a capacity benefit / can 55 0% handle demand Support, as long as environmental impact is minimised 11 0% Support, as long as interchange in Lewisham is 16 0% minimised/efficient Support, as long as journey times get shorter / do not 16 0% get longer Support, but needs a residents' parking scheme to be 3 0% implemented Support, as long as the cost won't impact other 3 0% important rail projects Support, as long as the efficiency, service and 36 0% frequency are no worse than at present Support, as long as there are easy connections with 9 0% tram services Support, as long as National Rail services are 109 1% maintained Support, as long as disruption from trains is minimised 4 0% Support, as long as new / modern / air conditioned 4 0% trains are introduced

Positive impact: Access / connectivity benefit Will improve Underground access in areas with poor 197 2% existing transport links Will improve connections / access generally (no location 340 3% given) Will improve access to/from Catford 10 0%

103

Will improve access to/from Hayes 21 0% Will improve Underground access in South East London 386 3% Will improve access / provide direct services to 244 2% employment / easier commuting Will improve access / provide direct services to Central 277 2% London / amenities / visit family or friends Will improve access / provide direct services to other 59 0% parts of London / amenities / visit family or friends Will improve connections to London Underground 139 1% network Will improve connections to other London railway 34 0% stations Will be easier to walk / cycle around London 4 0% Will improve connections to the London Tram network 46 0% Will improve connections to London Overground 8 0% network Will improve access to/from Beckenham Junction 34 0%

Positive impact: Transport / Traffic benefit Will provide a new option for public transport 290 2% Will reduce pressure/crowding on National Rail / 219 2% Overground services Will reduce pressure/crowding on buses 10 0% Will reduce pressure/congestion on the road network 92 1% Will be a more frequent service to Hayes 340 3% Will be a more reliable service to Hayes 102 1% Faster service / quicker / shorter journey times to 166 1% London Good if this becomes part of the 24 hour Underground 36 0% service Will reduce pressure/crowding on DLR services 2 0% Will increase capacity / reduce pressure on transport 161 1% network in general Would reduce pressure at key interchange stations 38 0%

104

Positive impact: Local Economic benefit Will benefit local businesses 45 0% Will help attract investment / deliver regeneration / 164 1% development Positive effect on property values 16 0% Will bring more visitors to the area 35 0% Will help generate jobs / employment (generally) 63 1% Will help generate jobs / employment in Catford 6 0% Will help generate jobs / employment in Hayes 1 0% Will be economically advantageous (in general) 71 1%

Positive impact: Community / Social benefit Will benefit local residents / communities (health / living 263 2% standards / social impacts) Will bring more housing / developments 53 0% Will make this area more attractive as a place to live 63 1% Will help meet growing demand / population 86 1% Will be safer / safety benefit 9 0%

Positive impact: Environmental benefit Will have a positive environmental impact generally 35 0% Will reduce emissions from traffic 89 1%

Support, but consider specific groups Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 24 0% younger people / under 30s Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of older 3 0% people / pensioners Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 16 0% with other disabilities Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 2 0% pregnant users

105

Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of 8 0% parents with pushchairs Support, but ensure proposal meets the needs of those 1 0% on low incomes

Nothing to add / say No comment / nothing to say / n/a 108 1% Indifferent / no view either way 30 0% Need more information / question / not sure know 80 1% enough to comment Should listen to what local residents think 16 0% Should listen to users of existing National Rail services 5 0% to City stations Benefits would need to outweigh costs and disruption 14 0%

Unsure / questions Need more information on impact on National Rail 9 0% services closer to Central London How can this be quicker than the existing National Rail 11 0% service? General question about impact (disruption / timeline / 93 1% capacity / resultant service) Question / concern about future of National Rail 37 0% services to London Blackfriars, London Victoria, London Waterloo (ie. not Hayes branch) Need more information about train storage / stabling / 10 0% depot Question about budgets / costs 4 0%

Not in favour of extension to Hayes and/or Beckenham Junction Opposed to extension to Hayes and/or Beckenham 231 2% Junction in general Pointless / isn't needed / existing rail service is fine 269 2% Too costly / not good value for money 65 1%

106

Concerned would mean over-development of Hayes 13 0% Concerned about impact on environment (in general) 15 0% Concerned that benefits not worth the disruption impact 61 1% Concerned about loss of car parks 17 0% Negative impact on local residents / communities 101 1% (health / living standards / social impacts) Hayes can't cope with an influx of people 14 0% Beckenham can't cope with an influx of people 11 0% It will hinder car commuting 4 0% Negative impact on businesses 4 0% Concerned that bikes will no longer be permitted on 6 0% train services to London Concerned about increase of industrial action as 1 0% London Underground Concerned would mean over-development of Bromley 1 0% Concerned would mean over-development of 8 0% Beckenham Negative impact on property prices / house values 8 0% Link Hayes to tram instead / extend Tram to south east 2 0% London Concerned about underground tunnels / stations – dark 6 0% / unpleasant / claustrophobic Should instead increase the frequency of the existing 1 0% Hayes branch national rail service Concerned about negative impact on Jubilee Grounds / 5 0% St Dunstan’s College

Negative impact on rail services if underground is extended to Hayes and/or Beckenham Junction More trains per hour, more disruption to residents 35 0% Loss of fast services into Central London (general) 150 1% Loss of direct services into Central London / would have 232 2% to change Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 137 1% to Charing Cross station

107

Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 232 2% to Cannon Street station Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 275 2% to London Bridge station Underground trains don’t have seating suitable for long 9 0% journeys Underground trains don’t have toilets 10 0% Underground trains aren’t as comfortable as national rail 31 0% trains (including air quality in tunnels) Would no longer have a seat on my train / would have 35 0% to stand Would add pressure on crowded London Underground 114 1% lines / interchange stations Concerned about loss of / fewer National Rail services 30 0% to Waterloo East station Concerned about increase in fares / more costly journey 38 0% Concerned about overall reduction in frequency of 36 0% services / capacity Concerned about lack of fixed timetable 6 0% Would no longer have multiple routes to choose from 6 0% during times of disruption Concerned about loss of / fewer connections 36 0% Concerned about loss of staff and ticket office 4 0% Concerned about safety / will be less safe 7 0%

Negative comment about construction impacts Construction will be disruptive to local business / 8 0% residents living near worksites (not specified) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 1 0% residents living above tunnels (not specified) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 4 0% residents living near worksites (noise) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 2 0% residents living above tunnels (noise) Construction will be disruptive to local business / 1 0% residents living near worksites (vibrations)

108

Construction will be disruptive to local business / 1 0% residents living above tunnels (vibrations) Concerned about impact to rail services during 55 0% construction

Other schemes should happen first Complete Crossrail first 1 0% Other improvements on London Underground needed 14 0% sooner than this Prioritise maintenance/improvement of existing lines / 56 0% infrastructure first

Concerns about specific groups Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 3 0% the needs of younger people / under 30s Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 4 0% the needs of older people / pensioners Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 9 0% the needs of those with other disabilities Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 8 0% the needs of parents with pushchairs Oppose scheme, concerned that scheme will not meet 2 0% the needs of those on low incomes

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 79 1% not applicable to this question Suggestions on service pattern 3 0%

Comments on consultation Positive comment about consultation 6 0% Negative comment about consultation 42 0% Don’t understand the question / unclear 1 0% Consultations for future extensions should only take 3 0% place in the communities affected

109

General Suggestions General suggestion about route extension / capacity / 102 1% service Keep both National Rail and Bakerloo line on proposed 116 1% extension of the route Station design suggestion (entrances / platforms etc.) 10 0% Improve pedestrian and cycle connections (in general) 3 0%

Suggested alternative / additional destinations Beckenham 10 0% Beckenham Junction 14 0% Bexley 5 0% Bexleyheath 14 0% Bromley 71 1% Bromley South 35 0% Burgess Park 1 0% Camberwell 10 0% Canary Wharf 1 0% Catford 45 0% Catford Bridge 9 0% Charlton 1 0% Croydon / East Croydon / West Croydon 14 0% Crystal Palace 10 0% Downham 4 0% Greenwich 16 0% Grove Park 28 0% Hither Green 40 0% Ladywell 17 0% Orpington 18 0% Peckham 6 0%

110

Sidcup 11 0% Sydenham / Lower Sydenham 28 0% Thamesmead 2 0% West Wickham 3 0% Blackheath 19 0% Eltham 34 0% Eltham High Street 1 0% Clockhouse 5 0% Bellingham 18 0% Bromley North 38 0% Nunhead 2 0% Walworth Road 2 0% Kidbrooke 11 0% Dartford 7 0% Beckenham Hill 2 0% Gipsy Hill 1 0% West Norwood 1 0% Herne Hill 1 0% Lee / Lee Green 14 0% Anerley 2 0% Norwood Junction 2 0% St John’s 5 0% London Bridge 6 0% Camberwell Green 2 0% Chislehurst 4 0% Hackbridge 1 0% Bickley 1 0% Elmers End 3 0%

Suggested locations for stations on the Bakerloo line route*

111

Bricklayers Arms 4 0% Brockley 3 0% Dulwich 4 0% New Cross Station 1 0% Mottingham 1 0% Deptford 2 0% Shortlands 5 0% Peckham Rye 3 0% East Dulwich 1 0% Locksbottom 1 0% Sevenoaks 2 0% Bromley town centre 10 0% Honor Oak 3 0% Denmark Hill 3 0% Penge 4 0% Forest Hill 3 0% Bromley High Street 3 0% Tower Bridge Road South 1 0% Clapham 1 0% Streatham 2 0% Biggin Hill 3 0% Crofton Park 3 0% Woolwich 3 0% New Beckenham 3 0% 1 0% Addiscombe 2 0% New Beckenham 1 0% Sunridge Park 2 0% City Airport 3 0% Cannon Street 5 0%

112

Abbey Wood 1 0% Chelsfield 1 0% 1 0% Ebbsfleet 1 0% 1 0% Victoria / London Victoria 1 0% Charing Cross 2 0% Penge West 1 0% New Addington 1 0% Farnborough Common 1 0% Plumstead 1 0%

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 31 0%

Q16 What do you think about the quality of this Neutral, but Neutral, but consultation (for example, the information we have consider consider provided, any printed material you have received, specific specific any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire groups groups etc.)? - Do you have any further comments about the quality of the consultation material?

Positive comment about consultation Consultation was good 84 6% Found the information provided useful 20 1% Was good to be asked / feel our views are valued 17 1% Staff at exhibitions / helpline staff were helpful 12 1%

Positive comment about consultation materials 21 1% Information was concise / easy to digest 11 1% Clear language / non-technical 26 2%

113

Positive comment about the exhibitions 1 0%

No comments Nothing to add / nothing further 306 21% Don’t feel able to comment / can't comment 10 1% Respondent has promoted consultation independently 2 0% Ensure views of public are respected / unsure if 5 0% responses will be taken into account Respondent received information / awareness from a 5 0% third party

Suggestions for future consultations More consultation needed locally (at stations / on route / 14 1% on site) / in person, verbally Please keep the information up to date / update the 11 1% consultation information Provide a telephone number for project team 2 0% Mapping should make it easier to identify location / 14 1% interactive / background map Advertise the consultation at stations / on route / on site 32 2% (incl. desire for more/improved/better advertising) Would like to know what other options considered / 4 0% omitted / ruled out Postal distribution of leaflet needed / mailshot 12 1% Advertise through more media (TV, Radio and Social 4 0% Media) Should include a video / flythrough / better graphics 9 1% Should include a project timeline 19 1% Email notification of consultation 2 0% Separate out issues into separate consultations (eg. 5 0% Station names, the extension beyond Lewisham) Need to make clear what differences there are 2 0% compared to previous Bakerloo line extension consultations Provide more visualisation at exhibitions or in public 3 0%

114

spaces (eg. 3d models in town halls) Need to provide information on former decision making 2 0% (previous consultations) - esp re: destinations Link to consultation should be made more prominent on 2 0% TfL website

Negative comment about consultation Very poor / not good enough 7 0% Pointless / box-ticking / wont be listened to 16 1% Didn’t hear about this / better advertising needed 101 7% Heard about this too late / should be sooner 10 1% Important aspects were ignored / omitted / left out 27 2% Some locations weren't considered / mentioned 1 0% Not enough information provided 32 2% Not enough information about costs / finances 10 1% Not enough information about proposed services 10 1% Not enough information about impacts of the scheme 22 1% Information was too complicated / technical / too much / 36 2% confusing Criticism of consultation exercise costs / how much 2 0% spent? Should go to all residents / mailshot 18 1% Disappointed distribution was via social media 9 1% Not everyone can access this online 6 0% Bias / only mention benefits 11 1% Consultation exhibitions / events should have been 23 2% conducted in more places / more times / more notice Information was not presented well / needed clarity / 9 1% better layout Too many consultations on the Bakerloo line extension 10 1% Public exhibitions not fit for purpose / target wrong 3 0% demographic Leaflet quality was poor 1 0%

115

Negative comment about questionnaire / suggested improvement Questionnaire too long / information too long and 20 1% detailed Questionnaire is too vague 4 0% Criticism of questions used / not the right questions 4 0% Box tick / multiple choice / closed question (dropdown) 32 2% questionnaire would be easier Difficult to complete / type in comments 1 0% Information is incorrect or misspelt 8 1% Questions are repetitive 5 0%

Issue with website Issue with weblinks / weblinks go to wrong information 33 2% Links too difficult / too time-consuming to find 17 1% Difficult to download PDFs 8 1% Had to fill questionnaire in several times as lost 9 1% information Slow / laggy 3 0% Doesn’t work well on smartphone 8 1% Website difficult to use / navigate 11 1%

Issue with maps Maps are oversimplified / more detail needed / more 32 2% area context / zoomed out Map legend / key was poor 1 0% Couldn’t zoom in enough / couldn’t magnify map 3 0% enough Maps are hard to understand / less detail needed / 18 1% simplify

Suggested ways to improve consultation

116

More consultation needed with local community 1 0% Thumbnail / preview images would have been useful 3 0% Events in better locations 3 0%

Concerns about specific groups Consultation did not engage sufficiently with older 1 0% people / pensioners Consultation did not engage sufficiently with all 1 0% cognitively impaired users Consultation did not engage sufficiently with those on 2 0% low incomes Consultation required high level of literacy which may 8 1% preclude certain groups

Concerns about monitoring of specific groups Concerns about Equality Monitoring 5 0%

Comments on wider proposal Comments on other aspects of Bakerloo line extension 206 14% not applicable to this question

Irrelevant or uncodable Non relevant comment 10 1%

117