DOCSLIB.ORG

Bakerloo Line Extension Consultation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bakerloo Line Extension Consultation Report Bakerloo line extension Consultation Report November 2020 Contents 1. Executive summary ................................................................................................ 6 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 6 1.2 Summary of responses received ........................................................................ 6 1.3 Summary of next steps .................................................................................... 12 2. About the proposals .......................................................................................... 13 2.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Why the extension is needed ........................................................................... 13 2.3 What we have already consulted about ........................................................... 15 2.4 Our proposals .................................................................................................. 16 2.5 Stations ............................................................................................................ 16 2.6 Tunnel alignment ............................................................................................. 16 2.7 Worksites ......................................................................................................... 17 2.8 Shafts ............................................................................................................... 17 2.9 Extending the route beyond Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham Junction in Bromley .................................................................................................................. 17 2.10 Key issues we consulted on ........................................................................... 17 3. About the consultation ...................................................................................... 19 3.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 19 3.2 Potential outcomes ....................................................................................... 19 3.3 Who we consulted ........................................................................................ 19 3.4 What was outside the scope of the consultation .............................................. 20 3.5 Dates and duration ....................................................................................... 20 3.6 What we asked ............................................................................................. 20 3.7 Methods of responding ................................................................................. 20 3.8 Consultation materials and publicity ............................................................. 21 3.9 Equalities Assessment ..................................................................................... 25 3.10 Analysis of consultation responses ........................................................... 26 4. About the respondents .................................................................................... 28 4.2 How respondents heard about the consultation ........................................... 28 4.3 Methods of responding to the consultation ................................................... 29 1 4.4 Who responded ............................................................................................ 29 4.5 Distribution of respondents........................................................................... 30 4.6 Comments on the consultation process and material ..................................... 33 5. Summary of consultation responses ............................................................... 36 5.1 Question 1 ........................................................................................................ 38 5.2 Question 2 ........................................................................................................ 42 5.3 Question 3 ........................................................................................................ 44 5.4 Question 4 ........................................................................................................ 46 5.5 Question 5a) and 5b) ....................................................................................... 48 5.6 Question 6 ........................................................................................................ 53 5.7 Questions 7 and 8 ............................................................................................ 55 5.8 Question 9a) and 9b) ....................................................................................... 59 6. Stakeholder responses ......................................................................................... 65 6.1 Campaigns and Petitions ................................................................................. 65 6.2 Stakeholder respondents ................................................................................. 65 6.3 Most frequently mentioned issues by stakeholders .......................................... 69 6.4 Summaries of Stakeholder Responses ............................................................ 75 Political Stakeholders ............................................................................................. 75 Transport Group Stakeholders ............................................................................... 87 Business Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 91 Property and Development Stakeholders .............................................................. 98 Engineering and Infrastructure Stakeholders ....................................................... 101 Environment & Heritage Stakeholders ................................................................. 102 Education Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 102 Resident and Community Group Stakeholders .................................................... 103 Other Stakeholder Types ..................................................................................... 108 7. Next steps ....................................................................................................... 110 2 Appendices to the Consultation Report See separate report tfl.gov.uk/bakerloo-extension Appendix A: Stakeholders consulted Appendix B: Consultation questions Appendix C: List of supporting documents on the consultation website • Factsheets • Supplementary information • Equality Impact Assessments Appendix D: Postcard leaflet Appendix E: Letter to properties along the tunnel corridor Appendix F: Letter to properties adjacent to a worksite Appendix G: Email to customers Appendix H: Email to stakeholders Appendix I: Press release Appendix J: Local press advert Appendix K: Digital advertising Appendix L: Radio advert script Appendix M: Public exhibition banners Appendix N: Back the Bakerloo campaign response Appendix O: Demographic profile of respondents to the consultation Appendix P: Code frame 3 List of figures Figure 1: Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham ............................................................. 13 Figure 2: Option to extend beyond Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham Junction ....... 15 Figure 3: Distribution of respondents across all London boroughs ................................ 30 Figure 4: Distribution of respondents along the proposed route .................................... 31 Figure 5: Respondents views on the quality of consultation .......................................... 33 Figure 6: Level of support for overall proposals ............................................................ 40 Figure 7: Distribution of positive/negative responses by Borough (Top 6) .................... 40 Figure 8: Distribution of respondents making positive/supportive and negative/opposing comments about the overall proposals ............................................ 41 Figure 9: Level of Support by Respondent Home Location ........................................... 45 Figure 10: Level of Support by Respondent Home Location ......................................... 48 Figure 11 Most frequently preferred station names for Old Kent Road 1 station ........... 56 Figure 12: Most frequently preferred station names for Old Kent Road 2 station .......... 58 Figure 13: Level of support for a further extension of the route beyond Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham Junction ................................................................................... 59 Figure 14: Level of support for a further extension of the route by London Borough ..... 59 Figure 15: Distribution of support and opposition for the further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction .............................................................................................. 61 Figure 16: Stakeholder responses to Question 9a) extension beyond Lewisham ......... 70 List of tables Table 1: Total responses to the consultation split by public and stakeholders .............. 28 Table 2: How respondents heard about the consultation .............................................. 28 Table 3: Methods of responding to the consultation ...................................................... 29 Table 4: Type of respondent to the consultation ..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hampton Court to Berrylands / Oct 2015
    Crossrail 2 factsheet: Services between Berrylands and Hampton Court New Crossrail 2 services are proposed to serve all stations between Berrylands and Hampton Court, with 4 trains per hour in each direction operating directly to, and across central London. What is Crossrail 2? Crossrail 2 in this area Crossrail 2 is a proposed new railway serving London and the wider South East that could be open by 2030. It would connect the existing National Rail networks in Surrey and Hertfordshire with trains running through a new tunnel from Wimbledon to Tottenham Hale and New Southgate. Crossrail 2 will connect directly with National Rail, London Underground, London Overground, Crossrail 1, High Speed 1 international and domestic and High Speed 2 services, meaning passengers will be one change away from over 800 destinations nationwide. Why do we need Crossrail 2? The South West Main Line is one of the busiest and most congested routes in the country. It already faces capacity constraints and demand for National Rail services into Waterloo is forecast to increase by at least 40% by 2043. This means the severe crowding on the network will nearly double, and would likely lead to passengers being unable to board trains at some stations. Crossrail 2 provides a solution. It would free up space on the railway helping to reduce congestion, and would enable us to run more local services to central London that bypass the most congested stations. Transport improvements already underway will help offset the pressure in the short term. But we need Crossrail 2 to cope with longer term growth.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rail Manifesto for London
    A Rail Manifesto for London The new covered walkway linking Hackney Central and Hackney Downs stations creates an interchange which provides a better connection and more journey opportunities March 2016 A Rail Manifesto for London Railfuture1 seeks to inform and influence the development of transport policies and practices nationally and locally. We offer candidates for the 2016 London Mayoral and Assembly elections this manifesto2, which represents a distillation of the electorate’s aspirations for a developing railway for London, for delivery during the next four years or to be prepared for delivery during the following period of office. Executive Summary Recognising the importance of all rail-based transport to the economy of London and to its residents, commuters and visitors alike, Railfuture wishes to see holistic and coherent rail services across all of London, integrated with all other public transport, with common fares and conditions. Achieving this is covered by the following 10 policy themes: 1. Services in London the Mayor should take over. The 2007 transfer of some National Rail services to TfL has been a huge success, transforming some of the worst services in London into some of the best performing. Railfuture believes it is right that the Mayor should take over responsibility for more rail services in London, either by transferring service operation to TfL or by TfL specifying service levels to the operator, and that this must benefit all of London. 2. Improved Services. Frequencies play an important role in the success of metro and suburban train services. We believe that the Mayor should set out the minimum standards of service levels across London seven days per week for all rail services.
    [Show full text]
  • Hsuk London Terminal Strategy
    HSUK LONDON TERMINAL STRATEGY In the development of high speed rail systems, the issue of terminal location and onward distribution of passengers assumes almost as much importance as the more obvious question of route. The new lines are designed to carry large volumes of passengers on trains operating at high frequencies, and these factors combine to create major flows arriving at city terminals which must then be efficiently dispersed onto the local public transport networks. This demands full integration of high speed and local systems, with optimised transfer at dedicated and fit-for- purpose terminals. These issues apply at all UK cities where high speed lines are planned, but are most acute in London, where passenger flows are greatest, and congestion in the existing public transport system is most critical. The following diagrams review existing central London connectivity issues, and compare and contrast the London terminal solutions proposed for HS2, and for the alternative High Speed UK proposals. For precise details of the core High Speed UK proposals (as included in the cost estimates), see the ‘200k’ series of plans. LTS1 : LONDON MAIN LINE NETWORK CIRCA 1963 LTS2 : EXISTING CENTRAL LONDON RAIL NETWORK INCLUDING CROSSRAIL SCHEME These diagrams show the rail network of central London, dominated by the classic terminus stations of the Victorian era. These are mostly reliant for onward connectivity upon the Tube network, which tended to form ‘nodes’ around the busier/more important termini. However, the change from main line to Tube is inherently inefficient, with passengers forced to detrain en masse, and with massive congestion occurring especially at rush hours.
    [Show full text]
  • The Midland Main Line and the Influence of HS2 a Short Report for North West Leicestershire District Council
    The Midland Main Line and the influence of HS2 A short report for North West Leicestershire District Council 1. Introduction Concerns have been raised recently about the relationship between the Midland Main Line (MML) and HS2, and whether the high-speed line is likely to have adverse effects on the existing network. At first sight, these concerns do not appear unreasonable in the context of recent Network Rail/Department for Transport decisions: There will be no electrification north of Kettering as this work has been halted in this and other locations. This raises a question about the viability of the Classic Connection with HS2 at Toton The new East Midlands contract will be 7+2, reducing the incentive for a new train operator to invest in new rolling stock; HSTs are scheduled to come out of service by 2019; possible replacements will not be able to attain the same speeds and this could adversely affect journey times. These points together make depressing reading, and it is understandable why there is a feeling that the MML is being sacrificed in favour of HS2 to make it a more attractive prospect for this part of England. The relationship between the MML and HS2 is an important one in the District, and currently it is finely balanced. The Council has been broadly supportive of the scheme because of the economic benefits that will follow on from the construction and operation of HS2, but there is a danger that this could change, particularly if continued opposition from residents and businesses alters the view of the elected members.
    [Show full text]
  • Railway Development Society Limited Is a Not-For-Profit Company Limited by Guarantee Registered in England & Wales No.5011634
    railse no. 132 June 2016 Railfuture in London and the South East quarterly branch newsletter The independent campaign for a bigger better passenger and freight rail network Railfuture campaign wins reopened National Infrastructure Commission east London station at Lea Bridge wants Crossrail 2 hybrid bill in 2019 Between Stratford and Tottenham Hale, opened on Lord Adonis and his team of seven Commissioners 15 September 1840, closed 8 July 1985 with the end of may only have been appointed since last October, and Stratford-Tottenham Hale shuttle services, reopened the CEO since December, but their output and current 31 years later on 15 May 2016 (officially on 16 May). casework is already substantial. For London and the South East there has been last November’s Call for Evidence on London’s Transport Infrastructure, to which Railfuture responded in January, and which in March resulted in two reports: ‘Transport for a World City’ and, from an independent panel of experts, the supporting ‘Review of the case for large scale transport investment in London’ both of which include a specific focus on Crossrail 2. The NIC calls for a hybrid bill deposit in autumn 2019 for line opening in 2033, to coincide with HS2 opening to Leeds and Manchester and the need for the double- ended Euston St. Pancras station to add distribution capacity. It also advocates deferral of the £4billion New Southgate branch, noting that it would enable the proposed eastern extension to be considered when the Lea Bridge station – looking south, towards Stratford second phase of the scheme is planned. It “would be more expensive, but could bring greater overall This is the culmination of a campaign which local benefits, particularly in relation to its impacts in Railfuture members, individual and affiliated, can justly unlocking housing and economic growth in the east of claim as their own.
    [Show full text]
  • London and South Coast Rail Corridor Study: Terms of Reference
    LONDON & SOUTH COAST RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT APRIL 2016 LONDON & SOUTH COAST RAIL CORRIDOR STUDY DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT FINAL Project no: PPRO 4-92-157 / 3511970BN Date: April 2016 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff WSP House 70 Chancery Lane London WC2A 1AF Tel: +44 (0) 20 7314 5000 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7314 5111 www.wspgroup.com www.pbworld.com iii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................1 2 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................2 2.1 STUDY CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 2 2.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE .................................................................................. 2 3 PROBLEM DEFINITION ...............................................................5 3.1 ‘DO NOTHING’ DEMAND ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 5 3.2 ‘DO NOTHING’ CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................... 7 4 REVIEWING THE OPTIONS ...................................................... 13 4.1 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT.................................................................... 13 4.2 RAIL SCHEME PROPOSALS ......................................................................... 13 4.3 PACKAGE DEFINITION .................................................................................. 19 5 THE BML UPGRADE PACKAGE .............................................. 21 5.1 THE PROPOSALS ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed 2: Spring 2020 Update
    House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts High Speed 2: Spring 2020 update Third Report of Session 2019–21 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 May 2020 HC 84 Published on 17 May 2020 by authority of the House of Commons The Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No. 148). Current membership Meg Hillier MP (Labour (Co-op), Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Chair) Mr Gareth Bacon MP (Conservative, Orpington) Kemi Badenoch MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden) Olivia Blake MP (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam) Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative, The Cotswolds) Dame Cheryl Gillan MP (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham) Peter Grant MP (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes) Mr Richard Holden MP (Conservative, North West Durham) Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) Craig Mackinlay MP (Conservative, Thanet) Shabana Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham, Ladywood) Gagan Mohindra MP (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire) Sarah Olney MP (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Nick Smith MP (Labour, Blaenau Gwent) James Wild MP (Conservative, North West Norfolk) Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 148. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Jubilee Line Extension (JLE)
    UK Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) - 1 - This report was compiled by the OMEGA Centre, University College London. Please Note: This Project Profile has been prepared as part of the ongoing OMEGA Centre of Excellence work on Mega Urban Transport Projects. The information presented in the Profile is essentially a 'work in progress' and will be updated/amended as necessary as work proceeds. Readers are therefore advised to periodically check for any updates or revisions. The Centre and its collaborators/partners have obtained data from sources believed to be reliable and have made every reasonable effort to ensure its accuracy. However, the Centre and its collaborators/partners cannot assume responsibility for errors and omissions in the data nor in the documentation accompanying them. - 2 - CONTENTS A INTRODUCTION Type of Project Location Major Associated Developments Current Status B BACKGROUND TO PROJECT Principal Project Objectives Key Enabling Mechanisms and Timeline of Key Decisions Principal Organisations Involved • Central Government Bodies/Departments • Local Government • London Underground Limited • Olympia & York • The coordinating group • Contractors Planning and Environmental Regime • The JLE Planning Regime • The Environmental Statement • Project Environmental Policy & the Environmental Management System (EMS) • Archaeological Impact Assessment • Public Consultation • Ecological Mitigation • Regeneration Land Acquisition C PRINCIPAL PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Route Description Main Termini and Intermediate Stations • Westminster
    [Show full text]
  • Matter M76 Further Suggested Changes to Be Made to Policy T3 Transport Capacity, Connectivity and Safeguarding and Policy T9 Fu
    Matter M76 Further suggested changes to be made to Policy T3 Transport capacity, connectivity and safeguarding and Policy T9 Funding transport infrastructure through planning • Bold blue – new text • Blue strikethrough – deleted original plan text • Purple strikethrough – deleted minor suggested change text • Bold purple- reinstated original text • Red bold – Minor Suggested change • Red strike through – minor suggested change Change ref no Policy/para Further suggested change /table/map M76.1 Policy T3, table 10.1 Transformation of Oxford Street low 2017- 2022 M76.2 Policy T3, table 10.1 ULEZ in central and inner London medium 2017- 2021 0 ULEZ in inner London low 2020- 2030 ULEZ strengthening London-wide low 2020- for buses, coaches and HGVs 2030 M76.3 Policy T3, table 10.1 Walk and cycle bridge between low 2020- Nine Elms and Pimlico river 2030 crossing: Nine Elms Pimlico Bridge M76.4 Policy T3, table 10.1 Bus network: wheelchair accessible low 2017- bus stops 2020 2041 M76.5 Policy T3, table 10.1 Bus transit pilots in Opportunity low 2020- Areas 2041 M76.6 Policy T3, table 10.1 Coach hub(s) upgrade and/or medium 2020- reprovision 2023 30 30 M76.7 Policy T3, table 10.1 Elizabeth line high 2017- 2021 0 M76.8 Policy T3, table 10.1 Elizabeth line extension / rail medium 2020- enhancements east of Abbey Wood / high 2041 M76.9 Policy T3, table 10.1 Heathrow Airport Southern Rail medium 2020 Access (required for if airport high - expansion proceeds) 2041 Heathrow Airport Western Rail medium 2020 Access (required for if airport high - expansion
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2015/16 Contents
    Annual Report and Statement of Accounts 2015/16 Contents About Transport for London (TfL) 4 Message from the Commissioner 120 Statement of Accounts We are the integrated transport authority for London. Our purpose is 8 Year at a glance 272 Annual Governance Statement to keep London moving, working and growing, and to make life in our city better. We reinvest all of our income to run and improve London’s 10 Delivering for London 280 Commissioner and transport services. Managing Directors 12 Operational performance Our operational responsibilities include London Underground, London 282 Members of TfL (2015/16) Buses, Docklands Light Railway (DLR), London Overground, TfL Rail, 16 Keeping London moving, London Trams, London River Services, London Dial-a-Ride, Victoria working and growing 284 Directors of Crossrail Limited Coach Station, Santander Cycles and the Emirates Air Line. (2015/16) 18 Customers: the heart of our business On the roads, we regulate taxis and the private hire trade, run the 286 Membership of TfL committees Congestion Charging scheme, manage the city’s 580km red route 34 Delivery: our plans and our promises and panels (2015/16) network, operate all of the Capital’s 6,300 traffic signals and work to ensure a safe environment for all road users. 54 People: dedicated to customer service 288 TfL Members' meeting attendance (2015/16) We are delivering one of the world’s largest programmes of transport 66 Value: delivering more with less capital investment, which is building the Elizabeth line, modernising Tube 290 Remuneration services and stations, transforming the road network and making it safer, 78 Technology and data: a new especially for more vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists.
    [Show full text]
  • Bakerloo Line Extension
    Bakerloo line extension Option selection summary report Date: December 2015 CONTENTS 1. Executive summary ....................................................................... 3 2. Introduction ................................................................................ 5 3. Assessing the Bakerloo line options .................................................. 7 4. Assessment results ..................................................................... 15 5. Next steps ................................................................................ 30 Appendix A – Indicative long term timeline ........................................... 34 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - 2014 Public consultation proposed Bakerloo line extension routes ........................ 6 Figure 2 - Stages of options assessment ................................................................................ 9 Figure 3 - Stage 2 assessment extension options ................................................................. 10 Figure 4 - Stage 3 assessment extension options ................................................................. 14 Figure 5 - Growth and transport factors along each extension corridor to Lewisham ........... 21 Figure 6 - Location map of potential New Camberwell Rail Station ...................................... 26 Figure 7 - Initial extension option and potential long-term wider region rail improvements .. 28 Figure 8 – Indicative timeline of next steps for developing the extension proposal in 2016 .. 31 Table 1 - Mayor's Transport Strategy
    [Show full text]
  • Megaprojects: a Design and Strategy
    Megaprojects: A Design and Strategy Perspective A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2015 Colm Lundrigan Manchester Business School Contents CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... 5 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 6 DECLARATION & COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ................................................................................ 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 9 PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................. 10 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 11 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 11 2 RESEARCH SETTING
    [Show full text]