Tramlink Dingwall Road Loop Extension

Tramlink Dingwall Road Loop extension

2015 Public Consultation report

Tramlink Dingwall Road Loop extension Published April 2015

Contents

1 Executive Summary ...... 4 2 Introduction ...... 6 3 Background to the scheme ...... 7 4 Methodology ...... 8 Scope of consultation...... 8 Outside the scope of this consultation ...... 8 Consultation objectives ...... 8 Consultation tools ...... 9 The online survey and questionnaire ...... 9 5 Overview of consultation responses ...... 10 Who responded? ...... 10 Number of public responses ...... 10 Geography of respondents...... 10 How did they hear about the consultation? ...... 13 6 Analysis of responses from the general public ...... 13 Question 6 ...... 13 Analysis of the open question sections of questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 ...... 15 Question 7 ...... 16 Question 8 ...... 18 Question 9 ...... 20 Question 10 ...... 22 7 Responses from stakeholders ...... 23 8 Conclusion ...... 25 9 Next steps ...... 25 Appendix A – Comments for questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 ...... 26 Appendix B – Consultation leaflet ...... 34 Appendix C – Consultation letter ...... 39 Appendix D – Consultation letter distribution area ...... 40 Appendix F – Scheme update on TfL Twitter feed ...... 42 Appendix G – List of stakeholder contacted ...... 43 Appendix H – Answers to questions raised ...... 46

1 Executive Summary

1.1 In 2014 Transport for London (TfL) conducted a six week public consultation on the proposal to extend the tram network in Croydon, by building a new loop in the town centre. The consultation asked for comments on the principle of an extension and on three possible route options. It ran from 3 November to 14 December 2014.

1.2 Passenger demand for trams is anticipated to grow from 31 million journeys in 2013/14 towards nearly 60 million journeys by 2031. A new loop would enable additional trams to be run to Dingwall Road from the east while avoiding the existing town centre loop, which is the most congested part of the network. This would help maintain current service and reliability levels as and when more trams are added to the network. Further information on our long term planning is available in our information paper “Trams 2030” which is published with this report.

1.3 Members of the public and stakeholders were invited to give their views either by filling in the questionnaire online or by responding via post or email. The proposals could also be viewed and commented upon at two consultation events. Paper copies of the consultation were available on request, together with the questionnaire. Both were also available on request in alternative formats such as large print, audio or another language.

1.4 The consultation was supported by a marketing campaign:

 1,500 letters were distributed to addresses around Dingwall Road  35,000 emails were sent to Oyster users who use the tram and who had signed up for service updates  Letters and emails were sent to local, London wide and national stakeholders  Public displays of the information at Croydon Central Library and the Tram Shop during the consultation period.  Face to face distribution of 6000 consultation leaflets on trams  Updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the consultation and the roadshow events

1.5 The questions were structured to provide TfL with an understanding of the level of support in principle and to understand whether they had a preferred option:  In principle, do you support a new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity?  Please give us your views on option one  Please give us your views on option two  Please give us your views on option three

We also asked four follow up questions, three of which asked respondents to elaborate on previous answers on the different route options, with the fourth inviting any further general comments.

1.6 The consultation generated 554 written responses. 545 responses came from members of the public and 9 came from stakeholders. Support for the scheme was high; with 390 members of the public (72%) stating that in principle they support a

new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity. 93 respondents (17%) stated that they do not support the proposal.

1.7 Option 1 was the preferred option with consultees, with 306 (56%) respondents either supporting or strongly supporting an extension and 144 (26%) opposing or strongly opposing. A breakdown of results for options 1, 2 and 3 is provided in section 6 of the report.

1.8 An analysis of all consultation responses are available in section 6 of this report (analysis of responses from the general public), section 7 (responses from stakeholders) and Appendix A (a comprehensive summary of comments on questions 7, 8, 9 and 10). Our response to questions raised during the consultation is provided in Appendix H.

1.9 Consultation and engagement on the proposals are ongoing. Since the consultation closed in December 2014, we have engaged further with land owners and interested parties whose property or business operations may be impacted by the scheme. We continue to respond to individual requests for information.

1.10 We will return for another round of consultation later in 2015, with further details on the preferred option and explain why a tram extension on Dingwall Road is preferred over alternative schemes. Depending on the progress of the scheme’s design, which will take into account comments we received during the consultation process, we anticipate making an application for a Transport and Works Act Order in October 2015.

1.11 A Statement of Consultation, summarising all the consultation and engagement activities conducted to inform the proposals, will be submitted as part of our Transport and Works Act Order application for powers to build and operate an extension.

1.12 Report structure  Section 2 is a high level explanation of what was proposed  Section 3 provides the background to the scheme and explains why it is necessary  Section 4 describes how we consulted  Section 5 provides an overview of who responded  Section 6 reports on responses from members of the public. (A comprehensive summary of responses is provided in appendix A).  Section 7 provides a summary of stakeholder responses  Section 8 is the conclusion of the report  Section 9 describes the next steps  The appendices provide information on consultation material

2 Introduction

2.1 Transport for London (TfL) has proposed three options for an extension of the tram network in Croydon:

 Option 1 would run anticlockwise via Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road, returning to the existing network on Wellesley Road.  Option 2 would run clockwise via Wellesley Road/Lansdowne Road and Dingwall Road, returning to the existing network on George Street.  Option 3 would run anticlockwise via Dingwall Road and Sydenham Road returning to the existing network on Wellesley Road.

2.2 Options 1 and 2 include a new tram stop on Lansdowne Road; option 3 includes a new tram stop on Sydenham Road. Figure 1 shows our emerging preferred option.

Figure 1: Option 1, the emerging preferred option, via Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road

2.3 TfL undertook a public consultation on the three options between 3 November and 14 December 2014. The responses received will be used to inform further design and planning work.

2.4 Subject to the consultation and the proposal being endorsed by the Mayor, we intend to apply to the Department for Transport for powers to construct and operate an extension through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). We anticipate making the application in October 2015. 6

3 Background to the scheme

3.1 There has been significant growth on London Trams since its inception, despite relatively small changes in capacity. There were 31 million journeys on Trams in 2013/14. This is expected to continue to grow rapidly with development in Croydon, towards nearly 60 million passengers by 2031.

Figure 2 Annual tram passenger numbers (actual and forecasted)

3.2 To accommodate growth, the Wimbledon Line Enhancement Project was developed and is now being delivered. This provides infrastructure and rolling stock to support a 12tph (trams per hour) service from Wimbledon to Croydon – a 50 per cent increase in frequency and capacity.

3.3 Since this commitment, growth has accelerated. The Croydon Opportunity Area now includes Westfield-Hammerson shopping centre development, due to open in 2019 - creating 5,000 jobs in 1.5 million square feet of retail space – and proposals for 7,300 new homes in the town centre. Westfield alone will account for two million extra annual trips on Trams.

3.4 We need to upgrade the Tram network to accommodate this growth. A long term strategy has been developed to meet this need. Our objectives are to:

 Maintain high reliability levels, as good as or better than the current reliability  Deliver sufficient capacity to support the growth of Croydon without leaving passengers behind  Reduce wait times to meet growing expectations

 Integrate successfully with a revitalised town centre in Croydon without excessive impact on the quick and reliable journey times that make Trams attractive

3.5 We propose the Dingwall Loop, a new section of tramway between East Croydon and Wellesley Road. The new loop would allow TfL to run additional trams from the east to Westfield while avoiding the existing town centre loop, which is the most congested part of the network. Further information on our long term planning for 2030 is available in our information paper “Trams 2030” which is published with this report.

3.6 The Dingwall Loop would be part funded through a Section 106 agreement, committing Westfield-Hammerson to a £15 million contribution towards enhancements of the tram network necessary to accommodate the development.

4 Methodology

Scope of consultation 4.1 The consultation was planned to seek people’s views on the principle of an extension, three possible route options and to identify any local issues which could inform the design and planning of the scheme.

4.2 Particular consideration was given to people living and working around the proposed routes, as well as tram customers. We also consulted with key local stakeholders along the tram routes, including the neighbouring Boroughs of Bromley, Merton and Sutton. However, this did not prevent any stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals from participating in the consultation.

Outside the scope of this consultation 4.3 For this consultation, the following was out of scope:

 The Limits of Deviation or Land to be Acquired/Used  Location of infrastructure, such as overhead electrification  Any construction sites, routes or requirements  Any future tram extensions  Any other complimentary transport interventions  Other conditions relating to Westfield-Hammerson

Consultation objectives 4.4 Pre-application consultation is strongly recommended in the Government’s Guide to Procedures for obtaining orders under the Transport and Works Act (1992), as a means of involving affected parties in the development of a project and avoiding unnecessary objections following submission of the application. This approach is also consistent with TfL’s own consultation aspirations and our statutory obligations in other parts of the business. The consultation sought to:

 Introduce the new scheme and understand the level of support in principle  Explain the three route options and ask for views  Identify any significant unknown issues and allow for mitigation where possible

 Make clear the decision making process, timescales and next steps  Highlight channels through which responses to the consultation could be sent, and make participation easy and inclusive  Inform the design and decision making process

Consultation tools 4.5 A range of methods were adopted to ensure that members of the public and stakeholders were aware of the consultation and how they could respond. The consultation was hosted on the online TfL Consultation Tool. Paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire were available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet.

4.6 A number of promotional activities were undertaken to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate:

 1,500 letters were distributed to addresses around Dingwall Road  35,000 emails were sent to Oyster users who use the tram and who had signed up for service updates  Letters and emails were sent to local, London wide and national stakeholders  Public displays of the information at Croydon Central Library and the Tram Shop during the consultation period.  Face to face distribution of 6000 consultation leaflets  Updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the consultation and the roadshow events

4.7 The primary means of collecting the views of consultees was through TfL’s online Consultation Tool, enabling participants to view the material and respond using an online survey.

The online survey and questionnaire 4.8 The questions were structured to provide TfL with an understanding of the level of support in principle, and to ensure further comments could inform the development of the project:

About you 1) What is your name? 2) What is your email address? 3) What is your postcode? 4) If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with a name. 5) How did you hear about the consultation?

About the proposals 6) In principle, do you support a new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity? 7a) Please give us your views on option one (Strongly support/Support/Neither support nor oppose/Oppose/Strongly oppose) 7b) Please tell us why here 8a) Please give us your views on option two (Strongly support/Support/Neither support nor oppose/Oppose/Strongly oppose) 8b) Please tell us why here 9

9a) Please give us your views on option three (Strongly support/Support/Neither support nor oppose/Oppose/Strongly oppose) 9b) Please tell us why here 10) Do you have any further comments?

4.9 All responses submitted using the online survey were sent an automated acknowledgement. Due to the high number or responses, it has not been possible to reply to each consultee on an individual basis. Appendix H provides our responses to issues raised during the consultation.

5 Overview of consultation responses Who responded? 5.1 The consultation generated 554 written responses. 545 came from members of the public, with the remaining 9 received from stakeholders, including political and industry stakeholders and local developers. 95% (516) of the public responses were online; 5% (29) were received by email, post or at an exhibition. There were seven instances of duplicate responses. The duplicates were consolidated to give an individual response for each respondent, with the remainder removed.

Number of public responses 5.2 Not every respondent answered every question. Of the 545 members of the public who responded:  522 responded to question 6  524 responded to question 7a, while 352 responded to question 7b  523 responded to question 8a, while 321 responded to question 8b  520 responded to question 9a, while 337 responded to question 9b  282 responded to question 10

Geography of respondents 5.3 92% (499) of the respondents provided their home postcodes, with 462 of these being successfully mapped within the Greater London area. Focusing on the London Borough (LB) of Croydon where the Dingwall loop is situated, there were 360 responses. The other three boroughs where Tramlink currently serves, LB Bromley, LB Merton and LB Sutton, received 41, 18 and 14 responses respectively.

5.4 Based on TfL’s Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs), the maximum walk time to a station on a light rail system like Tramlink is 12 minutes (960m). GIS was used to select the respondents with postcodes within a 12 minute (960m) radius of the proposed Dingwall Road loop, for analysis in section 5. This radius should be used as an approximate guide because PTAL walking times are based on the actual walking time which is affected by the local walking network, and not point to point distance as represented by the radii. Detail of response by geography can be seen in Figures 3 and 4.

Figure 3: Distribution of respondents in the area surrounding the existing Tramlink network

Figure 4: Distribution of respondents within a 12 minute walk of the proposed Dingwall Road loop

How did they hear about the consultation? 5.5 To understand how news about the consultation was received, respondents were asked how they heard about the consultation. Figure 5 indicates the information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation.

Figure 5: Information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation Number of Respondent type % respondents Received a letter from TfL 7 1% Received an email from TfL 294 54% Read about it in the press 40 7% Through social media 63 12% Saw an advert on the TfL website 18 3% Other 86 16% Not Answered 37 7%

6 Analysis of responses from the general public

Question 6

6.1 Question 6 asked “In principle, do you support a new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity?” To understand the level of support, we gave respondents three answers from which to choose:

Yes - in principle the respondent supports the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop No - the respondent does not support the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop Not sure - the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns

6.2 Support for the scheme was high, with 390 respondents (72%) stating that in principle they support the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop and 93 respondents (17%) stating that they do not support the proposal. Figure 6 illustrates the proportion of support and opposition for all general public responses.

Figure 6: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop.

Not answered 4% Not sure 7%

No 17%

Yes 72%

6.3. Figure 7 shows the level of support for the proposed Dingwall Road loop for the four boroughs that received more than 10 responses. It is evident that a lower percentage of respondents from Croydon supported the proposed Dingwall Road loop, than from Sutton, Merton or Bromley.

Figure 7: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop separated by borough.

100% 3% 2% 7% 6% 8% 10% 90% 6% 7% 80% 20%

70%

60%

50% 93% 89% 40% 80% 69% 30%

20%

10%

0% Croydon Sutton Merton Bromley Not answered 9 0 0 1 Not sure 30 0 1 4 No 72 1 1 3 Yes 249 13 16 33

6.4 Support for the scheme within a 12 minute walk (960 metre) of the proposed Dingwall Road loop was high with 65 respondents (78%) stating that in principle they support the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop, and 8 respondents (10%) stating that they do not support the proposal. Figure 8 illustrates the proportion of support and opposition for all responses received within a 12 minute walk of the proposed loop.

Figure 8: Proportion of support and opposition to the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop, from responses received within a 12 minute walk of the proposed loop.

Not Answered 2% Not sure 10%

No 10%

Yes 78%

Analysis of the open question sections of questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 6.5 Individual responses for questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 have been coded to one or many codes as appropriate. The code frameworks include several overall themes and specific comments within these. For example, the consultation received responses about congestion. These comments were further divided by transport mode/location (Trams, Bus services, Roads, East Croydon train station, Non specific mode) and by whether the concern/comment relates to current or future congestion.

6.6 As some respondents mentioned more than one specific comment, there were more codes than the total number of responses. Only the most frequently mentioned comments for each question are discussed in this report. A full breakdown of codes and the totals recorded are provided in appendix A.

Question 7

6.7 The first part of Question 7 asked “Please give us your views on option one, anticlockwise – George Street/Dingwall Road/Lansdowne Road/Wellesley Road/George Street.” To understand the level of support, we gave respondents five answers from which to choose:

Strongly Support - the respondent strongly supports option one Support - the respondent supports option one Neither support nor oppose - the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns Oppose - the respondent opposes option one Strongly Oppose - the respondent strongly opposes option one

6.8 Figure 9 shows that there is overall support for option one, with 306 respondents (56%) stating that they support or strongly support option one and 144 respondents (26%) stating that they oppose or strongly oppose option one.

Figure 9: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to option one 180

160

140

120

100

60 Number of responses of Number 40

0 Neither Strongly support Strongly Not Support Oppose support nor oppose answered oppose Number of responses 171 135 74 76 68 21 % 31% 25% 14% 14% 12% 4%

6.9 The second part of Question 7 asked respondents to expand on their response to the first part of Question 7 by asking “Please tell us why here”. 352 respondents from members of the public raised 62 comments.

6.10 Figure 10 shows the top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the second part of Question 7. There was a high level of positive commentary in relation to its support of the development area/shopping centre and the low non time specific negative impact/disruption of the option. The most frequent negative commentary 16

could be accounted to the general principle of the design and the limited benefits offered by option one. Option one was frequently stated as the favoured option.

Figure 10: Top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the second part of Question 7 Top comments Number of participants Positive comments in relation to overall strategy Supports development area/shopping centre 25 Positive comments in relation to design

New tram stop location 18 Direction of tram movement 12 Benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 17 General principle of design 20 Benefits in relation to congestion/capacity/delay

Tram (Future) 13 Other positive comments

Ease of construction/Simple design 22 Cost effective 22 Low negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 46 General positive comment 14 Negative comments in relation to design

Conflicting movement between trams 13 New tram stop location 20 General principle of design 27 Concerns in relation to congestion/capacity/delay

Tram (Future) 12 Roads (Future) 11 Other negative comments

Cost 25 Accessibility and transport options 14 Limited benefits 31 General negative comment 11 Alternative suggestions

Improvements and extensions to the existing tram 10 network/infrastructure Consultation materials

Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing 10 infrastructure/services Option rating

A comment suggesting that option 1 is the favoured option 29

Question 8

6.11 The first part of Question 8 asked “Please give us your views on option two, clockwise via Wellesley Road/Lansdowne Road/Dingwall Road/George Street.” To understand the level of support, we gave respondents five answers from which to choose:

Strongly Support - the respondent strongly supports option two Support - the respondent supports option two Neither support nor oppose - the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns Oppose - the respondent opposes option two Strongly Oppose - the respondent strongly opposes option two

6.12 Figure 11 shows that there is overall opposition towards option two, with 217 respondents (40%) stating that they oppose or strongly oppose option two and 176 respondents (32%) stating that they support or strongly support option two.

Figure 11: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to option two 140

120

100

Number of responses of Number 40

0 Neither Strongly support Strongly Not Support Oppose support nor oppose answered oppose Number of responses 78 98 130 115 102 22 % 14% 18% 24% 21% 19% 4%

6.13 The second part of Question 8 asked respondents to expand on their response to the first part of Question 8 by asking “Please tell us why here”. 321 respondents from members of the public raised 64 comments.

6.14 Figure 12 shows the top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the second part of Question 8. There was a high level of negative commentary in relation to its design; the tram contraflow, complicated/dangerous junction designs and the

general principle of the design were all stated frequently. Other negative comments frequently stated included the cost and limited benefits offered by option two.

Figure 12: Top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the second part of Question 8 Top comments Number of participants Positive comments in relation to overall strategy Supports development area/shopping centre 13 Positive comments in relation to design New tram stop location 13 Reduced conflicting movement between trams 10 Benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 11 Benefits in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Tram (Future) 12 East Croydon station (Future) 14 Other positive comments Accessibility and transport options 13 General positive comment 10 Negative comments in relation to design Tram contraflow and its conflict with other road users 43 New tram stop location 19 Complicated/dangerous junction designs 28 General principle of design 35 Other negative comments Cost 27 Accessibility and transport options 14 Limited benefits 26 Negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 11 General negative comment 13 Option rating A comment suggesting that option 2 is the favoured option 17 A comment suggesting that option 1 is preferred 16

Question 9

6.15 The first part of Question 9 asked “Please give us your views on option three, anticlockwise via George Street/Dingwall Road/Dingwall Road (North)/Sydenham Road/Wellesley Road/George Street.” To understand the level of support, we gave respondents five answers from which to choose:

Strongly Support - the respondent strongly supports option three Support - the respondent supports option three Neither support nor oppose - the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns Oppose - the respondent opposes option three Strongly Oppose - the respondent strongly opposes option three

6.16 Figure 13 shows that there is overall opposition towards option three, with 267 respondents (49%) stating that they oppose or strongly oppose option three and 136 respondents (25%) stating that they support or strongly support option three.

Figure 13: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to option three 160

140

120

100

60 Number of responses of Number 40

0 Neither Strongly support Strongly Not Support Oppose support nor oppose answered oppose Number of responses 73 63 117 139 128 25 % 13% 12% 21% 26% 23% 5%

6.17 The second part of Question 9 asked respondents to expand on their response to the first part of Question 9 by asking “Please tell us why here”. 337 respondents from members of the public raised 56 comments.

6.18 Figure 14 shows the top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the second part of Question 9. There was a high level of negative commentary in relation 20

to cost and non time specific negative impact/disruption. There were frequent negative comments in relation to the design, most notably the new tram stop location and the limited benefit provided by the large loop. There was a noticeable amount of positive commentary in relation to option three serving a larger area and providing more of an addition to the network.

Figure 11: Top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the second part of Question 9 Top comments Number of participants Positive comments in relation to overall strategy Supports Croydon and its population 11 Serves a larger area/More of an addition to the network 45 Positive comments in relation to design New tram stop location 21 Other positive comments General positive comment 10 Negative comments in relation to overall strategy Fails to serve development area and shopping centre 13 Negative comments in relation to design New tram stop location 33 Complicated/dangerous junction designs 11 The large loop is unnecessary and provides limited benefit 38 General principle of design 21 Concerns in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Roads (Future) 18 Other negative comments Journey times 22 Cost 52 Accessibility and transport options 13 Limited benefits 30 Negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 38 General negative comment 11 Alternative suggestions Suggested location for an additional new stop 18 Improvements and extensions to the existing tram 10 network/infrastructure Option rating A comment suggesting that option 3 is the favoured option 12 A comment suggesting that option 3 is the least preferred option 10

Question 10

6.19 Question 10 asked “Do you have any further comments?”. 282 responses from members of the public raised 51 comments.

6.20 Figure 15 shows the top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for Question 10. There were frequent suggestions for Tramlink capacity enhancements including the increased capacity of platforms and tram services. Tramlink extensions were also frequently mentioned, with the Crystal Palace extension and general comments in relation to expansion recurring regularly. There was a noticeable amount of negative commentary in relation to the lack of information and explanation provided in the consultation materials, for the impact to existing tram infrastructure and services.

Figure 15: Top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for Question 10 Top comments Number of participants Positive comments towards the proposed options General principle of loop 11 General positive comment 12 Negative comments towards the proposed options Costs outweighs benefits 20 Accessibility and transport options 16 General principle of Dingwall loop 19 Consultation materials Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing tram 27 infrastructure/services Tramlink capacity enhancement suggestions Increase the capacity of tram services: Longer carriages and 53 increased frequency Increase the capacity of platforms: Larger and additional platforms 26 Tramlink extensions Proposed extension to Crystal Palace 23 General comment in relation to the expansion of Tramlink 22 Other comments Comment in relation to favoured/disfavoured option 15

7 Responses from stakeholders

Comments from political stakeholders

7.1 London Borough (LB) of Croydon LB Croydon acknowledges that the proposal will increase Tramlink capacity and support their objectives to deliver a pedestrian and cycling friendly centre with calmer traffic, but opposes the proposal until TfL provide information that gives them confidence regarding the following points:  Quality of the public realm  Deliverability  Consideration of and integration with other schemes in the pipeline  Tram speeds  Maintenance arrangements

LB Croydon’s preferred option is option one, but Lansdowne Road must be delivered as a shared space environment with pedestrian priority. Option three is preferred if this cannot be delivered.

7.2 Councillor Sean Fitzsimons (Labour) Addiscombe Ward (Croydon) Councillor Sean Fitzsimons supports the principle of a new tram loop. Councillor Sean Fitzsimons strongly opposes option’s one and two due to their negative impact on the bus passengers who use Dingwall Road, but strongly supports option three. Concern was raised that no information was provided on the impact of the scheme on bus routes.

7.3 Croydon Liberal Democrats The Croydon Liberal Democrats oppose the principle of a new tram loop, due to its high cost and the requirement to terminate trams before the desired passenger destinations.

The Croydon Liberal Democrats propose that Tramlink capacity should be increased by:  Buying more trams  Lengthening the existing trams  Lengthening the platforms to be able to serve 4 car trams  Adding a 2nd traffic lane to the Station Road/Wellesley Road junction  Using one track of the Sandilands tunnel to store trams overnight  Doubling the track by Reeves corner to aid tram turn back

7.4 Croydon and Sutton Green Party The Croydon and Sutton Green Party is not sure whether they support the principle of a new tram loop, but oppose all three proposed options because they are expensive and fail to serve local residents.

The Croydon and Sutton Green Party made the following recommendations:

 Finance the tram loop with funds from the businesses that benefit from the scheme, rather than from tax payer funds.  Extend tram carriage and platform capacity  Extend the tram network to serve Crystal Palace  Implement a park and ride service  Improve cycling provision in the town centre

Comments from transport industry stakeholders

7.5 East Surrey Transport Committee East Surrey Transport Committee supports the principle of a new tram loop, and prefers option two due to the greater flexibility of track layout, and the common stop for all south/eastbound trams in Dingwall Road. East Surrey Transport Committee suggests that an additional stop should be provided in Dingwall Road between East Croydon station and Lansdowne Road.

Comments from developers

7.6 Croydon Gateway Ltd Partnership (Ruskin Square development) Croydon Gateway Ltd Partnership supports the scheme in principle but has the Following concerns:  Restricted access to the Ruskin Square development site along Dingwall Road.  The supports for the overhead power lines are likely to be located in the Ruskin Square development site.  A worksite for the construction of the proposed Dingwall Road loop is being considered within the boundary of the Ruskin square development site. Croydon Gateway Ltd Partnership made the following recommendations:  Provide further information on the impact of the development to the land immediately to the east of AMP House.  TfL should contribute to improvements to the public realm in the vicinity of the Dingwall Road loop.

7.7 Croydon Limited Partnership Croydon Limited Partnership supports the scheme in principle and recognises its benefits for both the town centre and the Whitgift centre development.

The preferred option of Croydon Limited Partnership is option one, with the new stop serving the main Wellesley Road pedestrian entrance and providing relief from the existing overcrowded Wellesley Road tram stop. There is however uncertainty surrounding the track arrangement at Lansdowne Road and it’s interaction with the flow of traffic and buses.

Croydon Limited Partnership has concerns for option two due to the contraflow tram flow and the need for further junction works, while option three provides a tram stop further away from the pedestrian entrance to the Whitgift centre.

Comments from statutory stakeholders

7.8 English Heritage English Heritage stated that as the Government’s adviser on all matters pertaining to the historic environment and a consultee for the purposes of Rule 8 (4) of the Transport and Works (Application and Objections Procedure (England and Wales) Rules 2006, they have written to the Department of Transport saying that whichever alternative is chosen, it should not involve significant effects on the historic environment, including archaeology. Other than this they had no further comments to make.

Comments from utility companies

7.9 National Grid National Grid confirmed that National Grid Gas and National Grid Electricity Transmission have no assets located within or in close proximity to the proposed development.

8 Conclusion 8.1 TfL believes the case for improving the tram infrastructure to meet the growing demand by 2031 is strong. A new loop would enable an increase in services from the east to Dingwall Road, while delivering a similar frequency of services to current levels around the existing town centre loop. This would enable TfL to build resilience into the service and increase capacity to meet additional demand.

8.2 390 members of the public (72%) have given their support to the principle to a new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity. Option one had the highest levels of support and the lowest levels of non-support. We will develop option one further prior to submitting a Transport and Works Act Order application, for powers to construct and operate a tram extension.

9 Next steps 8.2 This phase of public consultation has closed, but conversations with land owners and interested parties remain ongoing. We will continue to answer questions on the proposals submitted to [email protected] or in writing to Freepost TfL Consultations.

8.3 We will return for another round of consultation in May 2015, with further details on the emerging preferred option and explain why a tram extension on Dingwall Road is preferred over alternative schemes. We will also provide more information on how future tram services might look with the Dingwall Road Loop. Depending on the progress of the scheme’s design, which will take into account comments we received during the consultation process, we anticipate making an application for a Transport and Works Act Order in October 2015. 25

Appendix A – Comments for questions 7, 8, 9 and 10

Question 7 (comments on option 1)

Top comments Number of participants Positive comments in relation to overall strategy Supports development area/shopping centre 25 Supports Croydon and its population 7 Supports the current tram network and passenger needs 2 Provides Tramlink extension opportunities 1 Positive comments in relation to design Provides a tram turnaround 8 New tram stop location 18 Direction of tram movement 12 Benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 17 General principle of design 20 Benefits in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Tram (Future) 13 East Croydon station (Future) 5 Other positive comments Service reliability/efficiency/convenience 4 Journey times 9 Ease of construction/Simple design 22 Cost effective 22 Accessibility and transport options 7 Low negative impact/disruption (During construction) 8 Low negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 3 Low negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 46 General positive comment 14 Negative comments in relation to overall strategy Limited area gaining benefit 9 Developer focused design 3 Disadvantages the current tram network and its passenger needs 6 Negative comments in relation to design Tram movement and its conflict with other road users 5 Conflicting movement between trams 13 New tram stop location 20 Limited benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 5 Complicated/dangerous junction designs 3 General principle of design 27

Concerns in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Tram (Current) 4 Tram (Future) 12 Roads (Current) 1 Roads (Future) 11 Pedestrian subway (Future) 1 East Croydon station (Future) 2 Non specific mode (Future) 4 Other negative comments Journey times 8 Cost 25 Accessibility and transport options 14 Noise pollution 2 Impact on bus services/infrastructure 6 Limited benefits 31 Negative impact/disruption (During construction) 3 Negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 3 General negative comment 11 Alternative suggestions Alternative location for new stop 6 Suggested location for an additional new stop 2 Provision for cyclists 1 Provision for pedestrians 4 Specific features of the design 4 Management during work 2 Overall scheme 7 Improvements and extensions to the existing tram 10 network/infrastructure Consultation materials Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing 10 infrastructure/services Lack of explanation for loop 3 Option rating A comment suggesting that option 1 is the favoured option 29 A comment suggesting that option 2 is preferred 6 A comment suggesting that option 3 is preferred 8 A comment suggesting that options 1 and 2 have equal preference 1 Other comments Neutral 3

Question 8 (comments on option 2)

Top comments Number of participants Positive comments in relation to overall strategy Supports development area/shopping centre 13 Supports Croydon and its population 4 Provides Tramlink extension opportunities 1 Positive comments in relation to design Provides a tram turnaround 2 New tram stop location 13 Direction of tram movement provides fewer conflicts with other 5 road users Reduced conflicting movement between trams 10 Design is flexible for modification 1 Benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 11 General principle of design 7 Benefits in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Tram (Future) 12 Roads (Future) 5 East Croydon station (Future) 14 Non specific mode (Future) 3 Other positive comments Journey times 5 Accessibility and transport options 13 Low negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 1 Low negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 2 General positive comment 10 Negative comments in relation to overall strategy Fails to serve Croydon and its population 1 Limited area gaining benefit 6 Fails to serve development area and shopping centre 3 Developer focused design 4 Disadvantages the current tram network and its passenger needs 9 Negative comments in relation to design Tram contraflow and its conflict with other road users 43 Conflicting movement between trams 7 New tram stop location 19 Loss of existing tram stop 3 Limited benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 1 Creates an abandoned tram track 2 Complicated/dangerous junction designs 28 General principle of design 35

Concerns in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Tram (Current) 1 Tram (Future) 9 Roads (Current) 1 Roads (Future) 4 Bus services (Future) 3 Other negative comments Inconvenient 3 Journey times 7 Difficult to construct 2 Cost 27 Noise pollution 2 Accessibility and transport options 14 Impact on existing tram services 2 Impact on bus services/infrastructure 5 Limited benefits 26 Negative impact/disruption (During construction) 6 Negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 4 Negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 11 General negative comment 13 Alternative suggestions Alternative location for new stop 5 Suggested location for an additional new stop 2 Public realm improvements 2 Specific features of the design 2 Management during work 1 Overall scheme 7 Improvements and extensions to the existing tram 8 network/infrastructure Consultation materials Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing 9 infrastructure/services Lack of explanation for loop 4 Option rating A comment suggesting that option 2 is the favoured option 17 A comment suggesting that option 2 is the least preferred option 2 A comment suggesting that option 1 is preferred 16 A comment suggesting that option 3 is preferred 6 Other comments Neutral 3

Question 9 (comments on option 3)

Top comments Number of participants Positive comments in relation to overall strategy Supports development area/shopping centre 7 Supports Croydon and its population 11 Serves a larger area/More of an addition to the network 45 Serves government buildings in the area 3 Provides Tramlink extension opportunities 1 Positive comments in relation to design Direction of tram movement provides fewer conflicts with other road 4 users Design is flexible for modification 3 New tram stop location 21 Benefits in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Tram (Future) 4 Bus services (Future) 1 Other positive comments Service reliability/efficiency/convenience 3 Accessibility and transport options 7 Low negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 3 General positive comment 10 Negative comments in relation to overall strategy Fails to serve Croydon and its population 1 Limited area gaining benefit 7 Fails to serve development area and shopping centre 13 Developer focused design 4 Disadvantages the current tram network and its passenger needs 6 Negative comments in relation to design Tram movement and its conflict with other road users 6 Conflicting movement between trams 8 New tram stop location 33 Limited benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 4 Complicated/dangerous junction designs 11 The large loop is unnecessary and provides limited benefit 38 General principle of design 21 Concerns in relation to congestion/capacity/delay Tram (Current) 3 Tram (Future) 8 Roads (Future) 18 East Croydon station (Future) 1 Non specific mode (Future) 1

Other negative comments Journey times 22 Difficult to construct 3 Cost 52 Negative environmental impact (including noise pollution) 9 Accessibility and transport options 13 Impact on bus services/infrastructure 2 Limited benefits 30 Negative impact/disruption (During construction) 8 Negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 1 Negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 38 General negative comment 11 Alternative suggestions Alternative location for new stop 3 Suggested location for an additional new stop 18 Management during work 1 Option 4: Same loop as Option 3 with clockwise tram movement 4 Overall scheme 6 Improvements and extensions to the existing tram 10 network/infrastructure Consultation materials Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing 6 infrastructure/services Lack of explanation for loop 3 Cost benefit analysis should be provided 4 Option rating A comment suggesting that option 3 is the favoured option 12 A comment suggesting that option 3 is the least preferred option 10 A comment suggesting that option 1 is preferred 9 A comment suggesting that option 2 is preferred 3 Other comments Neutral 2

Question 10 (General comments)

Top comments Number of participants Positive comments towards the proposed options Serves a larger geographical area 1 Supports Croydon's future plans and development 3 Increases tram capacity and frequency/Reduces tram congestion 8 General principle of loop 11 General positive comment 12 Negative comments towards the proposed options Fails to serve Croydon and its population 2 Provides a limited expansion to the tram network (town centre only) 4 Developer focused design 9 Costs outweighs benefits 20 Impact on bus services/infrastructure 1 Impact on cyclists 8 Pedestrian safety 1 Reduced road capacity/increased traffic congestion (Future) 8 Tram capacity/increased congestion (Future) 7 Accessibility and transport options 16 Negative impact on existing businesses 2 Limited benefits 9 General principle of Dingwall loop 19 General negative comment 1 Extensions/alterations to the proposed options Alternative location for new stop 7 Alternative loop orientation 7 Improve loop access for existing routes 5 Infrastructure changes to reduce the impact on road users and 5 avoid the town centre (for example, flyovers and underpasses) Provide two-way tram tracks 2 Passive provision for future expansion 1 Transport network integration/accessibility 4 Changes to traffic management and road layout 4 Consultation materials Lack of explanation for loop 6 Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing tram 27 infrastructure/services Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing bus 6 infrastructure/services Cost benefit analysis should be provided 4 Some affected residents were deliberately not informed 2 Residents have not been consulted on what extensions they want 2

Tramlink capacity enhancement suggestions Increase the capacity of tram services: Longer carriages and 53 increased frequency Increase the capacity of platforms: Larger and additional platforms 26 Tramlink extensions Proposed extension to Crystal Palace 23 Proposed extension to Sutton 7 Proposed extension to the Bromley area 4 Proposed extension to the Purley area 6 Proposed extension to the Thornton Heath area 4 Proposed extension to Mitcham/Morden 2 Proposed extension to serve the hospital 4 Extend Tramlink to cover a larger area of Croydon and South 5 London General comment in relation to the expansion of Tramlink 22 General Tramlink comments/suggestions Positive comment in relation to Tramlink in general 7 Negative comment in relation to Tramlink in general 1 Improvements to cycling safety at tram tracks 3 Improvements to existing infrastructure/routes 8 Other comments Comment in relation to favoured/disfavoured option 15 Retain a good service on existing lines during construction 2 Specific comment in relation to an individual’s use of the tram 2 system

Appendix B – Consultation leaflet

Appendix C – Consultation letter

Appendix D – Consultation letter distribution area

Appendix E – Email to Oyster users

Appendix F – Scheme update on TfL Twitter feed

Appendix G – List of stakeholder contacted

AA DriveTech Action for Blind People Action for Children Action on Hearing Loss (RNID) Age UK London Automobile Association (AA) British Deaf Association (BDA) British Gas British Red Cross British Sky Broadcasting Ltd British Youth Council Broad Green & Waddon Neighbourhood Partnership Bromley and District Consumer Group BT Group plc BT Openreach Cable & Wireless Campaign for Better Transport Campaign for Clean Air in London Canal & River Trust Centre for Cities Centre for London City Year London Corona Energy Coulsdon College Council for Disabled Children Crossrail Ltd Croydon BID Croydon Chamber of Commerce Croydon College Croydon Safer Transport Team Croydon Transport Focus CTC Department for Communities and Local Government Disabled Persons Transport Committee 43

Dong Energy UK E on UK East Surrey Transport Committee EE EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation) English Heritage Environment Agency Environment Agency (London team) Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Freight Transport Association (FTA) Friends of the Earth Gavin Barwell MP Gazprom Energy GDF Suez Energy Ltd Greater London Authority Greater London Forum for Older People (GLF) HS2 Ltd Inclusion London Independent Disability Advisory Group (IDAG) Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) John Ruskin College Leonard Cheshire Disability LFEPA (London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority) London Borough of Croydon London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI) London Civic Forum London Councils London Cycling Campaign London First London TravelWatch London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF) London Voluntary Service Council London Wildlife Trust Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Metropolitan Police Multiple Sclerosis Society 44

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS) National Grid National Union of Students Natural England NHS Care Commissioning Group Npower Older Peoples' Network Croydon Passenger Focus People First Plusnet Princes Trust RAC Foundation for Motoring Richard Ottaway MP Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB) SCOPE Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE) Scottish Power Energy Retail Ltd Steve O'Connell AM Steve Reed MP Sustrans Telefonica UK Thames Water The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind Total Gas & Power Transport for All UK Broadband UK Citizens Virgin Media Virtual Norwood Forum Whizz-Kidz YMCA England

Appendix H – Answers to questions raised

The responses are grouped under the headings listed below.

A. Further information for the rationale for the scheme B. Future tram services C. How the scheme fits into the wider 2030 tram strategy D. Impacts during construction E. Impacts during operation F. Alternatives to the Dingwall Road loop G. Design comments H. General comments

The questions and issues relate to all three options, unless stated otherwise.

A. Further information for the rationale for the scheme

1. Why do we need an extension on Dingwall Road? We already have a good service.

We are planning for the future. The current demand of 31m passenger journeys per year is expected to nearly double by 2030. In order to be able to maintain current levels of reliability, we need to invest in the tram service and make choices about how the service will look in fifteen years. The current infrastructure would not be able to accommodate the anticipated growth in demand while maintaining current service levels.

The Dingwall Loop is the first stage in a series of wider improvements set out in our 2030 plan. Extra platforms at Wimbledon and double tracking at Mitcham are both already under construction; while possible future improvements include an extension to South Wimbledon and Sutton, double tracking from Wandle Park to Reeves Corner, an Old Town loop (to allow a turn back for South Wimbledon services), improvements to Elmers End and double tracking or additional loops on the Beckenham Junction branch. The changes would allow us to run more trams to both sides of the town centre, while continuing to run services around the existing loop.

We are prioritising the proposed Dingwall loop in order to accommodate the Westfield- Hammerson development, which is expected to contribute 2m additional passenger journeys per year.

2. How would a loop increase capacity and reliability? If turning trams around is required, why not do so at East Croydon station, given that trams using a loop would come back this way in any case?

Turning trams around on a new loop would allow us to recast the timetable in way that would not be possible if we simply turned trams at East Croydon, as trams would need to leave as soon as they arrived. This would not help us meet the capacity and reliability requirements needed for 2030. A new loop would enable us to increase the number of trams running to the east of the town centre, where they can wait or be turned around, without compromising the frequency or reliability of the rest of the network It would also enable us to accommodate the Westfield-Hammerson development, which is expected to

bring an additional 2m passengers a year.

3. The scheme may help bring people to the new development, but what is the benefit to local people and existing businesses in Croydon?

Access to local shops and other destinations would be maintained via the existing loop. The improvements would allow us to run additional trams on the network, helping maintain current levels of reliability as the demand for tram services grows. If the town centre became impassable for any reason, it would be much easier to continue running services to the east of the town centre. If we did nothing, the additional demand would lead to congestion on the existing network.

4. None of the options provide a stop at Westfield-Hammerson. In all cases people still have to cross the main road. Why not run the tram along the western side of Wellesley Road?

Running the tram southbound, on the western side of Wellesley Road with option 1 would create a significant traffic conflict. Whilst a contra-flow system could enable trams to operate safely, it would have significant impact on other road users and lead to congestion. We would prefer to run the tram on the eastern side with this option. With option 2, running a clockwise tram on the western side of Wellesley Road would create tram track conflicts at the junctions with Lansdowne Road and George Street. A separate scheme is seeking to improve the pedestrian crossings at Wellesley Road.

5. Options 1&2: Why build a new stop at Lansdowne Road given the short distance from East Croydon station to Westfield?

The stop at Lansdowne Road would be used to help regulate tram services, ensuring that eastbound departures from Wellesley Road and East Croydon run on time. It would also be much closer to Westfield than East Croydon.

6. Why extend the tram before the Northern Line extension to Battersea?

We need to invest in tram infrastructure in order to meet the expected growth in demand by 2030. The markets for the Northern Line and Tramlink services are very different and a Northern Line extension would not impact on our long term tram strategy.

7. Does the scheme take in account the impact of the Bakerloo Line extension?

Our current demand forecasts do not include the Bakerloo Line Extension as it is not currently funded or committed. However, the scheme enables higher service frequencies in the future, including more trams to Beckenham Junction and Elmers End, allowing more passengers to reach potential Bakerloo Line Extension services.

8. How much would the loop cost?

The scheme is being proposed in order to meet the long term growth in demand, including an additional 2 million passengers per year as a result of the Westfield Hammerson development. As part of the planning process for their development, Westfield- Hammerson are contributing £15m towards the cost of the scheme through a Section 106 Agreement. The total cost of a loop is currently estimated at circa £27m. The final cost will 47

be determined during the detailed design phase, prior to the submission for powers.

9. The scheme is required to accommodate the Westfield-Hammerson development. As a decision on this development is still pending, are plans for the loop not premature?

A turn back loop of some form is an integral part of our long term planning. Following the results of our first consultation, when 72% of respondents said they agreed in principal to an extension to increase capacity and reliability, we will take the project forward to the next stage.

B. Future tram services

10. What would the impact be to tram services? Would fewer trams go around the existing loop, and if so, which routes are affected?

We currently operate 22tph (trams per hour) through the town centre. We are considering buying two additional trams, and running around 18-19tph around the existing loop and the remainder around the Dingwall Road loop. With later stages of the investment plan, this could rise back to around 21-22tph as and when additional services are added. (Please see the Tram 2030 Information Paper published on our website for further details).

To achieve this, we would need to re-cast the timetable across the network once Dingwall Loop is available. Our current thinking is for Wimbledon services to operate to Beckenham Junction and Elmers End, with New Addington services alternating between the existing town centre loop and the new Dingwall Loop, but increasing in frequency:

I. Everyone from the eastern branches would have a direct service available to Church Street and beyond (and for the return journey, from Centrale eastwards). II. The Beckenham branch would gain through services to Wimbledon – there are more passengers travelling from this branch across Croydon towards the Wimbledon branch than there are from the New Addington branch – so this pattern better fits demand III. Overall, the proportion of passengers needing to interchange would not alter. At least 86% of passengers would continue to have a direct service to their destination at least every 12 minutes. IV. We intend for all Wimbledon services (12tph from 2016) to continue to operate across the town centre. The Old Town turnback facility is needed to turn back additional services – our proposed future services from South Wimbledon.

11. Any scheme should accommodate a Wimbledon – Beckenham direct service

We intend to operate direct services from Wimbledon to Beckenham Junction every 10 minutes as and when we re-cast the timetable with the Dingall Loop.

12. Will TfL address overcrowding on trams?

A loop would allow us to run more trams to the east of the town centre, helping relieve congestion in the short term. The loop is a vital first stage in our long term planning to ensure future services can accommodate an anticipated demand of nearly 60m passenger journeys by 2030 and mitigate congestion. Timetable improvements that are enabled by the Dingwall Loop would also even out service intervals between trams, with much less bunching and therefore reduced crowding.

13. Options 1&3: Customers may be confused about which tram to catch to travel west from East Croydon

The final destination would continue to be displayed on the tram, with announcements made to new customers wishing to board as they are now.

14. Options 1&2: would the Dingwall Road/George Street junction have enough capacity to cope with any new tram movements, or would journey times be adversely affected?

Junction capacity can be delivered more easily with option 1, as option 2 would require additional land and the introduction of a contraflow system to enable trams and other road traffic to use the highway.

C. How the scheme fits into the wider 2030 tram strategy

15. Are you planning any future extensions, such as to Crystal Palace, Sutton or Thornton Heath?

The Dingwall Loop would not preclude future extensions. We are continuing to progress proposals for extensions to South Wimbledon and Sutton. More information on our 2030 vision is available in an information paper.

16. The scheme doesn’t provide a ‘turn back’ facility to the Wimbledon branch, which is one of the busiest routes and would benefit from a more regular service to the town centre.

A turn back loop for the west is very much a part of our long term planning for 2030. We are prioritising an east loop in Dingwall Road because of the need to accommodate the Westfield-Hammerson development, which is located east of the town centre and which is expected to contribute about 2m extra passenger journeys per year.

We expect to increase frequency to Wimbledon by 50% to 12 trams per hour from 2016, and are proposing an additional South Wimbledon service and even more frequency in our 2030 plan.

D. Impacts during construction

17. If approved, the constructions works for the tram loop on Dingwall Road could take place between spring 2017 and autumn 2018. Over this construction schedule, three periods were identified as likely to have a significant temporary impact on vehicle movement in the area.

Wellesley Rd/Lansdowne Rd Junction Roadworks  Southbound and northbound carriageway at the Wellesley Road/ Lansdowne Road junction would be reduced from two lanes to one lane for general traffic  Wellesley Rd northbound outside lane would be coned off

Closing the westbound movement on Lansdowne Rd and diverting traffic via Sydenham Rd onto Wellesley Rd would allow the Wellesley Rd southbound movement to have green stage for the majority of the time, except for the tram arrival at the junction. 49

George St / Dingwall Road  George St would be closed to traffic, but a one lane bi-directional access would be put in place to allow for public transport movement

Bi-directional access through George St (signal controlled) for Public Transport and bi- directional access to Dingwall Rd would be required in order not to further increase delays in the network

Dingwall Rd and Lansdowne Rd - Tram works and roadworks / Pedestrian area reinstatements  Lansdowne Rd would operate one-way westbound and Dingwall Rd one-way northbound

As a potential mitigation measure, bi-directional access to Dingwall Rd is being considered

E. Impacts during operation

18. How would vehicle access to Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road be affected?

TfL is not promoting any permanent change to North-South traffic movements on Dingwall Road as part of the scheme. Lansdowne Road would become one-way towards Wellesley Road.

19. How would bus routes be affected?

With options 1 and 2, Lansdowne Road would become one-way with the tram. Option 1 would route traffic westbound with an anticlockwise tram, option 2 would run traffic eastbound with a clockwise tram. The rerouting of bus services affected by such changes would be subject to a separate consultation later in 2015.

20. If TfL run more trams, would junction capacity at Chepstow Road and Cherry Orchard Road need improving?

We believe that this junction can handle additional tram frequency, but we continue to review the various junctions along the Tram network to ensure that our proposals do not have a significant impact on other road users.

21. Would the roundabout at Dingwall Road become controlled by traffic signals?

Working with the London Borough of Croydon, TfL will develop a junction design suitable for the urban environment. It is proposed that the residential / office location would be better suited to an unsignalled junction. However, safety, highway and tram operational considerations need to be considered during the detailed design.

22. Would an extension impact negatively on taxis and other motorists?

The Dingwall loop would allow us to increase services to the east of the town centre, while running services through the town centre at about the current level. This would benefit motorists (including taxi drivers) as well as tram passengers, as it would not overload the town centre loop which is already the most congested part of the route. The taxi rank on Lansdowne Road would be retained.

F. Alternatives to the Dingwall Road Loop

23. Why not improve bus services and introduce buses for areas where the tram cannot reach?

This would not address the issues of tram capacity and reliability. Any necessary changes to improve bus services in the future would be subject to a separate consultation.

24. Money would be better spent improving existing infrastructure. Why not just couple trams together and invest in longer stops and junction priority for trams?

Considerable thought has been given to the lengthening of trams and tram stops and they form part of our longer term planning towards accommodating passenger growth by 2030. We have looked at options for single trams up to 43m long, as well as coupling two trams together.

Both options would require significant platform lengthening works across the network. This would require us to buy additional land, and would also have an impact on highway operations, particularly at junctions. Another key consideration is the statutory need to retain good access to trams for those with mobility impairments or pushchairs – which in some cases would force us to realign the track.

It is therefore much more cost-effective to increase frequency as far as possible before lengthening trams. Stop lengthening would cost many millions and could not be delivered for the cost of the Dingwall Road Loop, which is estimated at £27m (and includes a £15m contribution under the Westfield-Hammerson planning conditions). The Loop would help enable us to increase tram frequencies to the east of the town centre, and we are also developing proposals to increase frequency to the west, including 12 trams per hour to Wimbledon from 2016.

25. Alternative route: up North End, then back east via West Croydon

The main purpose of the Dingwall Loop is to enable some services to avoid the busiest part of Wellesley Road. A route via North End would not meet this requirement; running through the busy shopping area here would require trams to operate quite slowly and there would therefore have a detrimental affect on the network.

26. Alternative route: George Street, Katherine Street, Park Lane, George Street.

Katherine Street is particularly important to the reliable operation of the bus network in Croydon, with numerous services waiting there at bus stands at the end of their journeys. This route would therefore cause significant disruption to the bus network compared to Dingwall Road.

27. Alternative route: East Croydon may become a bottle neck after the extra loop. A solution might be to form a loop around East Croydon, with trams going north along Dingwall Road, over the railway station and return east (roughly via cherry Orchard Road). This would help take tram traffic away from the area near NLA tower.

This route would require a new tram bridge over East Croydon station, making it

significantly more expensive than the proposed Dingwall Loop. The Dingwall Loop would also bring passengers closer to the town centre and the Westfield-Hammerson development, via a new stop at Lansdowne Road and the existing stop at Wellesley Road.

G. Design questions

28. Options 1&2: The proposed Lansdowne Road stop is located on a side road. Will customers be at a greater risk of crime?

With the improved crossing across Wellesley Road and the new route into East Croydon station, we expect Lansdowne Road to become much more used by pedestrians in future, making the area feel more active and deterring crime.

29. Options 1&2: Can the tram physically make the turn into Wellesley Road (Option 1) or Lansdowne Road (Option 2)?

Yes it can.

30. Will tram rails be in a reserved area on Dingwall Road?

Trams would run in the highway; there would not be a reserved area.

31. Do options 1 and 2 address safety, capacity and track maintenance issues considering westbound trams cross oncoming eastbound services?

Junctions would be signalised and be fully ORR (Office of Rail Regulation) compliant

32. With option 2, TfL should consider allowing trams to turn right or left onto George Street, providing both westbound and eastbound reverse loops.

We can’t accommodate such a movement at this junction without additional land take and the introduction of a contraflow on Wellesley Road. However, a turn back loop is also planned to services from the west as part of our long term 2030 planning.

33. Option 2 disadvantages customers wishing to stop at Wellesley Road

With Option 2, customers would have alighted at a new stop at Lansdowne Road and make use of the new crossing at Wellesley Road to access Westfield-Hammerson. Customers wishing to access George Street would have either walked from Lansdowne Road or continued to East Croydon, depending on their ultimate destination.

34. Why don’t the proposals include a new tram stop on Dingwall Road to access other businesses and developments?

There is no obvious location in which to put a stop. Dingwall Road is more heavily used by general road traffic than Lansdowne Road, so building a tram stop in the highway would have a greater impact on road congestion, while building it next to the road would require additional land take.

H. General questions about the scheme

35. Why propose to remove the subway at Wellesley Road. A surface crossing could create pedestrian-vehicular conflicts and have more safety issues than the existing subway.

The Greater London Authority has a policy to remove subways and replace them with surface crossings where it is feasible to do so. Some people do not feel safe using subways, as they can provide shelter to anti-social or criminal behaviour.

36. Will TfL address operational and commercial impacts to business and developments in the area?

We will liaise directly with businesses and developers who may be affected by the proposals as we seek to take the scheme forward. We will seek to mitigate impacts to businesses and developers as much as practicable.

37. How would cycle provision be addressed by the scheme?

Cycling provision on Dingwall Road would be retained. We are looking at three new cycle crossings at all three junctions as part of the scheme. This will be reflected in the detailed design, which will follow the consultation process. While we are not consulting on a cycling scheme, comments on cycling provision are welcome and will be include in the consultation report.

38. The first round of Public Consultation was poorly advertised and did not contain enough information to provide a meaningful response.

The public consultation ran from 3 November to 14 December 2014 and was publicised using a number of different methods:

 1,500 letters were distributed to addresses around Dingwall Road  35,000 emails were sent to Oyster users who use the tram and who had signed up for service updates  Letters and emails were sent to local, London wide and national stakeholders  Public displays of the information at Croydon Central Library and the Tram Shop during the consultation period.  Two staffed events at Croydon Library where people could put questions to members of the project team  Face to face distribution of 6000 consultation leaflets on the trams  Updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the consultation and the staffed events

We periodically review our house style for consultation documents to make sure they are as clear and accessible as possible.

The consultation last year was very useful in understanding the level of support in principle for an extension. We will return later in 2015 for a further round of consultation, prior to making an application for powers to construct and operate an extension through a Transport and Works Act Order. The 2015 consultation will include details on future tram services through the existing and proposed Dingwall Road loop. These details were not sufficiently developed for inclusion in the 2014 consultation. 53

39. Please explain the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) process. Who decides whether the scheme proceeds?

We anticipate making a TWAO submission to the Department for Transport (DfT) in October 2015 for powers to construct and operate an extension. An independent inspector, appointed by the DfT, would decide the extent of any Public Inquiry. The inspector would review the evidence and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Transport, who would have the final decision. More information is available in a guide provided by the DfT:.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273359/twa- orders-summary-guide-2013.pdf

40. Option 1: There are no opportunities for streetscape improvements along George Street.

Improvements to George Street are already underway. While provision of such urban realm falls outside the scope of the project, we are happy to work with Croydon Council to identify potential funding opportunities which may help deliver further improvements.

41. Option 1: The Lansdowne Road stop would be underused off-peak

Demand to and from the Westfield-Hammerson development is expected to be strong all day, as Westfield will have extended opening hours. In addition, the stop at Lansdowne Road would be used to help regulate tram services, ensuring that eastbound departures from Wellesley Road and East Croydon run on time.

42. The scheme could increase usage of Wellesley Road tram stop and the pedestrian subway. Should the stop be moved or improved?

Wellesley Road tram stop will be improved as a result of the Westfield-Hammerson scheme. This is being delivered as a separate scheme.