The results of a consultation into the Bakerloo line extension have been published, and unsurprisingly, most people seem to want it. However, in light of the current funding crisis, TfL is not expected to bring forward the extension plans any time soon.

The report is based on the consultation that took place between October and December last year, and they received nearly 9,000 responses.

Candidly, it’s not the biggest surprise in the world that most of the people responding to a consultation about improving public transport in their area would be in agreement with such plans.

Just under three-quarters supported the plans for a new combined Northern and Bakerloo station at Elephant and Castle.

When it comes to the route from Elephant and Castle to Lewisham, just over three-quarters were supportive, with some debate about the location of the two stations planned along the Old Kent Road.

There’s a modest majority for the station next to Burgess Park to be called Burgess Park station, but opinions were more widely split for the other station, with Old Kent Road and Asylum topping the options, but only just.

The difficulty with Old Kent Road being that the road is very long, so a station named after it isn’t a local feature, whereas Asylum has a lot of awkward connotations. It’s a difficult area as there aren’t any other major landmarks the station could be named after, so whatever it’s called, at least 60% of the locals will not like it.

Unsurprisingly, while support for the tube line extension was generally high, it was very low for the planned worksites, as few people support living near building sites even when they are needed for the upgrade.

Looking to go beyond Lewisham, a strong majority favoured a further extension to Hayes, although opposition grew stronger as you got closer to Hayes, worried about impacts of the arrival of the tube line on mainline railway services.

In the response, TfL confirmed that it remains committed to delivering the Bakerloo line extension, but that this is dependent on funding, and that a commitment from Government to support funding for the scheme is essential in developing a funding package.

TfL will, however, work to securing statutory safeguarding of the proposed extension between Lambeth North and Lewisham, so any future developments won’t prevent the tube extension being built.

Extending beyond Lewisham is still being investigated, so they won’t be seeking safeguarding of the route at the moment.

The consultation response is here.

NEWSLETTER
Tagged with: ,
SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE

This website has been running now for just over a decade, and while advertising revenue contributes to funding the website, but doesn't cover the costs. That is why I have set up a facility with DonorBox where you can contribute to the costs of the website and time invested in writing and research for the news articles.

It's very similar to the way The Guardian and many smaller websites are now seeking to generate an income in the face of rising costs and declining advertising.

Whether its a one-off donation or a regular giver, every additional support goes a long way to covering the running costs of this website, and keeping you regularly topped up doses of Londony news and facts.

If you like what your read on here, then please support the website here.

Thank you

15 comments on “Bakerloo line extension consultation approves of plans
  1. Odd, the email I got from TfL states

    “The majority of respondents made positive or supportive comments about our overall proposals (89 per cent). There was also support (82 per cent) for a possible further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction.”

    which doesn’t seem to match with “opposition grew stronger as you got closer”, just a 7 percentage point drop in “positive or supportive”.

    • JoMo says:

      The problem is for residents of Hayes, it’s currently faster to take a service to Charing Cross and change onto the Bakerloo there, than it would be to take the Bakerloo line the whole way. Also, these stations currently have a direct service to The City (Cannon St.) which they would lose if the Bakerloo takes over this line.

      DLR is an even worse idea IMO. Even if it was possible to extend the line at Lewisham, it would be a very slow journey into Central London.

  2. Southern Heights (Light Railway) says:

    They should be starting now, because by the time they actually start digging the Corona crisis will be over.

    Also Hayes and Beckenham Junction strike me as the wrong destination. Bromley North via Grove Park would possibly be better…

    • Uche Mick Chinonso says:

      I know why this is the case, but such construction would mean skiiping out on Grove Park unless they relocate the entire National Rail station southward.

    • JoMo says:

      A tunnel portal would probably be needed south of Grove park anyway as there’s not space for 6 tracks under the road. Grove Park underground station might be separate to the National Rail station on the north side of the road, where the bus station is today. Passengers changing from a southeastern service to the Bakerloo could do so at Lewisham or Charing Cross.

  3. Uche Mick Chinonso says:

    However, it would be preferable to extend the DLR south from Lewisham to Hayes and Beckenham Junction as this would have a higher Benefit-cost ratio.

  4. Andrew says:

    I see the problem with the naming, a quick look at the map and I would have thought Burgess Park for the north one.
    Maybe for the south station it’s an opportunity to give the area a name, and some character in the process? Or hunt through the old maps, and see if there was a historic name or something that was there. For instance, where I work is named after the farm that was bulldozed in the 70’s to make space for it. That or South Old Kent Road.

  5. Melvyn says:

    Even Burgess Park has problems as one side of the park is Old Kent Road and the other side on Camberwell Road making it difficult for someone to know which side the station is on .

    I think Asylum would make one of those weird names London is famous for !

    I do wonder if once Crossrail opens the prospect of downgrading main line sized lines to tube trains unable to have proper air conditioning will replace the longer version of this extension with a Thameslink style line extending lines from Bromley North / Hayes across London possibly joining with Watford to Euston line with new tunnels and stations in central London?

    Extension of Bakerloo to Lewisham could still happen.

  6. Kakairo says:

    Looking at the area surrounding Old Kent Road 2, why not call it Caroline Gardens? The park is a very short walk down Asylum Road and the name is pleasant enough.

  7. X-Plaistow says:

    I note that 29 people suggested that Old Kent Road 1 should be called “Tubey McTube Face”.

  8. My Old Dutch says:

    Would it not be prudent to establish the name origin of Burgess Park, so as to avert any connections with philanthropic Plantation slave-owners?

    • toby says:

      Jessie Burgess was born in Brighton (~1900) and lived in Peabody Buildings, Camberwell Green before becoming mayor of that area. Looks safe.

      Friends of Burgess park have an article on her called jessie-burgess-and-the-abercrombie-plan

  9. Rob says:

    South London’s mainline links are really good, much quicker and cheaper (and nicer) than the tube. Not sure I see the point. Certainly not past New Cross.

  10. John Ward says:

    The extension of the Bakerloo into SE London is a great proposal, and would much help connect this area with the London Underground system and the West End in particular. This does not seem to be an overly ambitious project in terms of tunneling distrance and number of stations. Hope it proceeds sooner rather than later..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Home >> News >> Transport News