96% of Londoners say get on with the Bakerloo Line extension

An easy question, with a resounding answer. Does everyone want a southern extension of the Bakerloo Line? Yes. Yes, we do.

The public consultation is now over and the margin of victory for the yes camp is on a par with the referendum asking the Falkland Islanders asking them if they want to remain a UK Overseas Territory.

TfL says:

Initial analysis shows that over 90% of the 14,200 responses* support the principle of an extension into southeast London. 96% of respondents indicated they either ‘strongly support’ or ‘support’, in principle, the extension of the Bakerloo line into southeast London from its current end point at Elephant & Castle.

Matthew Yates, Head of Transport Planning & Projects, spoke about what happens next: "Over the coming months we are reviewing the case for the proposed extension including the different route options and possible station locations. We are also carrying out further environmental, planning and engineering studies and examining funding options."

Looking to the future, Matthew said: "It is still early days in the planning of this project but if progressed, and subject to funding and necessary powers, construction of this extension could start as early as 2023 and be open during the 2030’s."

We're not going to say that we are wiser than Jesus and Confucius put together - that is for others to say - but when we started writing about the consultation, the official line was that it wouldn't start operating until 2040. We said: "the smart money is on this project being brought forward by a decade or so, as South East London transport overheats." Now, they're talking about work starting in eight years.

Thanks to Monkeyboy for the tip-off.

48 comments:

Guest said...

Talking about low hanging grapes, this should start in 2015. Why waiting, the connection to the South East are already overloaded and more accessibility to new areas would help releasing some of the property steam in within zone 2?!?

Also please go ahead with Gatwick rather than Heathrow, the government should stop listening to the wealthy of the west and do what is right in the long term. Increasing flights over London is madness!

Monkeyboy said...

need to commit billions, before that you need a credible plan. there isnt one yet, to get a that plan you need to spend a few mill. then you need to compete with every other government department to get your cash. if some novel funding model using private money is devised then that will also take time and again those stumping up will expect a costed scheme. Tfl does not have several bilion down the back of the sofa that its not spent, in fact it hasnt that to spend on current schemes that have to happen to keep the existing lines going.

All doable but it cant and wont 'start' in 2015

Ed S said...

8 years is still a ridiculous wait with transport pressure and population growth, particularly when the UK can borrow at 400 year low interest rates. A 30 year gilt is about 1% interest!


A great shame neither Labour or Tory at Westminster places much value in infrastructure and transport in the UK, and will do all they can to prevent greater local devolution for TfL to get on with it.

Ed S said...

Well that's the current UK way. Other developed nations' experience in recent years shows that needn't be the case - not 8 years anyway. No need to compete with other regions if the DfT had a bigger budget, or more crucially money and power devolved to regions and cities so Westminster can't drag everything out. Pressure on candidates in 2015 should be how they will attempt to change the current system, which is clearly not working in the UK.

Monkeyboy said...

no, its how its done everywhere. We could 'start in 2015' that would mean releasing oodles of cash now to start the studies. they do that in china, they do that in Hong Kong (who have just sacked a bunch of people and are struging with a major delay on one of their jobs). its how they do it in Paris, ive spoken to them. its how they do in in stockholm, they been over to talk to us. 'if the DfT had a bigger budget', well they havent. We use the same consultant engineers, buy the same signaling systems, buy the trains from the same companies. none of them work for free im afraid. so yes, in a sense i agree with you we are slow but its not the process (well it is a bit) its how much you can comit to make it quicker. you cant just crack on without understanding the job, no country does that.

Monkeyboy said...

actually i think i agree with you more than i appear but we can only work with the situation how it is. there's a queue of projects that really have to happen first, thats perhaps the biggest problem

Mackerel Sky said...

It is also genuinely a very complicated thing, working out where to put a new railway line, siting the tunnelling and stations, negotiating with landowners around compulsory purchase, consulting with every man and his dog, and adhering to national (and EU) laws and regulations around risk assessments and so on.


I wonder if there is a Camberwell equivalent of Brockley Central where lots of people are seething about the apparent preference for an Old Kent Road option? I'm sure wrangles over whether the line goes via Camberwell or the Old Kent Road will delay things too.

SE4er said...

This is what is the problem with the country. 8 years to wait before they first start work on it, which is ridiculous.


Whether it be finances or bloody jobsworths - I buy none of that excuse. No wonder we are falling far behind other world cities in terms of infrastructure, especially when the majority of our current infrastructures were inherited from the Victorians!

Jojo said...

You can bet that Westminster and their cohorts will do everything in their power to stop this from happening. They have too much invested in their property portfolio in West London.

Monkeyboy said...

yep, those victorians and their automatic trains.

Damian said...

Olympics, wembley, the chunnel, jubilee extension. All fantastically delivered projects, not without fault granted. All are projects any nation would be happy to pull off. We might take our time, and breaking ground tomorrow would be exciting, but we do bilious things properly. That takes time. And a lot of cash. As for borrowing as someone's mentioned. I don't think anymore national debt is what this country needs. Nor would any party be foolish enough to borrow large amounts to fund what would be viewed as "another bloody London project" by media elsewhere

Brockley Green Party said...

Bloody Boris, only serving the motorist yet again, eh!

Brockley Green Party said...

You have to admit the Vics did the donkey work and we've been adding icing to the cake ever since

Monkeyboy said...

*hard stare*

guest said...

Not sure why they cannot happen in parallel. It would help unemployment, help the lack of housing by kick starting developments in the newly connected areas. The money issue, isn't that way we pay tax and we accept fare increases every year? Few billions in the national budget are really not that much money, not something that would have stopped the Victorians. Far less than what was given to banks to dig themselves out of trouble.

Danja said...

We need the organ-grinder to wind faster, 24/7/52.

Lon said...

Two major transport projects running in parallel means that two separate areas of London will see a housing construction boom.


This in turn will limit house prices rising and Westminster and their investors and bankers friends can't have that. It is why house builders sits on tons of empty lands and only build in phases.

Monkeyboy said...

I don't disagree, my point is that the money is central rather than a peripheral issue. Not capability or will or competence. Fares are going great up because central government grants are being reduced. Fares cover the operational and maintenance costs, it does not have much left for capital investment. Boris has been granted the powers to borrow a little more but not enough for all the CURRENT projects let alone this. It will happen but another project will have to slip or the government will have to increase borrowing or tax or sell children to Apple - their small hands are excelent for assembly phones.

Emma said...

Well I'm excited that they are talking about bringing the date forward for this. I'm not surprised it will take 8 years before works start given all the other major projects currently under way in London.


I just really hope they decide to go for both route options and not just one of them.

Monkeyboy said...

i helped knock down some of his stuff. true story

THNick said...

There's certainly griping over on the East Dulwich Forum (which is next door to Camberwell) about the route.


Government borrowing costs at all time low, millions of under-employed, this should be being rushed through to start ASAP. I take monkeyboy's points on board, but the money should be spent on starting the planning now*




*5 years ago.

THNick said...

Indeed. The (electric) bakerloo line opened in 1907 and thus is Edwardian!

Monkeyboy said...

yep.... money needed to fill the funding hole

anon said...

What are these projects that really need to happen first? Crossrail 2? To supplement new transport links to areas that are already better connected than we were fifty years ago? Putting more Boris bikes to area that doesn't need them? Redeploying south east London buses to other areas of London?


Please explain why south east London is way below down on your list of projects that needs to happen.

midtown said...

Judging by the comments by Monkeyboy, who is quite clearly an employee of TFL or GLA (the number of nonsensical excuses made here is pretty evident), I doubt we will ever see anything close to transport neutrality in London.

guest said...

Oh! it cost too much, Oh! too many tunnels, Oh! to difficult to design, what about those poor land owners who would be forced to sell (not sure why considering it is underground), Oh! too many projects...

All this whining is quite sad, soon we will become a heritage site and luxury travellers destination like Aspen and Gstaad.

There is a clear opportunity to forster growth and the response is let's think about it for the next 8 years.

Monkeyboy said...

your powers of deduction are stagering. Nothing id like more than for the BL extension to go ahead, simply pointing out that its in a queue with other projects that are funded or at least closer to being funded. not the answer you'd prefer but a fact. Check out the investment plans published and you'll see that. of course priorities can be shifted but that is i would suggest unikley. sorry to disapoint.

SE4er said...

Pretty certain that Gstaad has better transport facilities than dear old south east London...

Anon said...

Making excuse is the tfl way of solving problems. And buying their heads in sand.

Anon said...

*Burying

Monkeyboy said...

funding tends to help with paying for things i find

guest said...

Given that the UK Central Bank can print money and we do not operate anymore in a gold-standard I think that funding of good projects is the least of the problems.

That is what they think in the US... and finally Europe is following

Monkeyboy said...

yes, i agree. Thats for central government not TfL or the GLA to decide.

Brockley Nick said...

Being able to print money doesn't mean we can magically pay for anything we like - otherwise, every government everywhere would keep the printing presses running 24/7 (not that the money supply is really about notes in circulation anyway).


Other things being equal, increasing the money supply increases inflation and devalues the currency. Yes, there are times when being able to increase the money supply is a useful to increase economic activity, but that's about offsetting financial shocks, like a banking crisis (hence QE) and is about getting the money supply back up to its normal levels - it's not a process that you can do indefinitely, to pay for anything you like.


Which is not to say that I disagree that government should be spending more on infrastructure.

Newby said...

QE isnt printing money its really an asset swap where banks basically swap bonds (or equites in Japan's case)for risk free reserves. So whilst the money supply increases this is just an accounting identity the velocity of money does not.

guest said...

You should use a patronising tone when with topics you actually know well. The federal reserve hasinjected 4.5trn in the last years. I hardly see the dollar devaluted and inflation out of control.

3-4bn investment one off investment for an economy of 1.7trn pounds and 700bn Govenrment budget would not influence inflation nor make any difference to the exchange rate.

London needs new infrastrutures and the money excuse is an argument valid only for the business section of the Metro

Brockley Nick said...

I am agreeing with you - build the thing earlier rather than later - that's what all my articles say. But it needs to be paid for with borrowing or taxation - not printing money.


PS - it's $3.5trn and it was done in precisely the circumstances I described.
http://www.bloombergview.com/quicktake/federal-reserve-quantitative-easing-tape

anon said...

The argument does not make sense. To start the central Bank has been and is printing money since 2009 by way of a base rate at 0.5%. The money is directed to financial institutions that use them to fatten their balance sheets by re-lending it at 4-5%.

This is printing money for a purpose, but in the long run it is an unhealthy purpose that is taking us into another recession, with collapsing inflation and 0 real term growth.

So the correct argument is why do we print unlimited money to fuel the financial sector and we make an argument each time we need to invest few billions in infrastructure, Boris Island, Gatwick, Bakerloo, Fiber Optic etc...

If we were talking about a manufacturer whose plat is at capacity and 98% of its custumers agree they would buy its products for the next 100+ years nobody would argue against borrowing to expand the plant. Business 101

So why is it that most people struggle to apply the same economic common sense to the national budget. The Bank of England is just another bank that can "print" money to finance the government if they wanted to in a similar way it provides 0.5% loand to banks.

Necesary infrastructure investment is CAPEX not expenditure. The other question is who decides if the infrastructure is needed. There lies the problem of politicians and so we get commissions whose purpose is to confuse simple facts enough to make us believe that Heathrow is better long term bet than Boris Island or Gatwick, that the Gatwick express should not go to London Bridge, that it takes 8 years to think about the validity of the Bakerloo line extension, it takes 50 years to build a new bridge on the Thames, that is good for the economy that a one bedroom flat in central london should cost £1.4m.

Another general misconception is that infrastructure should be financed by the private sector, the same private sector that lends money at 4% and borrows from the Central Bank at 0.5%.



The Government has a duty to borrow at the cheapest available rate, meaning the rate of the Bank of England = "printing money"


The current situation does not help the economy in a capitalst and entrpreneurial sense.

Anon said...

"Bromley Council have branded plans for a Bakerloo Line extension to Hayes "disappointing" and "unacceptable", preferring to bring the DLR and Tramlink to the borough instead, it has been revealed."

Tall Boy said...

Is Bromley in London?
"Lewisham Labour politicians have accused Bromley Council of being "narrow-minded nimbys" over opposition to a Bakerloo Line extension.
The astonishing attack comes after News Shopper published Tory-run Bromley's response to a Transport for London (TfL) consultation over plans for a Bakerloo extension through Catford to Hayes.
Because this would see the loss of direct services to London Bridge, Bromley says the Hayes plan is "unacceptable" and says it could only support an extension via New Beckenham to Bromley South, preferring DLR and Tramlink links in the borough.
Figures from the conultation showed 73 per cent of Bromley respondents backed the idea of an extension..."
Just wondered that's all.

Toby Donaldson said...

Of course Bromley is in London! Why ask such a stupid question?!

Monkeyboy said...

We'll put you down as 'undecided'

Shoe Shiney Sun said...

**NEWSFLASH**
Public Money NOT required
In the 70's or the 80's or even the 90's I'd have to agreed with you about funding but not now. Now to be thinking about subsidised public transport is plain old fashioned thinking. It's over. It's all gone. Like formica worktops, Hygena flat pack kitchens and Wimpy Bars and Nescaf Gold Blend.
Today transport infrastructure actually makes money. And loads of it too.
Let's all try to keep our thinking current and with programme and try not to remember or rely upon the old days and old ways of transport funding.

Monkeyboy said...

no, the fare revenue for LU covers (i believe) the operational costs. It does not come close to covering the capital spend which is what this would be...bilions of it.

One Ontrack said...

Today it's called it 'seed capital' because today transport in London actually makes money.
Today city merchant banks line up to finance train engines, train carriages and train infrastructure and why should they do all this? Because today transport in London is a ticket to The Big Bucks. That's why.

Monkeyboy said...

you really have no idea what you are talking about. if there were no public subsidy fares would rocket. the small surplus in fares and other revenue goes toward capital spend. the remainder comes from a public subsidy. Banks would want to make a profit before investing in the network. see table 4 https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/business-plan-gla-budget-update.pdf capital spend (thats for big maintenance jobs like escalator replacements and work toward new projects like bakerloo) in 2014/15 £1.4bn operational surplus £284m so £1.2bn to find. Thats just LU for just one year. Banks do lease trains to some of the big NR franchises, hows that going? LU stock is bespoke, its not off the shelf which much of NR stock is (with some modifications)

One Ontrack said...

Now Now - Let's All Try To Stay Calm And Sensible

First read this:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/government-funds-may-not-be-needed-for-3bm-bakerloo-line-extension-says-city-hall-9766444.html
Now consider the contributions made at Battersea by the private corporate developer to the very public infrastructure tube line extension and then tell me how this is all a dream.
Today whether you like it or not Boris And His Boys at City Hall will ensure the private sector keeps it's grubby greedy little fingers in the public trough of transport pounds for just as long as they can.
The upside is here in London we get cut price tube extensions. The downside is private money leeches into the private banking sector at an ever increasing rate.
So forget those curly British Rail ham sandwiches, the smoky waiting rooms and the stale pork pies. The politics of todays railways transport infrastructure funding in London is about all jam. And plenty of it.

Brockley Nick said...

I love the way you urge people to stay calm and sensible before launching into an hysterical rant.


Yes, developers and businesses are expected to make a contribution in return for the benefits they get. Likewise Crossrail. You'd rather they got a free ride, presumably?

Brockley Central Label Cloud