On 5 Dec, 16:39, wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 16:36:17 +0000





Anthony Polson wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:09:58 +0000
Anthony Polson wrote:
I am bitterly disappointed that the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea will be funded using taxpayers' money.

Why? There are other people living there already you know, it won't just be
for the new estate.

Apparently the new estate would be unviable without the Northern Line.
So the developers should pay, or at least make a significant
contribution. *Not to do so suggests either that the development is
only marginally viable (I think we can probably discount that) or some
grubby deal has been done in which political representatives and/or
their party(ies) will benefit in some way.

Does it really matter? The extension will be a benefit for the whole area..

Is this true? I mean the area already has several railway stations.
And there is no effort being made to integrate the new extension into
the existing transportation infrastructure.

After WWII several studies were done on the future transportation need
of the London region. One of the few tangible results of these
studies was the Victoria Line.

The Victoria Line filled a strategic gap in the subway network. Its
axis was almost a stroke of genius. Add to that the interchanges with
the existing lines (some of them cross platform) and the route quickly
became an indispensible part of the everyday journey of millions of
users. Indeed the routes succeeded in knitting together disparate
parts of London's rail network.

Fast forward to the Jubilee Line extension: This one was much less
well planned, but did manage provide a useful route with some
worthwhile interchanges. And, in compensation for the lack of
strategic planning, the Canary Wharf developer made a sizable
contribution to the Line's cost.

Now we come to the Northern Line extension to Battersea. There is no
strategy. There is just a developer's perceived need to a "tube"
connection. There is no guarantee that the urban development will be
completed.

If the line is intended to replace the two existing Battersea stations
(accelerating services into Victoria and Waterloo), and would then
continue to Clapham Junction (for interchange with the mainlines) it
might make some sort of sense. In its planned form it is an oversized
vanity project adding little to London's transportation network.

And, what of Battersea and Nine Elms as a whole? Is there a grand
vision here? Will the existing road system be abandoned in favor of a
modern grid? Are there attempts at future proofing? I mean will
there be easy access to the subsurface for future co-axes and fibre
optics, etc?

How about severe ToDs over, and around, the new stations? Perhaps
high rise residential accommodation, over commercial office space,
over retail. The density (and skyline) tapering off as distance from
the stations increases?

No? I thought not, just more expensive piecemeal renewal. One day
London will wonder why her role, as a financial center, has been
replaced by perhaps Singapore, Shanghai, and/or Brasilia.

It would be better to spend the money on a replacement for Camden Town
Northern Line station. That would at least allow splitting and
acceleration of the Northern Line.