|
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
From: The Wharf newspaper http://icthewharf.icnetwork.co.uk/th...=16910318%26me thod=full%26siteid=71670%26headline=new%2ddlr%2dli nk%2dfor%2dolympics-nam e_page.html NEW DLR LINK FOR OLYMPICS Apr 6 2006 Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012 By Kay Harrison PLANS for a UKP240million DLR extension to Dagenham Dock could be fast-tracked through in time for the 2012 Games. The new line will stretch six kilometres east from Gallions Reach and see the creation of four stations, providing fast and frequent services to Canary Wharf and the Royal Docks. Transport for London (TfL) had been exploring ways to fund construction of the Barking Reach route, but London Mayor Ken Livingstone now seems to have secured the cash needed to accelerate the project. A TfL spokesman said: "The Barking Reach extension will revolutionise travel for commuters and residents in east London. "It will open up a greater area for jobs, education and leisure opportunities." New stations are to be built at Beckton Riverside, Creekmouth, Barking Riverside and Dagenham Vale. The route will terminate at Dagenham Dock station, where there will be an interchange with the existing C2C service. The scheme will serve key development sites within the Thames Gateway and is seen as vital to the regeneration of the Barking Riverside area. Mr Livingstone claims senior government officials have agreed funding for the project and plans to put in a bid to the 2007 spending review. He has also instructed a team to work up detailed plans for the DLR extension. The mayor attended the launch of tunnelling work on the DLR Woolwich Arsenal extension on Monday (April 3). Before starting the machine being used to connect King George V station to Woolwich, he said an announcement on the Barking Reach extension could be expected over the coming months. TfL has already received positive feedback on the project from the London boroughs of Newham and Barking and Dagenham, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and landowners in the area. Extensive public consultation will be carried out throughout its development. |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
Paul G wrote:
Transport for London (TfL) had been exploring ways to fund construction of the Barking Reach route, but London Mayor Ken Livingstone now seems to have secured the cash needed to accelerate the project. You've got to hand it to the DLR bods, they're pretty good at getting cash for all these extensions. The Woolwich Arsenal one is already well under construction, with the eastbound platform at WA about to shut for a few months to enable construction to take place. I know the DLR is cheaper to build than the tube, but surely something like the Bakerloo to Camberwell could have been built for near to the same price as three new DLR extensions (King George V, Woolwich Arsenal, Barking)? The Bakerloo tunnels are already halfway down Walworth Road, and the remaining distance to Camberwell Green can't be much longer than the DLR river tunnel to Woolwich. I guess studies have been done about which extensions to the network will offer more benefit to more people, etc. but it seems to me that the DLR system is becoming ever more bitty and complex, possibly at the expense of more coherent additions to the tube network. Patrick |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
I wrote:
three new DLR extensions (King George V, Woolwich Arsenal, Barking)? For Barking read Dagenham. Apologies. |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
Yeah the problem with a Bakerloo extension is that it would abstract
revenue from buses and trains in the area so the sums dont stack up as well as the (mainly) green/brownfield DLR which generates completley new journeys with little abstraction from other public transport. (Only exception being the line to North woolwich which will replace NR line but I guess serving the airport tipped the balance here) However the traffic along the Walworth road is now so bad for buses these days, I think if the sums were run again adding in the congestion reduction benefits we would see a better outcome. |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of2012
kytelly wrote:
Yeah the problem with a Bakerloo extension is that it would abstract revenue from buses and trains in the area so the sums dont stack up as well as the (mainly) green/brownfield DLR which generates completley new journeys with little abstraction from other public transport. (Only exception being the line to North woolwich which will replace NR line but I guess serving the airport tipped the balance here) However the traffic along the Walworth road is now so bad for buses these days, I think if the sums were run again adding in the congestion reduction benefits we would see a better outcome. I'm pretty sure that if they've carried out even a fairly simple cost-benefit analysis, they'll have included congestion reduction benefits for car and bus users, as well as abstraction of bus revenue. It may be that the BCR is pretty good - but probably just that other ones will be better. Going back to bus revenue, although it will abstract bus revenue from journeys which would have otherwise been made by bus and tube, journeys that transfer from bus-only to tube-only will result in a net increase in TfL revenue (because Tube fares are higher). In any case, I'm sure that will all be included in the calculations. Another factor is that congestion reduction won't just apply to road journey times - there's something to be said for reducing passenger congestion on trains from places like Denmark Hill (although to be honest I don't know how busy those trains are). On the other hand, a Bakerloo extension would probably lead to increased overcrowding on the Northern line north of the Elephant, as people make new journeys or switch from buses and trains to the Tube for journeys to the City. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
Dave Arquati wrote:
On the other hand, a Bakerloo extension would probably lead to increased overcrowding on the Northern line north of the Elephant, as people make new journeys or switch from buses and trains to the Tube for journeys to the City. It all depends on where most of the passengers would go. I think extending the Bakerloo to Herne Hill and constructing a flying terminus there would be an excellent idea, if and only if it could be shown that most of the paseengers at Herne Hill are headed somewhere served by the Bakerloo Line. As for the DLR Dagenham branch, it makes sense to build it because it provides direct one-change access to and from Docklands from Essex. People living in Beckton can now commute to Shoeburyness, and people living in Dagenham have more access to Canary Wharf. Everybody wins, especially the District Line. |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
wrote:
Paul G wrote: Transport for London (TfL) had been exploring ways to fund construction of the Barking Reach route, but London Mayor Ken Livingstone now seems to have secured the cash needed to accelerate the project. You've got to hand it to the DLR bods, they're pretty good at getting cash for all these extensions. The Woolwich Arsenal one is already well under construction, with the eastbound platform at WA about to shut for a few months to enable construction to take place. I wonder if there would've been so much support for that extension if it was known that shutting such an important platform for months was part of the deal. I know the DLR is cheaper to build than the tube, but surely something like the Bakerloo to Camberwell could have been built for near to the same price as three new DLR extensions (King George V, Woolwich Arsenal, Barking)? The Bakerloo tunnels are already halfway down Walworth Road, and the remaining distance to Camberwell Green can't be much longer than the DLR river tunnel to Woolwich. I thought extending the DLR to Woolwich was a waste of money (as a more direct route is planned for the future which would practically empty that section of DLR) but Bakerloo to Camberwell is worse! While I support extending the Bakerloo, Lewisham is a far more appropriate destination. There's already a 4 track railway through Elephant & Castle which also goes through Camberwell. They just need to reopen a station or two. Further into the future, a tunnel could be constructed from around Elephant via London Bridge to either Moorgate or somewhere between there and Old Street, to link up with the GN Electrics. That would finally solve the overcrowding problem on the Northern Line, as well as freeing up paths on the Peckham and Thameslink lines. I guess studies have been done about which extensions to the network will offer more benefit to more people, etc. but it seems to me that the DLR system is becoming ever more bitty and complex, possibly at the expense of more coherent additions to the tube network. 'Tis not just the DLR. Every project seems to be considered in isolation. To see what we could do with a bit of joined up thinking, have a look at the full plan page of my website. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Bakerloo to Camberwell is worse! While I support extending the Bakerloo, Lewisham is a far more appropriate destination. Surely both are possible? As the tunnels are halfway to Camberwell already, it makes sense to go there, so you could have Elephant - Walworth - Camberwell - Denmark Hill - Peckham Rye - Nunhead - Brockley - Lewisham, then all stations to Hayes. Patrick |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
All true but I think congestion has worsened on Wlaworth road since
they last did a CBA but ICBW |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
TheOneKEA wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: On the other hand, a Bakerloo extension would probably lead to increased overcrowding on the Northern line north of the Elephant, as people make new journeys or switch from buses and trains to the Tube for journeys to the City. It all depends on where most of the passengers would go. I think extending the Bakerloo to Herne Hill and constructing a flying terminus there would be an excellent idea, if and only if it could be shown that most of the paseengers at Herne Hill are headed somewhere served by the Bakerloo Line. It's one of those situations where "cost/benefit" simply means "cost". The East London Line is being extended south simply because it's already there with relatively little work, the lines already almost connected etc. But not because people in Lewisham and South want to go to Dalston. In fact a Bakerloo Line extended three miles to Lewisham or beyond would be very very useful for getting from the south east to Oxford Street and Paddington, at Oyster prices, without inconvenient interchanges, but also expensive to build. For anyone trying to get from the south east to the West End or Paddington, buses along the Old Kent Road or Peckham Road are not a realistic alternative to NR for that kind of journey and would not be greatly affected. There wouldn't be any more Bakerloo overcrowding from Elephant than there already is from Charing Cross. As for the DLR Dagenham branch, it makes sense to build it because it provides direct one-change access to and from Docklands from Essex. People living in Beckton can now commute to Shoeburyness, and people living in Dagenham have more access to Canary Wharf. Everybody wins, especially the District Line. |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
Surely both are possible? As the tunnels are halfway to Camberwell
already, it makes sense to go there, so you could have Elephant - Walworth - Camberwell - Denmark Hill - Peckham Rye - Nunhead - Brockley - Lewisham, then all stations to Hayes. That would probably be a pretty overcrowded branch, and any problems that may come from trying to create more lines on the Denmark Hill-Lewisham axis (which is partly in a cutting, I believe). What's more, the obvious route for the Bakerloo to take to Lewisham would be down the Old Kent Road, which must be one of the most busiest bus corridors in the city, with stops at Elephant-Bricklayer's Arms-Canal Bridge-Surrey Canal Road-New Cross-St John's-Lewisham. |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of2012
MIG wrote:
TheOneKEA wrote: Dave Arquati wrote: On the other hand, a Bakerloo extension would probably lead to increased overcrowding on the Northern line north of the Elephant, as people make new journeys or switch from buses and trains to the Tube for journeys to the City. It all depends on where most of the passengers would go. I think extending the Bakerloo to Herne Hill and constructing a flying terminus there would be an excellent idea, if and only if it could be shown that most of the paseengers at Herne Hill are headed somewhere served by the Bakerloo Line. It's one of those situations where "cost/benefit" simply means "cost". The East London Line is being extended south simply because it's already there with relatively little work, the lines already almost connected etc. But not because people in Lewisham and South want to go to Dalston. In fact a Bakerloo Line extended three miles to Lewisham or beyond would be very very useful for getting from the south east to Oxford Street and Paddington, at Oyster prices, without inconvenient interchanges, but also expensive to build. For anyone trying to get from the south east to the West End or Paddington, buses along the Old Kent Road or Peckham Road are not a realistic alternative to NR for that kind of journey and would not be greatly affected. There wouldn't be any more Bakerloo overcrowding from Elephant than there already is from Charing Cross. I was referring to *Northern* line overcrowding north of the Elephant. If a Bakerloo extension were constructed to somewhere like Camberwell or Lewisham, the high relative frequency of the new extension would probably attract people away from other networks - I mentioned bus because of the high volume of bus traffic along Walworth Road and Camberwell Road, but it would equally apply to rail traffic from places like Peckham. If someone travels from Camberwell to the City then they may currently take a bus all the way, but with a Bakerloo extension in place, they may switch to the Tube, changing at the Elephant. Similarly, for someone travelling from Peckham into the City, they may switch from a train-only journey to a Tube-only journey, again changing at the Elephant, as it might be more convenient for their journey. The result could be worsened overcrowding on the Northern line north of the Elephant. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
|
DLR: Big push for Dagenham branch to be constructed ahead of 2012
wrote:
Surely both are possible? As the tunnels are halfway to Camberwell already, it makes sense to go there, so you could have Elephant - Walworth - Camberwell - Denmark Hill - Peckham Rye - Nunhead - Brockley - Lewisham, then all stations to Hayes. Both are possible, but just being possible doesn't make something the best option. A tunnel going half way to Camberwell is not a good reason to extend trains there through it when there is already a railway on the surface going all the way there and beyond! South London is quite well supplied with railway lines, so a Bakerloo Line extension wouldn't be as useful as a mainline loading gauge railway (which could increase service frequency on existing lines as it would be a useful alternative to the congested London termini). Your suggested Bakerloo extension to Camberwell, Lewisham and Hayes suffers from that problem. Trains with tube loading gauge would not be able to share the Denmark Hill to Lewisham section with trains of mainline loading gauge. That would mean more tracks would have to be built, which would make it much costlier. It would be difficult to add more tracks to Lewisham station itself (although the benefits of doing so would also be high) and the Hayes Line would lose its direct service to Cannon Street. The City is more significant on the Hayes Line than on the rest of the South Eastern, as people going from Hayes to the West End can get there more quickly by catching a bus to Bromley South and a fast train to Victoria, so diverting the trains so far away from it would inconvenience a high proportion of the passengers. Also, the Hayes Line serves Catford station, which is very close to Catford Bridge station, which already has trains to Nunhead, Peckham Rye, Denmark Hill and Elephant. Therefore your plan would make things worse for many people. Are there any other options for extending the Bakerloo via Camberwell? It might be possible to utilize some of the old Crystal Palace High Level trackbed in a southward Bakerloo extension beyond Camberwell that avoids the main line, but it is difficlut to see a good reason for doing so. The land is not very densely developed (and not a prime candidate for dense development either) and is near a lot of parkland and open space, so you wouldn't have enough passengers to make it worthwhile. Also, it's not really that far from other lines. If any of that branch is ever to be relaid, it would be best to do so as a tram line rather than a Tube line. 'Tis a similar story for other parts of South London that aren't very near railways. With trams planned to run to Peckham and Brixton, extending these is likely to be a more cost effective solution than building another tube line - and there are plans for othe Central London tram lines which may be built if CRT is successful. That would probably be a pretty overcrowded branch, and any problems that may come from trying to create more lines on the Denmark Hill-Lewisham axis (which is partly in a cutting, I believe). What's more, the obvious route for the Bakerloo to take to Lewisham would be down the Old Kent Road, which must be one of the most busiest bus corridors in the city, with stops at Elephant-Bricklayer's Arms-Canal Bridge-Surrey Canal Road-New Cross-St John's-Lewisham. If the trackbed of the Bricklayer's Arms branch had not been built over, it would have made sense to utilize it. However, as it has, I favour the following alignment: under Old Kent road (with two or three stations, the last of which would be where the existing line to Peckham Rye crosses it) then New Cross Gate, then Lewisham. It would not have to finish at Lewisham. I think the best option is to surface at Blackheath to give cross platform interchange, then take over the tunnel to Charlton. Eventually I'd like to see it extended under the river to LCY Airport, Beckton Park, and Beckton, with a further extension to Barking initially operated by the DLR in order to build up passenger numbers before being converted to Bakerloo Line. -- Aidan Stanger http://www.bettercrossrail.co.uk |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk