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.

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

I wrote:

three new DLR extensions (King George V, Woolwich Arsenal, Barking)?

For Barking read Dagenham. Apologies.

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 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.

I think the key thing about the DLR is that it is being extended to meet
significant forecast growth in the area - both in high-density
employment on the Isle of Dogs, and in housing and medium-density
employment in the Royal Docks and around Barking & Dagenham. The
buzzword of the day is regeneration - DLR extensions primarily underpin
regeneration efforts rather than serving existing areas of high demand.

I have no doubt that a Bakerloo extension to Camberwell (at the least)
would have decent levels of demand, but it would probably be expensive,
as you say. The benefits could well be high too (particularly if a bus
feeder hub were developed at the terminus, as with Brixton), but it's
usually the ratio of benefits to costs (the BCR) which is used in
planning decisions rather than the absolute magnitude of those benefits.

I suspect that the DLR schemes have quite high BCRs (making them a good
return on public investment) compared to a Bakerloo extension, even if
the magnitude of the net benefits of the latter would be larger.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

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.

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

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.

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

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

All true but I think congestion has worsened on Wlaworth road since
they last did a CBA but ICBW