Decision:
The Committee agreed that:
There should be further discussion of a way forward for the Bakerloo extension at the next meeting of the Sustainable Development Select Committee
Minutes:
Jonathan Roberts of JRC introduced his presentation to the Committee which outlined:
· Update on official thinking
· Spending pressures and priorities
· Demand indicators
· Project risks and other ‘lions in the path’
· A wider South and SE London approach
· Stakeholders and politics
The presentation also highlighted the keys to pursuing a project such as the Bakerloo extension:
· Vision – what do you want and why?
· Intelligent ideas – affordable sense
· Long-term
· Key next steps
· Phasing
There are possibilities and opportunities in central London as the Bakerloo is less used through central London than other lines which means that capacity through central London with the Bakerloo could be swapped for capacity at London Bridge.
The Committee then discussed a number of issues raised:
· The benefit cost ratio needed for projects such as the Bakerloo extension, which are around 2 to 1, though current projections are slightly below this. There will need to be a bigger draw destination. Tube lines get around three times the number of passengers compared to nearby train routes, though this may not be enough to justify a project around the margins. For example the Crossrail and Thameslink projects values are huge, as every extra space is an extra job and the stations are likely to be transformational.
· Whether there are the big regeneration schemes to attract passengers and money for an extension. Simply reserving the suburbs with a tube will not be able to justify the costs involved, especially when lines have been extended to take 12 car trains.
· The potential for the tube to help with the regeneration of Catford, perhaps even offering Catford as a destination or integrating a new station into the development. It would also improve access to Catford which is poorly served on weekends.
· What a local authority can do to make this happen. By bringing groups of shareholders together the project can build momentum. This would need Lewisham, Southwark and London Councils, as well as private groups all working together and lobbying same points. It is not long before people start planning the 2019-24 spending, . Bakerloo won’t be able to start entering this arena until there has been money spent on project planning in detail. There is a space of about 5 years to get this all started, including a stakeholder group and getting clarity on what needs to be done.
· The need for Disability Discrimination Act compliance, platforms would need to be reworked so that new stations are DDA compliant as tube trains are lower than rail trains. This would rule out sharing a rail and a tube platform.
· What the other options are, for example extending the DLR to Catford. This would need to be thought through, especially in terms of linkages and detail. Also whether spurs from an extended Bakerloo would be viable, for example to Beckenham or even to Croydon.
· The level of in-depth research that needs to be done. The associated costs of this would be into 6 figures to do it properly and would need to be done. TfL have been willing to do the headline modelling, to outline it and analyse, but the larger research needs to have specified outputs and validity. There needs to be a case put forward that should be answered.
· The feasibility of phasing an extension and completing it in stages. It may be worth ask for the big ask, but prepare for phasing and waiting.
· The comparisons with the East London Line, which people said wouldn’t make a difference at first. But it is popular and usage has gone up, partly due to the interconnectivity of it. The Tube gets people using it more than rail. This is because people trust the tube, there are less gaps between trains, more reliable and people trust their lifestyle to it.
The Committee agreed that:
There should be further discussion of a way forward for the Bakerloo extension at the next meeting of the Sustainable Development Select Committee
Supporting documents: