Agenda item

Resolved: to note the report – and to recommend that the committee retains its focus on rail infrastructure in 2014/15.

Simon Moss (Transport Policy and Development Manager) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

• The report provided an update on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), Overground and Bakerloo line but it was unlikely that Lewisham would get all three rail improvements.
• Over the past year there had been concurrent studies by Transport for London (TfL) looking at the feasibility of extending the DLR and Bakerloo line.
• Officers were concerned about potential plans to extend the DLR through the borough- because the extension would not fit alongside existing infrastructure – and had the potential to create substantial disruption as it passed through the borough. For example, one version of the proposals would take the line through Ladywell fields, which would be unacceptable.
• It was also clear from TfL’s DLR feasibility studies that the benefit cost ratio was likely to be too low to make the case for the extension.
• The ratio was estimated to be less than 1 – meaning for every pound spent there would be less than one pound in benefits generated. As a minimum requirement a viable transport scheme should have a ratio of more than two.
• The Mayor of Lewisham had written to the Mayor of London to express disappointment at the findings of the DLR study – and to reiterate the borough’s interest in the extension of the London Overground via Lewisham.
• It was most likely that the extension of the Bakerloo line would take over the Hayes line – freeing up capacity for the Overground to operate via Lewisham.
• It was recognised that there was insufficient capacity at Lewisham at present to extend the Overground, therefore, any Overground extension would need to be combined with an extension of the Bakerloo line.
• The Bakerloo line had a cost benefit ratio of 3.5. It was a more expensive project than the Overground but this was a healthy ratio.
• The extension of the Bakerloo line would be estimated to create more than £7.5B pounds of benefits as a result of its £2B cost.
• There were reasons for optimism; however, there were also a number of unresolved issues.
• Primarily, it was not clear how any spare capacity created at Lewisham station would be used. The space would be valuable and all parties involved would be keen to utilise it.

In response to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

• The cost benefit ratio of the Bakerloo line extension had substantially increased in the time since the Committee had last considered the issue. It was not clear why this was the case – but it was likely that is was a result of changing demographics and assumptions about future regeneration in the borough.
• There were no immediate plans to commission further feasibility work from consultants.
• LB Bromley was committed to the extension on the DLR- but it was recognised that there were significant limitations which would need to be addressed in order to make it feasible.
• In its current form, with the low cost benefit ratio, the extension of the DLR was not feasible.
• There was a strong case for the extension of the Bakerloo line. However, an Overground extension would be quicker and cheaper to deliver.
• There would need to be a commitment to extending the Bakerloo line before the borough could commit to an Overground extension. This might involve building a new station to the south of the town centre.
• It was recognised that the ‘Catford loop’ line was poorly served. Officers were not able to rule out the potential of using the line for the Bakerloo line.
• The DLR could not use ordinary rail track – and this ruled out the option of allowing he DLR to take over the Hayes Line.
• It wasn’t yet clear where any future Overground extension would start and finish. Lewisham would not, however, want to lose its connection to central London.
• Councillors could be involved in all stages of the planning process. Officers would return to the committee on a regular basis to provide updates, information and advice on developments.

Resolved: to note the report – and to recommend that the committee retains its focus on rail infrastructure in 2014/15.