£100m to bring the tube to Peckham Rye
On Monday, I joined representatives of neighbouring boroughs to launch a major campaign to secure phase two of the East London Line extension.
Some prominent GLA members also attended, though, regretably not the Southwark and Lambeth representative.
The campaign calls for a commitment by government to funding Phase Two when they announce spending on transport projects in the Autumn.
You can support the campaign by signing up to www.southwark.gov.uk/transport/ellx
Phase two of the East London Line Extension will finally put Peckham on the tube map. This improvement to the transport infrastructure will accelerate the regeneration of Peckham and its approval will bring huge social and economic benefits to this part of south London.
Compared with the cost of projects like Crossrail, this project is cheap as chips – and it could still be built before the Olympics. This and the tram are Southwark’s top transport priorities. We now need the Mayor of London to put this at the top of his wish list so we have the best chance of persuading the Government to fund it in the Autumn.
The East London Line extension will extend and connect the existing line to destinations North and South on the traditional overland rail network.
Phase One will open in 2010, trains will travel South from New Cross Gate as far as West Croydon and Crystal Palace, and north from Shoreditch through Hoxton and Dalston, to Highbury & Islington.
Phase Two will extend the line South-west, through Peckham, Brixton, and Clapham to Clapham Junction. Phase Two is not yet funded, although the powers to build it have already been granted
Please help by signing the petition at www.southwark.gov.uk/transport/ellx
Mrs Morrisson Atwater said,
July 6, 2007 @ 7:12 am
The Residents Society of Mayfair and St James’s shares your concerns about the very expensive Crossrail taking away money from much needed viable projects such as the extenstion to the East London Line, which will give Peckham a tube.
The Society is normally very supportive of public transport projects provided they are lawful, value for money and do not cause unnecessary harm. Unfortunately, the Crossrail Bill, to which you refer, fails on all counts causing unnecessary harm in both East and West London. Yet the Promoters of the Bill are seeking £16 billion+ of public money.
Over 7,500 residents live in Mayfair, the residents come from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. Along with a large transient and tourist population, there are many permanent residents and local businesses. In particular, there are a large number of families living in areas of social housing, which will be affected by Crossrail. Around 235 of the 750 buildings in the area are also listed as being of special architectural or historic interest including fragile Georgian buildings. We have spent years engaged in what was clearly an expensive mock consultation exercise with Crossrail to ensure they selected the best route with the least possible risk of harm using a parking lot in Cavendish Square but the Promoter is on record saying this option was rejected without consideration. Crossrail want permission for a pre-determined route, which tunnels under historic and residential property without adequate compensation measures or revealing the full extent of the harm before Crossrail are given permission with wide-ranging powers. This has not been challenged by the Crossrail Committee chair. In contrast, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) Committee discouraged tunneling underneath sensitive historic buildings in residential areas due to the risk of harm. Instead, the Crossrail Select Committee have prevented a railway planning expert, who successfully delivered CTRL and the Jubilee Line from giving evidence in public on the Promoter’s refusal to consider alternatives, once disclosed documents corroborated his experience with the Crossrail team.
Crossrail is a £16billion project. We believe Crossrail is likely to be the predicted bottomless pit reported in The Times except it will be using taxpayers’ money for the lifetime of the project unless the Treasury protects the public purse from a Eurotunnel Millennium Dome fiasco. Similarly to the Olympics, we share the view in Whitehall as stated in a Financial Times report that “the project’s backers are likely to keep cost projections as low as possible to secure approval”. To date, in newspaper reports, the business community has offered not guaranteed to pay a token one-off contribution even though the City and Canary Wharf are the primary beneficiaries of the Crossrail scheme. Reports of Crossrail’s costs vacillate as much as the ostensible projected benefits but there is a distinct lack of substantiated evidence. On April 25, 2007, the Society wrote requesting substantiated evidence about Crossrail’s lawfulness, funding and financing and is yet to receive this proof. A pattern has emerged about the Crossrail project, when the Promoter is asked for evidence of their claims – it is absent.
Indeed, we agree with shadow transport secretary Chris Grayling’s aide Campbell Storey, on the matter of the Crossrail Bill in its present form, who is quoted by Transport secretary Douglas Alexander as saying: “Funding, publicly our position is: we don’t think the Government is serious about this. Privately: it is the wrong project (bad route, too expensive) and we wouldn’t want to be associated with it.” Indeed, Mr Grayling says: “There are problems with the route and with the costings.”
To-date, the Crossrail Bill has been allowed to proceed through Parliament without proofs of evidence on the consideration of alternative routes, the lawfulness, the funding or the viability of the project. This would be unthinkable if one were taking out a mortgage to buy a house let alone giving permission and funding for the largest infrastructure project in Europe with a £16billion + bill.
Crossrail has not complied with a legal requirement to properly consider alternative routes on the central section taking into account environmental impacts despite having spent £300-400 million of public monies. A legal opinion has been disclosed, which says the Crossrail Bill is unlawful in its present form and it is likely to face a legal challenge because of the failure to consider less harmful routes in both Mayfair and the East End of London.
We think if billions of pounds are to be spent on Crossrail, it should at least be the best scheme with the least possible harm in London and any funding using taxpayers money should only be allowed with full information about benefits and liabilities. We are now hoping that MPs will consider the economic and environmental implications of the Crossrail Bill at the third reading in Parliament before any further time or public monies are spent on the scheme.
Michael Abrahams said,
July 6, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Beware of the small print! Make sure that you keep the vital rail services to London Bridge and Lewisham. The East London Line wil be of limited use to the people of Peckham. Will it be quicker to get to Canary Wharf via Canada Water rather than London Bridge? Will you keep the existing 6 trains per hour into London Bridge?
I am sure the service to Victoria will be increased as well as the service to Hoxton, but it will probably be at the expense of some other services.
£100million is excellent value if it brings more regeneration to Peckham, but it would cost even less to link from Crystal Palace round to Victoria on existing tracks to provide the orbital railway. Ideally both options would be developed.
What South East London really needs is the Bakerloo line extended to Peckham and on to Lewisham or Beckenham. Why should be settle for a second class ‘Overground’ system when we deserve a proper Underground system?