2009-11-09 Risks to Light Rail

7/28/2019 2009-11-09 Risks to Light Rail

1/9

Threats to

possible orbital light-rail in outer Londonfrom the

current Brent Cross planning application...

(We need safeguarding in

place, for better times!)

Boris photo: Ian Jones

Map from Transport2025 document.

Boris now est imates an

extra 1.1 to 1.5 mil l ion

popu lation by 2031.


2/9

WILL Brent Cross traffic levels add 29,100 extra vehicles every

day to our roads, which is the 2004 figure (including West Hendon) or9,000 as now stated by the developers? It depends who you ask.

Either way, there are environmental features in the Brent Crosstransport plan but not enough, and not of the right kind.

The proposed Brent Cross Thameslink stationwill only be

four train-lengths away from both Cricklewood and Hendonstations. That 220-million would be better spent upgradingthe existing stations

(1), and contributing to one phase of a

North and West London Light Railway, mainly sharing ex-

isting, hardly-used freight corridors and abandoned track-beds. Closure ofCricklewood station currently has plausibledeniability but no train that stops there, or at Hendon(or at Kentish Town) will ever be able to stop at the so-called local town centre / transport hub of Brent Cross.

The planned branded-bus Rapid Transit System, virtually

all within the Brent Cross site, is now considered temporary.But special bus routes, on reserved roads, could be convertedinto a wider light-rail system in the years ahead (instead of

spending 50-million on the Staples Corner road junction).

The light railway could realistically include otherdevelopment sitesat Colindale, Mill Hill East, Wembley and Park Royal. It would in-terchange with everyUnderground and main-line railway in north andwest London. Most of the routes are already there. We believe ourplan will produce an attractive cost-to-benefit ratio for a new orbitallight railway in outer London, to cope with the rising population.

Brent Cross:transport

Brent Cross will be the same size as CanaryWharf in 1999, when only light-rail (DLR) sta-tions provided a decentralised transport sys-tem. That is a better choice here as well, anda way to connect to the surrounding area, in-stead of building one centralised main-linecommuter station, plus only road access.

Notes:

(1) The government UDP inspector made comments about retain-

ing Cricklewood Thameslink station, and the developers aretherefore suggesting step-free access.

(2) The RTS at Brent Cross Northern Line station involves thedemolition of housing, to provide a turning circle.

In both the above cases, we believe this is abort ive investment,because both may be of only short -term benefit. Whether or notprivate Section 106 expenditure pays for this is irrelevant it isbetter to benefit the public realm with long-term infrastructure.


3/9

Do we really want more of these brutalising and alienating pedestrian bridges?The plans for Brent Cross say that we do!

They will have step-free access, as though that makes them acceptable in thisnew town centre. (Our web site has more detailed arguments .)

THE REST of this document gives our views on how theBrent Cross planning application (C17559/08) will make fu -

tureimplementation of light-rail at Brent Cross effectivelyimpossible.(In other words, the currentplanning applicationneeds to be rejected, and resubmitted* only after modifica-tions.)

The Campaign for Better Transport - London Group has helddiscussions with the Brent Cross developers. Unfortunately, wewere only offered co-operation in considering a Phase One light-rail scheme if we signed an undertaking not to oppose the

planning application. This poisoned chalice was rejected.

We made the point to the developers that, unlike the ThirdHeathrow Runway for instance, we were not totally againsttheirscheme we just wanted it modified. To no avail.

Barnet has always publicised plan C17559/08 as a draft appli-cation, but it is not there are extensive full applications withinit. They include the complete road system, and in particular, thedemolition of Tempelhof Avenue road bridge across the NorthCircular Road, suitable for light-rail use in the future. (It is therealready, at no c ost!)

Read our submission, opposing the planning application, on:www.bettertransport.org.uk/london_local_group.

Only byre ject ioncan Barnet Planning charge another planning fee.

Brent Cross: now or never

ROAD NEWS:You will no longer be able todrive sou thon the A5 and turn weston theNorth Circular (except via new spaghetti junc-tion roads at point A). Why did the HighwaysAgency and TfL agree to this disbenefit?

A

*

M1A5


4/9

One of our (complicated) Light Rail Options slides ...

Only these 2 options mayinclude a Shopping Centrestation in a Phase One.

31 2

This area of land onlybecomes available at alate stage. It may not be

possible for Phase One

to even skirt the northside of it, as in Option 3.

Two suggestedlight-rail services,shown in red and

blue for clarity


5/9

Note: Brent Cross, Neasden and Harlesden stations above do not currently have step -free access.

Some possib leroutes are shown here. To the rightare two separatelight-rail services (coloured red and blue only for clarity).

The blue service might form a Phase One along a hardly-usedfreight line corridor across Brent, to North Acton (Central Line),partlyshown belowon an Underground map. Alternatively, part of the redand part of the blue service could be combined as Phase One.

M1

in to

Brent

NorthCircular

Road

FOR US to claim that the light-rail scheme cannot be added later, weneed to say what the rail scheme actually is. Unfortunately, we are un-able to fully do so. There are many uncertainties about the best BrentCross route, and how a wider scheme should pass through the site.These could only be resolved in a co-operative planning regime!

A5 A41

A variationmight beto take one line across theBusiness Quarter on via-duct, as an attractivefeature, al laCanary Wharf.

The two lines might remainatdifferent levels, with only aservice track joining them.

Light-rail platforms might beon bo thsides of the MidlandMain Line, or at right-angles.

Fourl ight-rai l p latforms,

instead ofan ymain-l ine

stat ion?

3


6/9

ONE UNKNOWN in any light-rail scheme is the best way tocross the north-south Midland Thameslink main-line railway.

(Although it would be possible to reach south to Cricklewood stationwith light-rail on the easternside of this main line, continuing furthersouth towards West Hampstead has to be on the western-s idefreight line(s). Given that the Dudding Hill freight line from Brent andEaling is alsoin the west, it is certain the main-line must be crossedsomewhere.)

All the yellow and green lines (left)represent possible ways forlight-rail (maybe only a single track) to pass underthe very longrailway viaduct, without the need to build an expensive bridgeoverthe Midland Thameslink line further south.

The orange and purple lines are routes to allow light-rail to re-join the Midland Main Line freight lines northwards (one of thetwo tracks is still needed for existing freight) for light-rail to reachHendon Thameslink station, and on to Colindale.

These are, of course, highly speculative (some more so thanothers). However, light-rail can use curved track down to onlyfourteen-metres-radius, and also climb and descend steeply.

There is more discussion on crossing the Midland Main Line, andpassing through other parts of the Brent Cross area, on our web site.

PCWorld

to Hendon

toCricklewood

M1

NorthCircular

Road

A5


7/9

Much of the green line can be light-rail ballasted track on the exist ingas-phalt service road, i f the route is safeguarded for th e future.

The orange line (up the existing ramp, and then to a Shopping Centre station)allows a Phase One line between Brent Cross Northern Line and Hendonsta-tion, rather than to Cricklewood (unless a sharp turn,partly shown in yellow, veryextreme left, is used to go sou th).

DowntownBrent Cross

Town CentreContinuing the colours from

the last page, the purple lineand the green line could be-come two routes. We believetwo serv icesmay prove justi-fied, and using completely

separate tracks increases time-table resilience.

(The short broken-yellow linemight be a service track to jointhem.)

Alternative locationsfor Tempelhof Ave.,without demolishingour light-rail bridge!

Shopping Centre light-railstation the Bus Stationwould be alsobe movednear here, instead of the in-tention to locate it next to the

noise and fumes of the ten-lane North Circular Road.

Tracks pass under/over access road here.

Apart from the trackunder the M1bridge, the colouredlines are shownonly on to pof theaerial photograph.

M1


8/9

Light-rail route

The road widening thatwrecks our rail route thenew supports for a widened sliproad would mean the railway routewould become impossible andpermanently so.

Eitherthisspan,or more likely, thenextspan to the left,could be used forlight-rail.

Only a single track isneeded to the terminusat Brent Cross NorthernLine station.

A41roundabout

changes(continuing possible light-rail track eastwards, andto Brent Cross Northern Line station ...)

A41

NorthCircular

Road

to NorthernLine station


9/9

Unnecessary house demoli-tion for what would be a

short- l ivedrapid transitbus service.Northern Line

Purchase of derelictland for the singletrack light-rail line isneeded here. (A foot-path route must still bedetermined.)

*

Light-rail route

End of our line!

The light-rail station is atground level, on TfL land.

(This is lower cost thanraising to tube platformlevel, although there isspace to do so, and we

have previouslysuggested it.)

New entrance to ShoppingCentre we do not object toenlarging the A41 roundabout,since it means closing the short(and dangerous) slip road off theNorth Circular, just to the east,on the line of the light railway (atpoint ).*

Brent Crosstube station

Dont blame us

It is not ourfault that the developers need tochange their plans we must reduce climatechange, road congestion and air pollution, and thisapplication does none of those things. TheDevelopment Framework was drawn up without

sufficient publicity, including in neighbouring Brentand other boroughs, and the developers havetreated it as an approved planning application.

Public consultation sessions have often beenstaffed by PR people who have known virtuallynothing about planning fill in a card, they said,and real publ ic debatefor the last five years(people keep telling us) has been derisory.

A41

NorthCircular

Road

2009-11-09 Risks to Light Rail

Documents

Transcript of 2009-11-09 Risks to Light Rail