crossrail 2 - tfl consultations · 2014. 10. 28. · crossrail 2 . consultation report . report ....

Crossrail 2

Consultation Report

Report

October 2013

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Transport for London

Consultation Delivery Team

11G9, Palestra

197 Blackfriars Road

London

SE1 8NJ

Steer Davies Gleave

28-32 Upper Ground

London SE1 9PD

+44 (0)20 7910 5000

www.steerdaviesgleave.com

Consultation Report

Contents

CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. 1

2 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3

Overview: What consultation was needed and why ........................................... 3

Crossrail 2 and HS2 .................................................................................. 5

Crossrail 2 – Wider economic case ................................................................ 5

The local communications situation statement ................................................ 5

Why consultation was needed ..................................................................... 6

At what stages of the project lifecycle are we consulting? .................................. 6

Scope of the consultation .......................................................................... 6

3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 7

Introduction ........................................................................................... 7

Analysis ................................................................................................ 7

Coding responses to the open question .......................................................... 7

4 QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS - CLOSED QUESTIONS .......................................... 10

Geography of responses ........................................................................... 10

Type of respondents ............................................................................... 11

Support of the principle .......................................................................... 11

Support for the options ........................................................................... 17

Support by geography ............................................................................. 17

5 QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS - OPEN QUESTION ............................................... 21

Introduction ......................................................................................... 21

Support both options, or support one and no strong view on the other ................. 21

Support the Regional option but not the Metro option ...................................... 25

Support the Metro option but not the Regional option ...................................... 27

Support neither the Regional option nor the Metro option ................................. 29

No strong view ...................................................................................... 31

Suggested destinations ............................................................................ 32

General concerns and requests for further information .................................... 33

6 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION ................................................................... 35

Comparison of respondent demographics to general population .......................... 35

Consultation Report

Contents

FIGURES Figure 2.1 Crossrail 2 Metro Option .................................................... 4

Figure 2.2 Crossrail 2 Regional Option ................................................. 4

Figure 4.1 Number of Respondents by Area ......................................... 10

Figure 4.2 Do you Support the Principle of Crossrail 2? ........................... 11

Figure 4.3 Support for Crossrail 2 Proposals (London) ............................ 13

Figure 4.4 Opposition to Crossrail 2 Proposals (London) .......................... 14

Figure 4.5 Support for Crossrail 2 Proposals (South East) ........................ 15

Figure 4.6 Opposition to Crossrail 2 Proposals (South East) ...................... 16

Figure 4.7 Do you Support the Regional/Metro Option? .......................... 17

Figure 4.8 Support for the Principle of Crossrail 2 by Area ...................... 18

Figure 4.9 Support for the Idea of the Metro Option .............................. 19

Figure 4.10 Support for the Idea of the Regional Option .......................... 20

Figure 6.1 Age (Crossrail 2 Consultation Respondents and Census 2011) ...... 35

Figure 6.2 Ethnicity (Crossrail 2 Consultation Respondents and Census 2011) 36

Figure 6.3 Disability (Crossrail 2 Consultation Respondents and Census 2011) 37

TABLES Table 5.1 Level of Support for Scheme Options ..................................... 8

Table 5.2 Support: Open Comments by Theme ................................... 21

Table 5.3 Support Regional: Open Comments by Theme ........................ 25

Table 5.4 Destinations Suggested by Those in Support of the Regional Option ................................................................................ 25

Table 5.5 Support Metro: Open Comments by Theme ........................... 27

Table 5.6 Destinations Suggested by Those in Support of the Metro Option . 28

Table 5.7 Support Neither: Open Comments by Theme ......................... 29

Table 5.8 Destinations Suggested by Those in Support Neither Option ....... 29

Table 5.9 No Strong View: Open Comments by Theme .......................... 31

Table 5.10 Destinations Suggested by Respondents with no Strong View ...... 31

Table 5.11 Type of Destinations Suggested .......................................... 32

Table 5.12 Concerns for Cost and Disruption ........................................ 33

Consultation Report

Contents

APPENDICES A CONSULTATION SURVEY

B SUPPORT BOTH DETAILED RESPONSES

C SUPPORT REGIONAL DETAILED RESPONSES

D SUPPORT METRO DETAILED RESPONSES

E OPPOSE BOTH DETAILED RESPONSES

F NO STRONG VIEW DETAILED RESPONSES

G SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS BY TFL GROUPINGS

H STAKEHOLDER SUMMARY

I SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

Consultation Report

1

1 Executive Summary 1.1 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy identifies the need for additional rail capacity.

Proposals for Crossrail 2 have been developed with the aim of providing additional capacity broadly in the south west and north east corridor through London. The proposals for Crossrail 2 went to public consultation in May 2013. This document reports on the results of this consultation.

1.2 Steer Davies Gleave were asked to carry out independent analysis and report on the public responses to the Crossrail 2 Consultation. There were 13,767 public responses. The majority of individuals who responded were from London (82%) and the South East (10%). The small remainder of responses (8%) came from throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Additionally, 166 responses were received from stakeholders, which accounted for 1% of all the responses. The stakeholder responses have been analysed separately by TfL and can be found in Appendix H and Appendix I of this report.

1.3 Results show significant support for Crossrail 2: 96% of respondents strongly support or support the principle and just 2% of respondents oppose or strongly oppose the proposals. A further 2% have no strong view.

1.4 Support is high for both of the proposed options and higher for the Regional option than the Metro option, with 84% and 73% of respondents strongly supporting or supporting the respective scheme options.

1.5 Support is slightly higher among people living or working in areas which the proposed options serve. Support for the Metro option is greater in the central London boroughs and support for the Regional option is greater among the outer London boroughs and in areas outside London served by the proposed alignment.

1.6 An open question was asked in the consultation inviting respondents to submit any further comments they had regarding the proposals for Crossrail 2.

1.7 Code frames were developed for these responses and codes were grouped into themes. The code frames enable the number of comments regarding particular issues to be quantified, but compared to the number of responses to the closed questions, the number of spontaneously raised issues is inevitably low. Popular themes among respondents were suggested destinations, congestion/overcrowding relief, improved transport links, general positive comments, the economy, suggestions and negative comments.

1.8 Additionally people expressed concern about the cost of the scheme and the disruption associated with constructing it and requested further information.

1.9 A variety of comments were given by respondents to the consultation. Some of the most frequently raised points were:

I Crossrail 2 will help to alleviate crowding, particularly on services in the south west which terminate at Waterloo

I Crossrail 2 will improve north to south links across the capital, particularly the Regional option

Consultation Report

2

I Crossrail 2 will bring about economic benefits, particularly the Regional option which will open up new, more affordable areas to business and residents

I Crossrail 2 serves areas which already have good transport provision and does not provide any new infrastructure for areas such as South East London

I Crossrail 2 serves affluent areas that are not in need of regeneration rather than going through less developed areas

I The Metro option will be built quicker and will be cheaper so is perceived to be more likely materialise

I Capacity on Metro/Light Rail rolling stock will be insufficient for future demand (Metro option).

1.10 Overall the responses to Crossrail 2 were very positive with 95% of respondents in support of the proposals.

Consultation Report

3

2 Introduction

Overview: What consultation was needed and why

Project summary and rationale

2.1 London is growing rapidly, with 1.3 million more people forecast to be living in the capital by 2031, plus 750,000 new jobs forecast. Even with currently committed transport investment, this level of growth will lead to significant increases in crowding on the National Rail and Underground networks. To help address this growth, The Mayor’s Transport Strategy identifies the need for longer term additional rail capacity in the form of Crossrail 2, along the north east to the south west corridor passing through central London. The need for Crossrail 2 is further strengthened by a significant increase predicted in National Rail use on lines through the major London terminals (including HS2 into Euston),

2.2 Following a request from the Department for Transport to the Mayor of London, Transport for London (TfL) is undertaking a review of the safeguarded alignment of the previously known Chelsea to Hackney Line for Crossrail 2 to identify where possible changes should be made to ensure a route that fully maximises the benefits for London and which meets its future needs.

2.3 One major change identified could be to include the need to serve Euston as a terminus for HS2. Route options were appraised and evaluated by TfL and planning work carried out identified two preferred alignments, a Metro option and a Regional option.

2.4 These two options were consulted on and are described in the following paragraphs.

Options

2.5 The Metro option would run from Alexandra Palace in the North to Wimbledon in the South including Turnpike Lane, Seven Sisters, Dalston Junction, Angel, Euston St Pancras, Tottenham Court Road, Piccadilly Circus, Victoria, King’s Road Chelsea, Clapham Junction and Tooting Broadway, as shown in Figure 2.1.

2.6 The Regional option would run from Cheshunt and Alexandra Palace in the North to Twickenham including, Hampton Court, Epsom and possible further branch lines in the South, via all proposed Central London stations and also serving Motspur Park, Kingston and Surbiton, as shown in Figure 2.2.

2.7 All stations along the routes for each option were and still are indicative – they have not been decided on.

Consultation Report

4

FIGURE 2.1 CROSSRAIL 2 METRO OPTION

Option: Regional Scheme

FIGURE 2.2 CROSSRAIL 2 REGIONAL OPTION

Consultation Report

5

Crossrail 2 and HS2

2.8 As part of Mayoral policy, Crossrail 2 is a requirement at Euston to accommodate the dispersal of HS2 passengers onto London’s transport network. HS2 Ltd now acknowledges the need to incorporate Crossrail 2 into HS2 at Euston station though there has been no formal change of remit to date.

2.9 Mott MacDonald and Tony Meadows Associates have extensively discussed the design concepts with HS2 Ltd and this dialogue will continue. A broad variety of options have been considered with the aim of finding a solution that serves HS2 via Euston, as well as offering an attractive travel opportunity for those using St Pancras and King’s Cross stations and the surrounding area, e.g. Argent King’s Cross development. Station options at Euston/St Pancras present a number of engineering challenges, however designs are now being refined to meet TfL aspirations and match HS2 proposals, as well as take into account stakeholder comments received as part of the 2013 consultation.

Crossrail 2 – Wider economic case

2.10 TfL have worked with Volterra to produce estimates of the wider economic benefits of the scheme. These include agglomeration and movement to more productive jobs:

I Agglomeration benefits arise from improved productivity as workers become effectively closer together

I The benefits of people moving to more productive jobs arise as land use develops in response to the scheme

2.11 Government guidance allows movement of jobs from areas of average productivity to areas of higher productivity:

I In the context of a major central London scheme this is likely to underestimate wider economic benefits (WEBs)

I It is likely that a major improvement in London’s accessibility could attract additional jobs, e.g. from Frankfurt or Amsterdam

I A range of estimates will therefore be produced reflecting ‘DfT compliant’ and ‘realistic’ scenarios

2.12 Initial results indicate that there would be substantial WEBs arising from both schemes:

I In the case of the Regional option they would be larger and cover a broader area than for the Metro option.

I Further work is being commissioned to estimate the likely impacts outside London

The local communications situation statement

2.13 Extensive work has been undertaken to develop the options currently under consideration. In order to ratify these and ensure that the most appropriate option is protected by using the safeguarding process. This will be done by a further consultation. it is imperative that stakeholders and the public are consulted to make informed decisions based on the valued input of stakeholders and members of the public.

Consultation Report

6

Why consultation was needed

2.14 The TfL Policy says it will go beyond its legal obligations to consult where all of 3 tests are met:

I it will help make better-informed decisions and become more accountable to the public;

I it is practical and affordable;

I it will widen the audience who are providing comments, suggestions and complaints regarding the scheme.

2.15 Consultation for this programme is essential to support the planning and decision making process as this scheme develops.

At what stages of the project lifecycle are we consulting?

2.16 Due to the complexity and nature of the project and planning processes, it will be necessary to consult on this project at several stages. The first stage, which formed the 2013 consultation, was to deliver a non-statutory public and stakeholder consultation which set out the options for consideration. Following this consultation, the preferred alignment can be safeguarded. If sufficient support is gained from members of the public and stakeholders, detailed engineering and environmental work will take place to inform the next stage of public consultation.

Scope of the consultation

2.17 The consultation reported here sought the views of a wide range of stakeholders and members of the public who either benefit or will be impacted by the proposed alignments. The consultation presented the two options being developed, explained the rationale and case for each option, and explained the benefits and disbenefits for each.

What was outside the scope of this consultation?

2.18 The scope of the consultation did not include the precise station locations or other support infrastructure such as vent shafts, as the alignments are still indicative at this stage. This will be in the scope of future public and stakeholder consultations if the scheme is taken forward.

2.19 National policy on rail travel was also out of scope. Cost of rail travel and any issues relating to the cost of the service was also out of scope. These issues are decided by national and local governing bodies and will probably remain out of scope of all future consultations.

2.20 Any current or on-going issues relating to HS2 or the east/west Crossrail service were also out of scope for the consultation. HS2 and Crossrail are separate projects that will be consulting separately to Crossrail 2.

Consultation Report

7

3 Methodology

Introduction

3.1 As part of the Crossrail 2 consultation, people were asked to state whether they were responding to the consultation as a member of the public or as a stakeholder.

3.2 99% of responses came from members of the public and just 1% from stakeholders.

3.3 Steer Davies Gleave were commissioned by TfL to analyse and report on the public responses to the consultation, which is covered in the main section of this report.

3.4 TfL completed the analysis of the stakeholder responses. These can be found in Appendix H and Appendix I of this report.

Analysis

3.5 The responses to closed questions have been analysed and the respondents’ support for the scheme has been reported overall support, support for the Metro option and support for the Regional options, as well as by the respondents’ address.

3.6 Code frames have been developed to help analyse the responses to the open question, which invited respondents to provide comments on their thoughts of the Crossrail 2 proposals. This method is described in the following section.

Coding responses to the open question

3.7 Respondents of the Crossrail 2 Consultation were invited to answer an open ended question asking for their thoughts of the scheme.

3.8 Before analysing the open question responses, they were divided up according to the respondents’ support of the Regional and Metro options, using the responses to questions 3 and 4: ‘Do you support the idea of the Metro option?’ and ‘Do you support the idea of the Regional option?’

3.9 Five groups were identified:

i) Support both options, or support one and no strong view on the other

ii) Support Regional and oppose Metro

iii) Support Metro and oppose Regional

iv) Oppose both, or oppose one option and no strong view on the other

v) No strong view on either option.

Consultation Report

8

TABLE 3.1 LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR SCHEME OPTIONS

Level of support Number of responses

Support both options, or support one with no strong view on the other 11,341

Support Regional and oppose Metro 1,409

Support Metro and oppose Regional 440

Oppose both, or oppose one option with no strong view on the other 401

No strong view on either option 176

Total 13,767

3.10 The open question responses have been coded and analysed within each of these groups.

3.11 The themes covered in each of the five groups are reviewed in the next section.

3.12 For each of the five groups a code frame was developed to classify responses. We drafted code frames following a review of a sample of responses and shared this with TfL for agreement.

3.13 The code frames had a series of themes, which the respondents’ comments were grouped by:

i) Positive comments: unspecific positive comments.

ii) Congestion/overcrowding relief: comments about destinations of areaswhich would benefit from Crossrail 2.

iii) Improves links: comments about destinations or areas which would benefitfrom Crossrail 2.

iv) Improves interchange: comments about destinations or areas which wouldbenefit from improved interchange as a result of Crossrail 2.

v) Reduced travel times: comments about destinations or areas which wouldbenefit from improved journey times as a result of Crossrail 2.

vi) Economics: comments about economic benefits or concerns relating toCrossrail 2.

vii) Environmental: comments about environmental benefits or concernsrelating to Crossrail 2.

viii) Social: comments about social benefits resulting from Crossrail 2.

ix) Capacity: comments regarding the implication of rolling stock and routealignment on the services capacity.

x) Timescales: comments about the timescales and completion of Crossrail 2.

xi) Prefer Regional option: reasons why the Regional option is preferred.

xii) Prefer Metro option: reasons why the Metro option is preferred.

Consultation Report

9

xiii) Suggested destinations: comments about destinations or areas respondentswould like to be served by Crossrail 2.

xiv) Suggestions and service specification: comments about suggestions andchanges to the Regional & Metro options.

xv) Would rather improve existing infrastructure: comments aboutimprovements to existing transport infrastructure respondents would like tosee, instead of Crossrail 2.

xvi) Already has good transport links: comments about destinations or areasalong the proposed options which respondents consider as already havinggood transport links.

xvii) Insufficient demand along route: comments about destinations or areasalong the route which they consider unnecessary destinations on Crossrail 2.

xviii) Policy: policy suggestions.

xix) Negative: comments about problems or concerns the respondents have withCrossrail 2.

xx) Request for more information

3.14 Following agreement of the code frames with TfL, all open responses were coded. During the coding process it was necessary to add additional codes to the code frames as appropriate. Individual comments were coded to one or many of the codes within the code frame as relevant. Those comments not relevant to the consultation were coded as ‘general’.

3.15 To ensure consistency between individuals coding responses the first 50 responses coded by each person were checked. A random check of coding on 5% of responses was also undertaken.

3.16 Appendices B to F show detailed analysis of responses by the themes detailed in paragraph 3.12.

Consultation Report

10

4 Questionnaire Findings - Closed Questions

Geography of responses

4.1 There were 13,767 responses from members of the public received to the Crossrail 2 Consultation, through the online portal.

4.2 Figure 4.1 shows responses by geographic area. We have reported separately for London Boroughs and Local Authorities which are directly served by the Crossrail 2 proposals.

4.3 The majority of respondents answered from London (82%) and the South East and East regions (15%), the remainder were spread widely including some responses from Scotland and Wales.

FIGURE 4.1 NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY AREA

4.4 Within London there were more responses from people living in the south of the city than the north.

4.5 The boroughs with the most respondents are Wandsworth (which accounted for 13% of all respondents), Kingston upon Thames (9% of all respondents), Merton (8% of all respondents) and Richmond upon Thames (8% of all respondents).

Consultation Report

11

4.6 In north London, the boroughs with the most respondents are Haringey (which accounted for 7% of all respondents) and Hackney (6% of all respondents).

Type of respondents

4.7 Most of the respondents answered the consultation on their own behalf (98%), 1% answered as a representative of a business and 0.5% as a representative of a community or voluntary organisation. The remaining respondents did not specify on whose behalf they were responding. Responses from stakeholders have been analysed separately, see Appendix H.

Support of the principle

4.8 Respondents were asked if they support the principle of Crossrail 2. The results are presented in Figure 4.2.

FIGURE 4.2 DO YOU SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLE OF CROSSRAIL 2?

4.9 96% of respondents support Crossrail 2, with 80% stating they strongly support the scheme.

4.10 Only 2% of the consultation respondents oppose the principle of Crossrail 2 and a further 2% neither support nor oppose the scheme.

4.11 Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 show support and opposition for the principle of Crossrail 2 in London. Figure 4.3 shows significant support for the principle of Crossrail 2, both along the route alignment and throughout much of London. Fewer individuals gave support to the scheme in areas to the west and east of outer London.

4.12 Figure 4.4 shows a low level of opposition scattered throughout London.

4.13 Most of the opposition is dispersed through South East London, in areas which will not be served by the proposed Crossrail 2 routes.

4.14 In central London opposition is clustered around Kensington and Chelsea (where a station is proposed on the King’s Road) and Westminster.

Consultation Report

12

4.15 Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 show support and opposition for the principle of Crossrail 2 in the South East. Support is scattered in the South East, where fewer people completed the consultation, but matches up to the areas in Surrey and Hertfordshire served by the Regional option. Fewer people in the South East oppose Crossrail 2 than support it.

Consultation Report

13

FIGURE 4.3 SUPPORT FOR CROSSRAIL 2 PROPOSALS (LONDON)

Consultation Report

14

FIGURE 4.4 OPPOSITION TO CROSSRAIL 2 PROPOSALS (LONDON)

Consultation Report

15

FIGURE 4.5 SUPPORT FOR CROSSRAIL 2 PROPOSALS (SOUTH EAST)

Consultation Report

16

FIGURE 4.6 OPPOSITION TO CROSSRAIL 2 PROPOSALS (SOUTH EAST)

Consultation Report

17

Support for the options

4.16 The respondents were then asked whether they support or oppose the Metro and Regional Crossrail 2 options. Figure 4.7 shows the results.

FIGURE 4.7 DO YOU SUPPORT THE REGIONAL/METRO OPTION?

4.17 Overall the Regional option is more popular than the Metro option with 84% of respondents supporting or strongly supporting the scheme, compared to 73% for the Metro option.

4.18 Similarly, fewer people oppose the Regional option compared to the Metro option, with 5% and 12% either opposing or strongly opposing the options respectively.

Support by geography

4.19 Responses to the following questions have been analysed according to respondents’ addresses:

I Do you support the principle of Crossrail 2?

I Do you support the idea of the Metro option?

I Do you support the idea of the Regional option?

Support for the principle of Crossrail 2

4.20 Figure 4.8 displays the level of support for the principle of Crossrail 2 among residents in key London boroughs and Local Authorities (those which the route alignment passes through) and in the rest of London, South East and the UK.

Consultation Report

18

FIGURE 4.8 SUPPORT FOR THE PRINCIPLE OF CROSSRAIL 2 BY AREA

4.21 Across all the areas, support for Crossrail 2 is higher than opposition; overall 96% support the scheme.

4.22 An average of 95% of respondents in key areas in London and the South East either strongly support or support the scheme. In areas which the proposed alignment does not directly impact, 93% strongly support or support the scheme.

4.23 Opposition to the scheme is low with an average of 2% across all areas opposing or strongly opposing the scheme. Some areas can be seen with a higher than number of respondents who oppose the scheme.

4.24 Kensington and Chelsea, which is served by the Crossrail 2 proposed routes, stands out as having a much higher level of opposition than in other areas. 16% of respondents here strongly oppose Crossrail 2 and a further 3% oppose it.

4.25 Elsewhere, there is relatively higher than average levels of opposition in Camden, the City of Westminster, Waltham Forest, the south and east of London and elsewhere in the UK.

Consultation Report

19

Support for the Metro option

4.26 Figure 4.9 displays respondents support for the Metro option by geographic area.

FIGURE 4.9 SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA OF THE METRO OPTION

4.27 The level of support is more mixed for the Metro option but the support for the scheme continues to outweigh opposition.

4.28 The highest levels are unsurprisingly among respondents living in London boroughs which the proposed alignment passes through. Wandsworth, Haringey, Merton and Islington are boroughs with particularly high levels of support (over 85% of respondents living in these boroughs support or strongly support the scheme).

4.29 There is a reasonably high number of people who neither support nor oppose the Metro option. This is truer of people living in parts of London which the proposed Metro route does not serve and those living outside London.

4.30 Opposition is highest for the Metro option with an average of 14% across all areas who oppose or strongly oppose the idea.

4.31 Again a relatively high proportion of residents in Kensington and Chelsea oppose or strongly oppose the Metro scheme. Additionally people living in Enfield and the London boroughs in south west London have a higher than average number of

Consultation Report

20

people who oppose the Metro scheme. Outside the key areas which will not be served directly by Crossrail 2, there is also a reasonably high level of opposition.

Support for the Regional option

4.32 Figure 4.10 shows respondents support for the Regional option by geographic area.

FIGURE 4.10 SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA OF THE REGIONAL OPTION

4.33 Support for the Regional option is higher than for the Metro option and again far outweighs opposition.

4.34 The strongest support for the Regional option is among residents in Kingston upon Thames and the key local authorities which the route passes through (Broxbourne, East Hertfordshire, Epsom and Ewell and Spelthorne). An average of 95% of respondents in these areas support or strongly support the idea.

4.35 People in central London served by the proposed Regional option and people living in areas of London and elsewhere in the UK which are not served by the route have the highest proportion of people neither supporting nor opposing the scheme.

4.36 Above average opposition to the scheme in the key London boroughs can be seen again in Kensington and Chelsea, as well as Islington, Camden, the City of Westminster, Hammersmith and Fulham and in other parts of London and the UK not served by Crossrail 2.

Consultation Report

21

5 Questionnaire Findings - Open Question

Introduction

5.1 This section includes:

i) Analysis of the most popular themes in the responses to the open question

ii) Exploration of the type of destinations which respondents to theconsultation suggested Crossrail 2 should serve

iii) A summary of concerns which respondents have regarding the cost anddisruption associated with the scheme.

Support both options, or support one and no strong view on the other

Overall results

5.2 82% of respondents to the Crossrail 2 Consultation showed support for the scheme options by supporting both or supporting one of the route options, with no strong view on the other.

5.3 4,824 of the 11,632 respondents in support of the scheme options answered the open question. The most frequently mentioned themes among the respondents’ comments are shown in Table 5.2.

TABLE 5.1 SUPPORT: OPEN COMMENTS BY THEME

Theme Number of comments Percentage

Suggested destinations 1,745 24%

Congestion/Overcrowding relief 989 13%

Improved links 963 13%

Positive comment 556 7%

Negative comment 508 7%

Economics 415 6%

Suggestion 385 5%

Interchange 338 5%

Reduce travel times 293 4%

Timescales 176 2%

Prefer Regional 173 2%

Comments falling under other theme headings 882 12%

Total 7,423 100%

Consultation Report

22

Suggested destinations

5.4 Nearly a quarter of comments suggest destinations: either destinations on the proposed Crossrail 2 route alignments which respondents are in support of, or destinations not served by the proposed alignments which respondents think should be served. Popular destinations include: Twickenham (92 respondents), Kingston (89 respondents), Stansted Airport (88 respondents), Hackney (72 respondents) and Epsom (65 respondents).

Congestion/overcrowding relief

5.5 The majority of comments regarding the need for overcrowding and congestion relief focus on relieving congestion in South West London. 191 respondents stated they would like Crossrail 2 to help relieve crowding on rail services in South West London and a further 131 respondents mentioned crowding at Waterloo station specifically. This is particularly high compared with other National Rail stations in London: 19 people mentioned the need for reduced crowding at Liverpool Street, 4 people mentioned King’s Cross/St Pancras and 4 people mentioned Euston.

Improved links

5.6 The areas that respondents consider will benefit most from the improved transport links as a result of Crossrail 2 are north London and outer regions north of London, south west London and Surrey. Over 150 people mentioned the improvement in north to south travel which will result from Crossrail 2.

Positive comments

5.7 Approximately 550 comments gave general support to Crossrail 2, with respondents saying the scheme would be a benefit to London and the South East and urging work to begin on Crossrail 2 at the earliest opportunity.

Negative comments

5.8 Although the comments analysed here were generally positive, there were also some negative comments.

5.9 The negative comments about Crossrail 2 most frequently mentioned were:

i) Competition with existing rail services (88 respondents). Respondents areconcerned that the new service will negatively impact the train servicesthey currently use. In particular, respondents are concerned the newservices will reduce capacity for South West Trains services, particularlythrough Clapham Junction.

ii) Disruption during construction (62 respondents). Again, these commentsreflect people’s concern for the services they currently use being disruptedduring the construction phase of Crossrail 2.

iii) Metro rolling stock will not provide enough capacity (56 respondents).

iv) Service duplication (50 respondents). Many people feel that the proposedroute alignments are too similar to existing rail services. Additionally 15comments were made requesting new areas are served instead of increasingcrowding at existing interchanges.

Consultation Report

23

Economics

5.10 The majority of comments made regarding economics were to do with the benefits that Crossrail 2 will bring about (194 respondents). People feel Crossrail will increase development and regeneration in the capital (19 respondents) and in particular that the Regional option will open up new geographies for businesses and residents (42 respondents).

5.11 Other comments included requests for areas of Surrey (including Epsom, Kingston and Surbiton) to be introduced to the London fare zones (25 respondents). Others requested more generally that a fare zone 7 be introduced (21 respondents).

Suggestions

5.12 386 responses gave suggestions detailing revisions to the proposed route and specifications for the services. A wider range of changes to the proposed route were suggested so it is not possible to capture them all in this report, but examples of ideas suggested by more than one individual are:

I Worcester Park should be served instead of Motspur Park, as it is a very busy station and has higher demand

I The northern branch of the Regional option should branch at Dalston not at Angel

I The Metro option should terminate in Tottenham.

5.13 Suggested specifications for the service include:

I Service should operate to the hours and cost the same as existing underground services

I A fast, express service should operate on certain segments of the Regional option

I Provide a high capacity service

I Operate late night, or a 24 hour service.

5.14 176 comments were made about the timescales of the project – most requesting the scheme be started earlier than proposed, possibly after the completion of Crossrail 1 so the skills and expertise gained in building this project can be transferred efficiently.

Prefer Regional

5.15 More comments were made specifically in support of the Regional option than for the Metro option, with 250 comments and 50 comments respectively. People generally feel the Regional option would be more beneficial as it serves a wider population including regions outside London which are more affordable, allowing people to buy property outside of London but still be able to work in the capital. Additionally, people commented that the Regional option would be effective in alleviating overcrowding on regional rail services and on the underground as it reduces the need to interchange in central London, while the Metro option would worsen crowding in central London particularly at its termini.

Prefer Metro

5.16 Comments in support of the Metro option include concern for the cost of constructing the Regional option, belief that the Metro option would be built more

Consultation Report

24

quickly and, because it is a smaller project, would be more likely to be built at all. 12% of people who made comments stating they prefer the Metro option to the Regional think the Regional option should be built, but as a second phase of the project.

Trends by geography

5.17 The comments which respondents made have been analysed according to where the respondent lives to see if people in different areas have different opinions of the proposals for Crossrail 2. The regions explored are London, the South East and the rest of the UK.

5.18 Outside London and the South East, a lower proportion of people made comments suggesting possible and existing destinations for the proposed routes and comments about reduced crowding and congestion.

5.19 A higher proportion of people in the South East and elsewhere in the UK commented on improved links between destinations as a result of Crossrail 2, compared the people answering from London.

Consultation Report

25

Support the Regional option but not the Metro option

Overall trends

5.20 10% of the Crossrail 2 consultation respondents support the Regional option but not the Metro. Of these 1,409 people, 758 answered the open question. The most frequently mentioned themes within these comments are provided below in Table 5.3.

TABLE 5.2 SUPPORT REGIONAL: OPEN COMMENTS BY THEME


Prefer Regional option 523 35%

Suggested destinations 344 23%

Metro option (negative) 142 10%

Comments falling under other themes 472 32%

Total 1,481 100%

Prefer Regional

5.21 Again, people mentioned the wider benefits of the Regional option compared the Metro option (80 respondents). Comments regarding the economic benefits of the Regional option include the fact the Regional option serves wider, more affordable areas and the belief that it will create new travel opportunities for businesses and residents.

5.22 People mentioned improved access from regions in South West London and Surrey (106 respondents) and North London/North East London (45 respondents) and into central London (48 respondents), as well as several individual destinations which will benefit from Crossrail 2.


5.23 The most frequently suggested destinations are listed in Table 5.4

TABLE 5.3 DESTINATIONS SUGGESTED BY THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE REGIONAL OPTION

Suggested destination Number of comments

Kingston 38

Twickenham 25

Stansted Airport 21

Surbiton 15

Worcester Park 13

Consultation Report

26

Metro option (negative comments)

5.24 People feel the Regional option does more to provide capacity for the future (36 respondents) and the Metro/Light Rail rolling stock proposed for the Metro option will not provide sufficient capacity (19 respondents).

5.25 The most frequently mentioned negative comment about the Metro option was that it duplicates existing services instead of offering new journey opportunities (44 respondents). Further, with the Metro option only serving stations within zones 1 - 3, people believe it will provide less benefit to London and its surrounding areas than the Regional option.

Consultation Report

27

Support the Metro option but not the Regional option

Overall trends

5.26 3% of respondents to the Crossrail 2 consultation support the Metro option but do not support the Regional option. Of these 440 people, 204 left comments detailing their opinions of the scheme.

5.27 The most frequently mentioned themes covered in these comments are listed in Table 5.4.

TABLE 5.4 SUPPORT METRO: OPEN COMMENTS BY THEME


Prefer Metro option 62 19%

Suggested destination 56 18%

General 44 14%

Negative 35 11%

Regional option (negative) 34 11%


Total 318 100%

Prefer Metro option

5.28 People showed a preference for the Metro option because they feel it links well with the existing transport infrastructure in central London (10 respondents) and it will improve the links from north to south London (7 respondents).

5.29 People mentioned the fact the Metro option would be less costly to build and would be quicker to construct. Further, since it would be a simpler network, the services on the Metro option would be more frequent and people feel it will be a more reliable and efficient service than the Regional option.

5.30 Some respondents feel that several places served by the Regional option already have good transport links, whilst others felt the Regional option would add congestion in the regional areas and at interchanges with the Underground network.


5.31 Table 5.6 includes a list of the most popular destinations suggested by people who support the Metro option but not the Regional option.

Consultation Report

28

TABLE 5.5 DESTINATIONS SUGGESTED BY THOSE IN SUPPORT OF THE METRO OPTION


Streatham 6

South East London 5

Clapham 4

Essex Road 4

Waltham Forest 3

Negative comments

5.32 While people support the Metro option there is some concern for capacity amongst respondents (8 respondents). These comments suggest Metro/Light Rail will not provide sufficient capacity and rolling stock should be the size of the rolling stock on the National Rail to allow possible interoperability.

Consultation Report

29

Support neither the Regional option nor the Metro option

Overall trends

5.33 3% of respondents did not support the principle of Crossrail 2 and state they oppose both the Regional and Metro options. Of these 400 people, 332 answered the open question and provided reasons why they do not support scheme. Table 5.7 lists the most popular themes discussed.

TABLE 5.6 SUPPORT NEITHER: OPEN COMMENTS BY THEME



Would rather improve existing infrastructure 124 19%

Economic 97 15%

Already good transport links 95 14%


Total 663 100%


5.34 The destinations most frequently suggested by individuals who do not support either of the proposed Crossrail 2 options are shown in Figure 5.8.

TABLE 5.7 DESTINATIONS SUGGESTED BY THOSE IN SUPPORT NEITHER OPTION


South East London 37

Lots Road (Chelsea) 18

Battersea 12

Croydon 10

Areas not already served by the Underground 9

Existing infrastructure

5.35 Many people are keen to improve the existing infrastructure rather than building new infrastructure. Improving existing infrastructure in general was frequently mentioned (27 respondents) and more specifically popular improvements people would like to see are improving the Underground in central London (25 respondents), extending the Northern Line, Bakerloo Line and Victoria Lines (14 respondents) and improving connections to central London from South East London (11 respondents).

Consultation Report

30

Economics

5.36 The key economic concerns among respondents are the cost of the project: general concern for cost (23 respondents), some thought the funding would be better invested outside London (16 respondents) and some simply said they think the project is a waste of money (19 respondents). Several individuals believe the project will not benefit the areas most in need of regeneration.

Already good transport links

5.37 Many individuals feel the areas served by the proposed Crossrail 2 routes already have good transport links. Chelsea is one of these places and additionally people feel that because it is already a wealthy part of London the route should pass through other areas instead. South West London/ Surrey is another area considered to be well connected with the capital.

Other comments

5.38 Concern for the environment was another key theme among the people who do not support Crossrail 2. In particular, individuals are against the destruction of historic architecture in order to construct the new service.

Consultation Report

31

No strong view

Overall trends

5.39 Not many individuals are neither for nor against the Crossrail 2 proposals, just 1% of respondents to the consultation had no strong view. 139 of these 176 people answered the open question.

5.40 Table 5.9 lists the most popular themes mentioned in the respondents reasons for their views.

TABLE 5.8 NO STRONG VIEW: OPEN COMMENTS BY THEME



Negative 40 16%


Total 255 100%


5.41 The destinations most frequently suggested by individuals who do not support either of the proposed Crossrail 2 options are shown in Figure 5.10.

TABLE 5.9 DESTINATIONS SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS WITH NO STRONG VIEW


South East London (including Lewisham, Bexley & Bromley)

21

Regions outside London (non-specific) 4

Edmonton Green 3

Streatham/Streatham Hill 3

The City of London 3

An outer Circle Line 3

Negative comments

5.42 The key negative comments regarding the Crossrail 2 scheme are to do with the disruption construction of the scheme will cause (14 respondents) and concerns that the new service will compete with and degrade the current services the respondents use (10 respondents).

5.43 Several individuals in this group highlighted the need for more information as they feel unable to make a decision on the scheme with the information they know (18 respondents). This will be discussed further at the end of this section.

Consultation Report

32


5.44 Across all of the groups analysed, suggested destinations was a common theme.

5.45 In total, the consultation 2,575 respondents made suggestions for destinations and areas Crossrail 2 should serve.

5.46 These suggested destinations have been reviewed by TfL and grouped according to their potential of being served. This information is presented in Table 5.11.

TABLE 5.10 TYPE OF DESTINATIONS SUGGESTED

Type of suggested destination Number of destinations Percentage

Plan to serve 72 21%

Not on the consulted routes, although we are reviewing the destination to investigate if we can serve the area

36 10%

On the previous safeguarded route, at present, we are not planning to serve this area

12 3%

Not serving and do not plan to serve 228 66%

Total 348 100%

5.47 Around a fifth of the destinations suggested will be served by the proposed Crossrail routes. Additionally, 10% are being investigated to see if it will be possible to serve them.

5.48 3% of the suggested destinations are ones which appeared on the safe guarded, Chelsea to Hackney Line, which was published in 2008, but are not intended to be served by Crossrail 2.

5.49 The majority of destinations (66%) are routes and areas which the proposed routes do not serve and which are not intended to be served.

5.50 Appendix G provides further detail about suggested destinations which fall into the groups in Table 5.11.

Consultation Report

33

General concerns and requests for further information

Cost and disruption

5.51 Respondents across all groups expressed general concerns about the cost of the proposed Crossrail 2 options and the disruption associated with construction.

5.52 Table 5.8 provides a breakdown of concerns by group.

TABLE 5.11 CONCERNS FOR COST AND DISRUPTION

Group Concerns about cost

Concerns about disruption

Support both options, or support one with no strong view on the other

19 101

Support Regional and oppose Metro 11 35

Support Metro and oppose Regional 10 13

Oppose both, or oppose one option with no strong view on the other

23 20

No strong view on either option 5 14

Total 68 183

5.53 The Regional option is considered to be more expensive to implement than the Metro option; most thought that the benefits gained from the Regional option outweigh the extra cost but others would prefer to just build the Metro option in order to keep cost to a minimum.

5.54 There were comments regarding the length of the tunnelled section of route: one individual suggests the tunnelled section should only stretch between King’s Cross and Clapham Junction, whilst another suggests building a single tunnel to Tottenham in order to reduce the cost of construction.

5.55 The majority of comments around disruption were associated with the inevitable disruption caused by construction, but additionally individuals are concerned about the long term disruption Crossrail 2 could have on the existing rail services into and out of the capital. Numerous people (102 respondents) expressed concern for competition for tracks on the railways which are currently dedicated to existing services.

Requests for further information

5.56 Another comment which was consistent across the groups was requests for more information.

5.57 Questions were raised and individuals (230 respondents) said they needed a better description of the options before making an informed decision on the proposals.

5.58 The information requested by individuals includes better information on the costs, benefits and disruption associated with Regional and Metro options.

Consultation Report

35

6 Demographic Information

Comparison of respondent demographics to general population

6.1 Individuals were asked to provide demographic information as part of the Crossrail 2 consultation. This information has been grouped according to respondents’ addresses and compared to the 2011 Census data to give an idea of whether respondents to the consultation are representative of the general population.

6.2 Figure 6.1 shows the age of respondents against the 2011 Census data.

FIGURE 6.1 AGE (CROSSRAIL 2 CONSULTATION RESPONDENTS AND CENSUS 2011)

6.3 Overall, the majority of respondents fall into the 25 to 60 age group (82%), 10% of respondents are under 25 and 8% are over 60. The population of respondents did not vary greatly depending on their address (i.e. those responding from London, from the South East and from elsewhere in the UK).

6.4 Compared to the population data collected in the Census 2011, the Crossrail 2 Consultation population is over representative of the economically active age range, 25 to 60 years, across all locations and under representative of these aged under 25 and over 60.

6.5 1% of Crossrail 2 respondents did not give their age.

Consultation Report

36

FIGURE 6.2 ETHNICITY (CROSSRAIL 2 CONSULTATION RESPONDENTS AND CENSUS 2011)

6.6 Figure 6.2 shows the ethnicity of Crossrail 2 Consultation respondents by area, compared to the 2011 Census data.

6.7 The majority of respondents to the consultation are White (85%), 5% are Asian/Asian British, 3% are Chinese, 2% are Black/Black British and the remainder include other ethnicities and those who did not respond to this question.

6.8 The ethnic profile of respondents is fairly consistent across the geographic areas, except outside London and the South East where a higher proportion of respondent are white, as per the 2011 Census.

6.9 In comparison with the 2011 Census data, the ethnic profile of respondents reflects the representation of the general population reasonably well, except for London. In London there was an over representation of White respondents (84%) compared to the population (59%).

6.10 Across all areas, 2% of respondents did not respond to the question on ethnicity.

Consultation Report

37

FIGURE 6.3 DISABILITY (CROSSRAIL 2 CONSULTATION RESPONDENTS AND CENSUS 2011)

6.11 Figure 6.3 shows the proportion of Crossrail 2 Consultation respondents who are able bodied or physically or mentally disabled.

6.12 As a whole, responses from disabled residents of London, the south East and the rest of England and Wales were underrepresented compared to Census data. All three regions had a responses rate of 3%, while disabled residents make up a total of 14% in London, 16% in the South East and 19% in the rest of England and Wales.

A total of 6% of participants of the Crossrail 2 consultation chose not to answer this this question.

Consultation Report

Appendix A

APPENDIX

A

CONSULTATION SURVEY

Appendix A

Have your say

Please let us know if you support the principle of Crossrail 2 and if so, whether you support

the Metro option or Regional option by answering the questions set out in this survey.

1 Please supply your postcode Postcode (Required)

Is this your Home or Work postcode?

Home

Work

2 Do you support the principle of Crossrail 2?

Strongly support

Support

Neither support nor oppose

Oppose

Strongly oppose

3 Do you support the idea of the Metro option?

Strongly support Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose

Strongly oppose

Appendix A

4 Do you support the idea of the Regional option?

Strongly support Support Neither support nor oppose Oppose

Strongly oppose

Appendix A

Thank you for giving us your views on Crossrail 2. We would just like to ask you a few

questions to help us analyse the consultation responses.

6 In what capacity are you responding to this consultation?

Single choice radio buttons

As an individual

As a representative of a community or voluntary organisation

As a representative of a business

If responding on behalf of a community, business or other organisation, please provide us

with the name

7 What is your email address?

This is optional, but if you enter your email address then you will be able to return to edit

your consultation at any time until you submit it. You will also receive an acknowledgement

email when you complete the consultation. In addition, you will receive project updates when

available. Email

8 Do you have a mental or physical disability that limits your daily activities or the work you

can do, including any issues due to your age?

Single choice radio buttons Yes No

9 Please describe your ethnic background


Asian/Asian British

White

Chinese

Mixed Ethnic background

Black/Black British

Other ethnic group

10 What is your age group?


Under 25

25 to 60

Over 60

Consultation Report

Appendix B

APPENDIX

B

SUPPORT BOTH DETAILED RESPONSES

Consultation Report

Appendix B

B1 SUPPORT BOTH DETAILED RESPONSES

APPENDIX TABLE B.1 SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS

Theme: Suggested destinations All areas London South East Rest of UK

Alexandra Palace 13 13 0 0

Angel Road (Lea Valley) 2 2 0 0

Ashford 1 0 1 0

Balham 9 9 0 0

Bank 1 1 0 0

Banstead 1 1 0 0

Barnes 1 1 0 0

Barnet 2 2 0 0

Battersea 32 31 0 1

Berrylands 1 1 0 0

Between Dalston & Seven Sisters 6 5 1 0

Between Tooting & Clapham Junction

3 3 0 0

Between Tottenham Hale & Cheshunt (e.g. Chingford)

1 1 0 0

Between Westminister and Pall Mall

1 1 0 0

Bishops Stortford 2 2 0 0

Boreham Wood 1 1 0 0

Brentford 1 1 0 0

Brimsdown 1 1 0 0

Brixton 1 1 0 0

Broadway Market 1 1 0 0

Broxbourne 3 1 0 2

Bruce Grove 1 1 0 0

Burntwood Lane 1 1 0 0

Caledonian Road 1 1 0 0

Canada Water 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B


Canonbury 2 2 0 0

Carshalton 1 1 0 0

Charing Cross 1 0 1 0

Chelsea 1 1 0 0

Chelsea to Hackney line 6 6 0 0

Cheshunt 9 4 0 5

Chessington 8 8 0 0

Chessington North 5 5 0 0

Chingford 2 1 0 1

Chingford Mount 1 1 0 0

Clapham High Street 1 1 0 0

Clapham Junction 11 8 2 1

Clapham North 1 1 0 0

Clapton 16 16 0 0

Clapton to Chingford 1 0 0 1

Clissold Park 1 1 0 0

Colliers Wood 4 4 0 0

Combined Dalston Junction/Dalston Kingsland stop

2 2 0 0

Crouch End 11 9 0 2

Croydon 16 15 0 1

Crystal Palace/West Norwood 2 2 0 0

Cuffley 1 1 0 0

Dalston 15 14 0 1

Downhills Park 1 1 0 0

Ealing 1 1 0 0

Ealing (via Kew) 1 1 0 0

Earlsfield 12 12 0 0

East Finchley 3 2 0 1

Consultation Report

Appendix B


East London 9 8 1 0

East Putney 0 0 0 0

East to West/South West 2 2 0 0

East/South Croydon 7 4 2 1

Edmonton Green 6 6 0 0

Elephant and Castle 2 2 0 0

Emirates Stadium 0 0 0 0

Enfield Town/Enfield Chase 45 43 0 2

Epsom 65 24 39 2

Esher 4 1 3 0

Essex Road 49 47 0 2

Ewell 1 0 1 0

Expansion of London overground network (South East, East & North East)

1 1 0 0

Feltham 3 2 1 0

Fenchurch Street 1 1 0 0

Finchley Central 1 1 0 0

Finchley Road 1 1 0 0

Finsbury Park 11 10 0 1

Friern Barnet 1 1 0 0

Fulham 3 3 0 0

Further North 2 1 1 0

Further South West 1 1 0 0

Garrett Park 2 2 0 0

Gatwick Airport 27 20 3 4

Golders Green 3 3 0 0

Grange Park 2 2 0 0

Guildford 18 4 14 0

Gunnersbury 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B


Hackney 72 67 2 3

Haggerston 2 2 0 0

Hainault via Wanstead 1 0 0 1

Hampstead Heath 1 1 0 0

Hampton/Hampton Court 29 12 17 0

Haringey 1 1 0 0

Harlow 1 1 0 0

Harlow Town 1 0 0 1

Harrow 1 1 0 0

Haydons Road 3 3 0 0

Heathrow Airport 45 40 4 1

Heathrow to Gatwick 3 3 0 0

Hertford 1 0 0 1

Hertford East 17 4 0 13

Hertford North 1 1 0 0

High Barnet 2 2 0 0

Highbury & Islington 2 2 0 0

Highgate 2 1 1 0

Holloway Road 1 1 0 0

Homerton 2 1 0 1

Hornsey 2 2 0 0

Imperial Wharf 9 8 0 1

Interchange with Channel Tunnel 1 1 0 0

Interchange with Crossrail 2 2 0 0

Isleworth 1 1 0 0

Kenninghall Road 1 1 0 0

Kent Coast 1 0 1 0

Kew 1 0 0 1

Consultation Report

Appendix B


King’s Road 12 11 1 0

Kingston 89 77 9 3

Lambeth 1 1 0 0

Leatherhead 3 1 2 0

Leytonstone 4 4 0 0

Liverpool Street 3 2 1 0

Lombard Road 1 0 0 1

London Bridge 3 2 1 0

Lordship Park 1 1 0 0

Lots Road 6 4 0 2

Luton 2 1 0 1

Maidenhead 1 1 0 0

Manor House 1 1 0 0

Merton 1 1 0 0

Mill Hill 2 1 0 1

Mitcham 7 7 0 0

Moorgate 1 1 0 0

Morden 1 0 0 1

Morden South 1 1 0 0

Motspur Park 14 14 0 0

Muswell Hill 23 20 1 2

New Cross/New Cross Gate 1 1 0 0

New Malden 18 17 0 1

Newham 1 1 0 0

Newington 1 1 0 0

Nine Elms 4 4 0 0

Nine Elms/Battersea development area

7 7 0 0

Norbiton 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B


Norbury 1 1 0 0

North Cheam 1 1 0 0

North West 1 1 0 0

Northumberland Park 9 9 0 0

Old Street 1 1 0 0

Old York Road 1 0 0 1

Outer circle line 1 1 0 0

Paddington 1 1 0 0

Palmer's Green 1 1 0 0

Park & Ride site on M3 1 0 1 0

Parsons Green 5 5 0 0

Piccadilly Circus 26 22 2 2

Picketts Lock 1 1 0 0

Ponders End 3 3 0 0

Primrose Hill 1 1 0 0

Putney Bridge/East Putney 16 16 0 0

Raynes Park 14 13 0 1

Reading 1 1 0 0

Redhill 1 0 1 0

Regional option: Serve more stations to East/South East

22 19 1 2

Reigate 1 0 1 0

Richmond 20 16 1 3

Roehampton 2 2 0 0

Royal Albert Hall 1 0 1 0

Safeguarded Route 7 7 0 0

Sands End 2 2 0 0

Serve stations to North and South not just North East to South West

11 10 0 1

Consultation Report

Appendix B


Seven Sisters 6 6 0 0

Shepherd's Bush 1 1 0 0

Shepperton 19 6 12 1

Shoreditch/Hoxton 4 4 0 0

Sloane Square 1 1 0 0

South Coast 1 0 1 0

South Croydon 1 0 0 1

South East 10 10 0 0

South London 3 3 0 0

South Merton 1 1 0 0

South Wimbledon 2 2 0 0

Southbury 1 1 0 0

Southfields 2 2 0 0

St Helier 1 1 0 0

Stamford Bridge 1 1 0 0

Stamford Hill 9 9 0 0

Stansted Airport 88 58 8 22

Stansted to Gatwick 3 2 0 1

Stockwell 1 1 0 0

Stoke Newington 63 63 0 0

Stoneleigh 1 0 1 0

Stratford/Olympic Park 9 8 1 0

Streatham/Streatham Hill 18 17 0 1

Sunbury-on-Thames 3 0 3 0

Surbiton 56 40 14 2

Surrey 1 0 1 0

Sutton 29 29 0 0

Teddington 12 11 1 0

The City 9 8 1 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B


Tolworth 2 2 0 0

Tooting 29 27 1 1

Tottenham/Tottenham Hale 19 17 1 1

Tulse Hill 2 2 0 0

Turkey Street 1 1 0 0

Turnpike Lane 10 10 0 0

Twickenham 92 82 5 5

Twickenham via Acton and Bond Street

1 1 0 0

Vauxhall 4 3 0 1

Virginia Water 1 0 1 0

Waltham Forest/Cross 3 3 0 0

Walthamstow 8 7 0 1

Walton-on-Thames 5 0 4 1

Wandsworth Common 13 13 0 0

Wandsworth Town 4 4 0 0

Wandsworth Town/ Southside 6 6 0 0

Ware 1 0 0 1

Waterloo 11 4 4 3

West Croydon 3 3 0 0

West Green 2 2 0 0

Weybridge 6 0 6 0

White Hart Lane 9 9 0 0

Whitton 2 2 0 0

Wimbledon 13 12 1 0

Winchmore Hill 4 4 0 0

Windsor 2 1 1 0

Woking 23 3 19 1

Wood Green 10 8 2 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B


Worcester Park 44 40 3 1

APPENDIX TABLE B.2 CONGESTION/OVERCROWDING RELIEF

Theme: Congestion/overcrowding relief

All areas London South East Rest of UK

Unspecific 284 225 31 28


At Angel 1 1 0 0

At Clapham Junction 32 29 1 2

At Earls Court 1 1 0 0

At Earlsfield 3 3 0 0

At Edmonton Green 1 1 0 0

At Euston 4 4 0 0

At Ewell West 1 0 0 1

At Finsbury Park 11 8 0 3

At Highbury & Islington 3 2 0 1

At Kingston 2 2 0 0

At Liverpool St 19 14 1 4

At London Bridge 2 2 0 0

At National Rail stations/lines (Regional Option)

12 10 1 1

At Surbiton 2 2 0 0

At Tooting 3 3 0 0

At Tottenham Court Rd 2 1 0 1

At Turnpike Lane 2 1 0 1

At Underground stations/on Underground Lines

6 5 1 0

At Vauxhall 8 7 1 0

At Victoria 22 17 2 3

At Waterloo 131 89 32 10

At Wimbledon 21 19 2 0

Circle Line 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Theme: Congestion/overcrowding relief

All areas London South East Rest of UK

Essex Road 1 1 0 0

From Hertford 0 0 0 0

In Central London 2 2 0 0

In East London 1 0 1 0

In North East London 1 1 0 0

In South West London 191 151 36 4

King's Cross/St Pancras 4 2 0 2

Lea Valley 1 1 0 0

On Central Line 1 1 0 0

On District Line 19 19 0 0

On Hertford to London line/ Stansted Express

2 1 0 1

On Jubilee Line 1 1 0 0

On Northern Line 97 91 3 3

On Picadilly Line 32 31 0 1

On Victoria Line 57 49 5 3

On West Anglia Line 1 1 0 0

Raynes Park (scheme will cause) 2 0 2 0


APPENDIX TABLE B.3 ECONOMICS

Theme: Economics All areas London South East Rest of UK

Benefits 194 149 20 25

Competition between operators 1 1 0 0

Concern for cost (fares) 4 3 1 0

Concern for cost (of construction) 9 8 1 0

Concerns about increasing house prices

4 4 0 0

Crossrail 2 should improve links with less wealthy areas to encourage new areas of development

4 4 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Epsom fare re-zoned (e.g. 6) 19 3 15 1

Increased development/regeneration 9 2 7 0

Introduce a fare zone 7 21 17 1 3

Kingston/Surbiton fare re-zoned (e.g. 5)

6 5 1 0

Prefer cheapest/easiest to implement option

2 2 0 0

Reduce commuting costs 3 3 0 0

Regional creates new geographies for business & residents

42 33 7 2

Regional serves wider, more affordable commuter areas

80 65 10 5

Surrey should be included in TfL zones 1 0 1 0

Value for money 16 15 1 0

APPENDIX TABLE B.4 ENVIRONMENT

Theme: Environmental All areas London South East Rest of UK

General concern 49 42 4 3

Air quality 18 17 1 0

Destruction of historic architecture 5 4 0 1

Flooding of the Thames - Thames Barrier no longer effective

1 0 1 0

Limit land take at Lea Valley Recreational Park

2 1 0 1

Concern about more development 1 0 0 1

Sustainability 15 11 1 3

Reduce traffic congestion 14 13 0 1

Consultation Report

Appendix B

APPENDIX TABLE B.5 TABLE 5 SOCIAL FACTORS

Theme: Social All areas London South East Rest of UK

Access 15 14 0 1

Leisure trips 1 1 0 0

Provide access for those priced out of Central London

40 29 6 5

APPENDIX TABLE B.6 PREFER REGIONAL

Theme: Prefer Regional All areas London South East Rest of UK


But include direct access to Stansted 8 7 1 0

But include stop at Piccadilly 1 1 0 0

But tunnel to reduce disruption to surface transport

2 2 0 0

Interoperable with other rail services - flexible

2 1 1 0

Need more stops in South/South West London in less wealthy areas

3 2 1 0

Reduces reliance on cars (Regional) 20 12 6 2

Reduces the need to interchange 10 6 2 2

Wider Benefits (worth the extra cost - time & money)

77 60 5 12

Consultation Report

Appendix B

APPENDIX TABLE B.7 PREFER METRO

Theme: Prefer Metro All areas London South East Rest of UK


Build full capacity Metro then add Regional

6 6 0 0

But extend to North Finchley 1 1 0 0

Concern for cost of Metro 1 1 0 0

Concern for cost of Regional 6 6 0 0

Delivered more quickly/more likley to be delivered

5 5 0 0

Development of Turnpike Lane area 3 3 0 0

Favour light rail as it offers flexibility 2 1 0 1

Metro option will reduce overcrowding more effectively

1 1 0 0

More convenient to have shorter trains 1 1 0 0

More reliable than putting suburban routes through tunnels

1 1 0 0

More stops to maximise benefits 2 2 0 0

Metro will reduce crowding on underground

1 1 0 0

Regional offers limited additional benefit

1 1 0 0

Regular, fast, high frequency services 3 3 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE B.8 WOULD RATHER IMPROVE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

Theme: Existing infrastructure All areas London South East Rest of UK

General 13 12 1 0

Alexandra Palace station 12 10 1 1

Broxbourne Junction to Tottenham Hale

1 0 0 1

Complementary bus routes 1 1 0 0

District Line 2 2 0 0

Euston station 2 2 0 0

Interchanges/Stations 0 0 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Theme: Existing infrastructure All areas London South East Rest of UK

Mainline (North) 13 11 2 0

Signals 0 0 0 0

Victoria Line (North) 6 6 0 0

Wimbledon station 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE B.9 ALREADY GOOD TRANSPORT LINKS

Theme: Already good transport All areas London South East Rest of UK

National Rail (Liverpool Street) 1 1 0 0

National Rail in South West London 4 4 0 0

Surbiton 2 0 2 0

Tooting 4 4 0 0

Twickenham 2 1 1 0

Twickenham and Kingston 2 1 0 1

Wimbledon 5 5 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE B.10 CAPACITY

Theme: Capacity All areas London South East Rest of UK

12 car trains instead of 10 on regional route

1 0 1 0

Capacity & formation of seat should be as per National Rail services

2 2 0 0

Double decker trains 1 1 0 0

Forks may reduce capacity/stability of services (Regional option)

11 10 0 1

Formation of seat should be as per Underground services

1 1 0 0

Metro service is higher frequency 3 3 0 0

Metro trains should be full sized (e.g. overground or Metroploitan line sized)

3 3 0 0

Regional option provides capacity for the future

29 22 5 2

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Theme: Capacity All areas London South East Rest of UK

Would prefer underground style trains 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE B.11 IMPROVED LINKS

Theme: Improved links All areas London South East Rest of UK



Chelsea 1 1 0 0


Euston/St Pancras 6 5 1 0

Hackney (Regional) 19 18 1 0



Kingston 3 3 0 0

St Pancras / Eurostar 0 0 0 0

Stansted 21 15 4 2

The City (Docklands & Liverpool Street)

2 2 0 0

Tooting 7 7 0 0


Wimbledon 2 1 0 1

Airports 8 7 1 0

Central London 8 6 1 1

East London 19 18 0 1

East/South East London 8 7 1 0

North East London 147 113 15 19

North to South London 164 131 17 16

North/North of London 34 26 3 5

Outside London 193 149 28 16

South West London/Surrey 134 103 29 2

Consultation Report

Appendix B

APPENDIX TABLE B.12 INTERCHANGE

Theme: Interchange All areas London South East Rest of UK


Allow bikes on services 8 7 1 0

At Bond Street 1 1 0 0

At Clapham Juntion 3 3 0 0

At Dalston 2 2 0 0

At Euston 34 22 7 5

At Hackney 2 2 0 0

At King’s Cross/St Pancras 39 17 14 8

At Piccadilly 5 4 1 0

At Richmond (District Line) 1 1 0 0

At Seven Sisters 1 1 0 0

At Tooting 1 1 0 0

At Tottenham Court Road 4 3 0 1

At Wimbledon 3 3 0 0

East London Line 3 2 1 0

Ensure interchanges with other modes

1 1 0 0

Ensure Regional option interchanges with lots of underground lines

1 1 0 0

It should interchange with Thameslink

1 1 0 0

Morgate to Stevenage Line 1 0 0 1

Provide easy pedestrian route between King's Cross/Euston/Euston Square

2 2 0 0

Should interchange with Jubilee Line 3 2 0 1

Should interchange with Overground stations

1 1 0 0

With Barking/Gospel Oak route at South Tottenham

4 4 0 0

With High Speed Rail 16 11 3 2

With National Rail stations 5 5 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

APPENDIX TABLE B.13 INSUFFICIENT DEMAND ALONG ROUTE

Theme: Insufficient demand All areas London South East Rest of UK

At Angel 1 1 0 0

At Alexandra Palace 3 3 0 0

Euston 1 0 0 1

King's Road 4 2 1 1


APPENDIX TABLE B.14 REDUCES TRAVEL TIMES

Theme: Reduces travel times All areas London South East Rest of UK

General 165 125 27 13

Reduces number of interchanges 101 82 10 9

Regional 21 18 3 0

To Stansted 6 4 1 1

APPENDIX TABLE B.15 POLICY

Theme: Policy All areas London South East Rest of UK

Regionalisation/Competition 2 2 0 0

Regionalise Clapham Junction to West Croydon

0 0 0 0

Start with Metro and expand to Regional / do both

7 7 0 0

TfL operating service between Tottenham Hale and Cheshunt - and beyond - will regenerate area through increased competition

1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE B.16 POSITIVE COMMENT

Theme: Positive comment All areas London South East Rest of UK


Consultation Report

Appendix B

APPENDIX TABLE B.17 TIMESCALE

Theme: Timescale All areas London South East Rest of UK

E.g. start construction soon 176 150 11 15

APPENDIX TABLE B.18 SUGGESTION/SERVICE SPECIFICATION

Theme: Suggestion All areas London South East Rest of UK

General change to the route (serve one place instead of another)

305 241 27 37

24 hr or late night service 4 2 0 2

Accessibility (boarding, toilets) 3 2 1 0

All trains stop at Clapham Junction and Wimbledon

2 0 2 0

Amersham & Aylesbury instead of Tottenham & Seven sisters

1 1 0 0

Balham instead of Tooting 1 1 0 0

Coordination with other train services (e.g express vs. local)

2 2 0 0

Edmonton, Enfield, Waltham Cross & Cheshunt for eastern fork

1 1 0 0

Farringdon instead of St Pancras 2 2 0 0

Farringdon instead of Tottenham Court Road

1 1 0 0

Fast / express service on certain segments 10 6 3 1

Fast service from Epsom/Surbiton 1 1 0 0

Finsbury Park instead of Alexandra Palace 1 1 0 0

Finsbury Park instead of Alexandra Palace 1 1 0 0

Finsbury Park instead of Seven Sisters (improve access to Heathrow via Piccadilly Line)

1 1 0 0

Fork at Dalston not Angel 2 2 0 0

From Wimbledon, serve Ealing/Acton 2 1 1 0

Hackney Downs and Central as one station to conect with Stansted

2 2 0 0

Have high frequency services 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Theme: Suggestion All areas London South East Rest of UK

Metro option should have separate stops for King's Cross & Euston and stop at Piccadilly Circus

1 1 0 0

Metro option should stop at Tottenham/North Tottenham

2 1 0 1

Metro to start at Surbiton or Woking instead of Wimbledon

1 0 0 0

New Malden should be served instead of Motspur Park

1 1 0 0

Pick good train model 2 2 0 0

Provide high capacity 5 2 2 1

Same hours/cost as other services/oyster 20 13 5 2

Serve Wandsworth Town instead of Tooting

1 1 0 0

Services should run until 2am 1 0 0 0

Spur between Alexandra Palace to Tottenham Hale

1 1 0 0

Staff for safety 1 1 0 0

Stoke Newington instead of Dalston Junction

1 1 0 0

Stop at all stations 3 2 1 0

Terminate Metro at South Wimbledon 1 1 0 0

Worcester Park should be served instead of Motspur Park

5 3 1 1

APPENDIX TABLE B.19 NEGATIVE COMMENTS

Theme: Negative All areas London South East Rest of UK


Car parking must be addressed at Motspur Park/Worcester Park

1 0 0 1

Compete with current services 81 67 7 7

Concern for noise impact 22 22 0 0

Concern for ongoing engineering work after scheme opening

2 1 0 1

Congestion (bus & pedestrian) at King's Road

1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Congestion relief required on Bank Branch of Northern Line

0 0 0 0

Cost 3 3 0 0

Disregards coach service expansion 1 0 0 1

Disrupt communities 7 7 0 0

Disruption caused by construction 63 57 3 3

Doesn't eliminate congestion at Waterloo 1 0 1 0

Don't like private operators 2 2 0 0

Further capacity will be needed by time of completion

3 3 0 0

Ignores North West London 1 0 1 0

Ignores South East London 39 37 1 1

Increased congestion at Clapham Junction 7 6 1 0

Increased congestion at interchanges in South West London (Surbiton, Kingston)

2 1 1 0

Increased congestion at Seven Sister (Victoria Line)

1 1 0 0

Increased congestion at Victoria & Tottenham Court Road

1 1 0 0

Increased traffic around Alexandra Palace 4 4 0 0

Increased traffic around Wimbledon (Metro option)

2 2 0 0

Less frequent service than tubes 1 1 0 0

Level crossing at Strawberry Hill 1 1 0 0

Metro suggestion is waste of potential route options

29 26 2 1

Metro trains should not be driverless (implication is about provision of jobs)

1 0 0 1

Metro trains will not provide enough capacity

56 46 5 5

More route options needed 22 18 2 2

No new stations 1 1 0 0

No relief for Charing Cross, Cannon Street or London Bridge

1 1 0 0

Not enough interchanges / stops 2 2 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Object to route through Clapham Junction as this is focus of much disruption to current services

1 1 0 0

Oppose extension of regional line past Surbiton

0 0 0 0

Oppose extension of regional line past Surbiton/Kingston

10 10 0 0

Overcrowding/including at interchanges 30 24 4 2

Poor service due to signals 1 0 0 1

Prices residents out of local area 4 3 1 0

Problems with level crossings in Surrey 1 1 0 0

Query - Will cost too much / inaccessible 3 2 0 1

Querying route Kingston - Roehampton: worried about building through Richmond Park

1 1 0 0

Regional northern branch options not good

2 1 1 0

Regional option brings more people/congestion to the network

1 1 0 0

Regional option has too many spurs 1 1 0 0

Regional option is more expensive with little more benefit

0 0 0 0

Regional option should be quicker 1 1 0 0

Regional service doesn't pass through right stations

1 1 0 0

Regional service slow / impede metro service

3 3 0 0

Route / service duplication (including tunnel)

50 44 2 4

Serve new areas instead of increasing overcrowding at existing interchanges

15 12 2 1

Take too long to construct 2 1 1 0

Too many interchanges with Northern Line

1 0 1 0

Too many termini in south west 1 1 0 0

Use of existing lines 1 1 0 0

Want quicker trains on Regional Option 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix B

Weather impact above ground 1 0 0 1

Would alleviate crowding on National Rail but not underground

1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE B.20 GENERAL COMMENTS

Theme: General All areas London South East Rest of UK

Unspecific 8 5 1 2

Accessible stations to allow access for disabled passengers

4 4 0 0

Bike store facilities on-board 8 7 1 0

Comment about another rail project 30 27 1 2

Merits of either Metro or Regional 112 97 9 6

Metro/Regional 65 54 7 4

Motspur Park level crossing 11 11 0 0

No comment 9 9 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0

Step-free access / provision for disabled 10 10 0 0

Twickenham Station Redevelopment 8 7 0 1

APPENDIX TABLE B.21 REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION

Theme: More information All areas London South East Rest of UK


Difference between metro and regional options unclear (route and cost)

13 12 1 0

Individual raises a question 114 100 5 9

Stop locations and service frequency 3 3 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C

APPENDIX

C

SUPPORT REGIONAL DETAILED RESPONSES

Consultation Report

Appendix C

C1 SUPPORT REGIONAL DETAILED RESPONSES

APPENDIX TABLE C.1 SUGGESTION DESTINATIONS

Theme: Suggested destinations All areas London South East

UK

Angel Road 1 1 0 0

Baker Street 1 1 0 0

Barnet 1 1 0 0

Basingstoke 2 1 1 0

Bethnal Green 1 0 1 0

Bishops Stortford 1 0 0 1

Broxbourne 2 0 0 2

Cambridge (via Harlow & Sawbridge) 1 0 0 1

Canary Wharf 2 1 1 0

Chelney Line 1 0 0 1

Chelsea to Hackney Line 2 2 0 0

Chessington/Chessington World of Adventures

9 4 3 2

Chingford 1 1 0 0

Clapham / Northern Line 1 1 0 0

Clapton 3 3 0 0

Crouch End 1 1 0 0

Dalston Junction 1 1 0 0

Earlsfield 2 2 0 0

East Croydon 1 1 0 0

East London 2 2 0 0

East to West link 1 1 0 0

Edmonton Green 4 4 0 0

Employment hubs in Central London 1 1 0 0

Enfield 6 6 0 0

Epping 1 0 0 1

Epsom 5 1 4 0

Epsom Downs or Tattenham Corner 2 0 2 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C


UK

Essex Road 1 1 0 0

Further north of Alexandra Palace 2 1 0 1

Further south west of London 6 3 2 1

Gatwick Airport 8 5 2 1

Greenwich 1 1 0 0

Guildford 10 3 5 2

Hackney/Hackney Downs 1 1 0 0

Haggerston 1 1 0 0

Ham 1 1 0 0

Hampton Court 10 3 6 1

Harlow Town 2 0 0 2

Hatfield 1 0 0 1

Heathrow Airport, e.g. via Feltham, Whitton & Twickenham

4 4 0 0


Hertford/East Hertford 6 2 0 4


Home Counties 1 1 0 0

Horley/ Redhill 2 1 1 0

Hounslow 1 1 0 0

Hoxton 1 1 0 0


Interchange with East London Line 1 1 0 0

Interchange with GOBLIN 1 1 0 0

Kingston 38 33 2 3

Lea Valley/Lea Valley Line 3 3 0 0

Leatherhead 2 0 1 1

Letchworth 1 1 0 0

Link with Cross Rail 1 National Rail stations

5 4 0 1

Consultation Report

Appendix C


UK

Link with outer circle line with zone 3-4 catchment

3 3 0 0

Maidenhead 1 1 0 0

Make provision for future interchanges with other lines

1 1 0 0


New Malden 4 3 1 0

Nine Elms/ Battersea/ Wandsworth development area

4 4 0 0


Paddington 1 1 0 0

Petersham 1 1 0 0

Purley 1 0 1 0

Putney 3 3 0 0

Raynes Park 2 1 1 0

Reading 3 2 1 0

Redbridge 1 0 0 1

Richmond 3 2 0 1

Roehampton 4 4 0 0

Shepperton/ Sunbury/ Hampton 4 3 1 0

South East London 9 7 0 2


Southfields 1 1 0 0

St Albans 3 2 0 1

Stamford Hill 1 1 0 0

Stansted Airport 21 10 1 10

Stevenage 1 0 0 1


Stratford 5 2 1 2

Surbiton 15 12 3 0

Sutton 5 4 1 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C


UK

Teddington 3 3 0 0

Thames Ditton 1 0 0 1

The City 8 6 1 1

Tottenham Hale 2 1 0 1

Twickenham 25 23 1 1

Waltham Forest 1 1 0 0

Wandsworth Town 3 3 0 0

Waterloo 1 0 0 1

Welwyn Garden City 1 0 0 1

West Coast mainline and Brighton mainlines

1 1 0 0

West End station 2 2 0 0

West Ham 1 1 0 0

Woking 6 3 3 0

Wood Green 1 1 0 0


APPENDIX TABLE C.2 OVERCROWDING/CONGESTION RELIEF

Theme: Overcrowding/congestion All areas London South East

UK


At National Rail stations 1 1 0 0

At Victoria 5 3 1 1



From Regional areas 3 3 0 0

Haringey 1 0 0 1

Liverpool Street 2 1 0 1

Northern Line 3 2 0 1

On buses in South West 2 2 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C

South West into Waterloo (Regional Option)

45 27 13 5

Surbiton 2 2 0 0

Vauxhall 1 1 0 0

Wimbledon 1 1 0 0

Windsor Line 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.3 ECONOMICS

Theme: Economics All areas London South East

UK

Borrowing while interest rates are low for a project with strong CBR will help cut deficit in the future

4 4 0 0

Concern for cost 5 3 2 0

Cost should not deter project 1 1 0 0

Fares - Epsom zone 6 fare 1 1 0 0

Fares shouldn't be too expensive (e.g. be in-line with underground fares to avoid under-utilisation)

4 4 0 0

If cost is a problem: build metro first, with NR size rolling stock, and add regional later

1 1 0 0

If Regional option built funding could come taxes from a wider population

1 1 0 0

Interchange with Hertford East Line will generate development in local areas

1 1 0 0

Invest money in North of England 1 1 0 0

Metro Option will further increase house price imbalance in central London

1 0 1 0

Regional option creates new geographies for business & residents

44 26 14 4

Regional option won't cost significantly more to build regional but benefits are much greater

6 4 0 2

Regional option serves wider, more affordable residential areas

22 18 2 2

Will aid growth & provide jobs 6 2 3 1

Consultation Report

Appendix C

APPENDIX TABLE C.4 ENVIRONMENT

Theme: Environment All areas London South East

UK

Concerns regarding disruption during construction

9 8 0 1

Defences should be built against rising sea levels

1 0 1 0

Links with High Speed so will reduce air travel

1 1 0 0

Reduces pollution from traffic 1 0 1 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.5 PREFER REGIONAL OPTION

Theme: Prefer Regional All areas London South East

UK

General support 35 26 7 2

Allows possible expansion of Heathrow 1 1 0 0

Better connections with National Rail/ Overground services

12 8 2 2

But include stop at Piccadilly 4 3 1 0

Easier to further expand 3 2 1 0

Greater capacity than Metro 3 1 1 1

Improves access (Alexandra Palace) 1 1 0 0

Improves access (Cheshunt) 6 2 0 4

Improves access (Clapham Junction) 2 1 1 0

Improves access (Epsom) 7 2 5 0

Improves access (Guildford) 1 0 1 0

Improves access (Hackney) 19 18 0 1

Improves access (King's Road) 1 1 0 0

Improves access (Kingston) 1 1 0 0

Tooting 4 2 1 1

Improves access (Tottenham Hale) 1 1 0 0

Improves access to Central London from regional areas 48 22 16 10

Improves access (East) 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C


UK

Improves access (North) 21 11 2 8

Improves access (North East) 24 13 4 7

Improves access (South East) 2 2 0 0

Improves access (South) 12 6 3 3

Improves access (South West) 106 70 26 10

Improves access (Airports) 8 6 1 1

Improves access (West) 2 2 0 0

Improves access for the disabled 1 0 1 0

Improves connectivity with Victoria & Euston

1 0 1 0

Improved frequency 4 2 1 1

Improves journey times 34 19 11 4

Line in North East provides development opportunities

1 1 0 0

Links Clapham Junction with underground

1 1 0 0

Links through unserved South West/North East route

3 3 0 0

Links well with Crossrail 1 1 1 0 0

More journey opportunities 24 11 7 6

Offers flexibility for the future 5 4 1 0

Prefer conventional driving cab arrangement

1 1 0 0

Provides capacity for the future 36 30 1 5

Reduces need to interchange 5 3 2 0

Reliable service 1 0 1 0

Wider benefits 80 52 14 14

Consultation Report

Appendix C

APPENDIX TABLE C.6 METRO OPTION (NEGATIVE)

Theme: Metro (negative) All areas London South East

UK

Already good transport links along line - Northern Line

5 4 1 0

Already good transport links along line - Victoria Line

7 6 1 0

Doesn't alleviate congestion at Waterloo

1 1 0 0

Doesn't provide capacity to outer London

13 5 7 1

Doesn't reduce congestion (King's Cross)

1 1 0 0

Doesn't serve wide enough area 6 5 1 0

Duplicates/ enhances existing services 44 35 6 3

Increases congestion at Clapham Junction

1 0 1 0

Increases congestion at interchanges 4 3 0 1

Increases congestion at Wimbledon 5 5 0 0

Less benefit 15 11 2 2

Light Rail not sufficient 19 17 1 1

Light rail poor capacity 13 11 1 1

Limits possibility of expansion 3 2 0 1

Metro option should inc Hackney 1 1 0 0

Will be more expensive to extend later

2 2 0 0

Will further increase cost of Central London housing

1 1 0 0

Underground not suitable for Alexandra Palace 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C

APPENDIX TABLE C.7 WOULD RATHER IMPROVE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

Theme: Improve existing infrastructure

All areas London South East

UK

Unspecific 1 1 0 0

Branch extension of the Victoria Line serving Clapham North, Common & South & terminate at Balham

2 2 0 0

Double the frequency & lengthen Great Northern routes through Alexandra Palace

1 1 0 0

Extend District Line beyond Wimbledon

1 0 0 1

Extend Northern Line extension to Clapham Junction

1 1 0 0

Extend Overground to serve King's Road

1 1 0 0

Extend Victoria Line (South - Peckham, Herne Hill, Crystal Palace)

1 1 0 0

Improve Euston station 1 1 0 0

Improve journey time of Guilford service to Waterloo

1 1 0 0

Improve signalling to increase existing capacity

1 1 0 0

Milton Keynes to South via London 1 1 0 0

Rolling stock - new trains with greater capacity

1 0 0 1

South West to North & North West 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.8 ALREADY GOOD TRANSPORT LINKS

Theme: Already good links All areas London South East

UK

Unspecific 2 2 0 0

Along Metro option route 1 1 0 0




Consultation Report

Appendix C


UK

Northern end of Metro option 1 1 0 0

South West London 4 4 0 0

Surbiton 1 1 0 0

Tooting 2 2 0 0


Wimbledon 14 12 2 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.9 SUGGESTION/SERVICE SPECIFICATION

Theme: Suggestion All areas London South East

UK


Angel 1 1 0 0

Alexandra Palace to Seven Sisters is an indirect route to take

5 4 0 1

Avoid going through Clapham Junction/start with empty trains through Clapham Junction

2 1 1 0

Avoid going through Waterloo 2 0 2 0

Avoid Surbiton & focus on Epsom & Chessington South

1 0 0 1

Bond Street instead of Tottenham Court Road

1 1 0 0

Chelsea (King's Road) 2 2 0 0

Complementary scheme - Northern Heights

1 0 0 1

Enhance connectivity with Heathrow 1 0 1 0

Ensure good interchange at Alexandra Palace

1 0 0 1

Interchange station at Highbury and Islington

1 0 0 1

King's Cross to Alexandra Palace on existing disused infrastructure (route calling at Finsbury Park, Highgate, Muswell Hill, East Finchley)

2 2 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C


UK

North East forks - Dalston/Hackney serve similar areas - second fork should serve new area

1 1 0 0

Northern forks serve too similar an area

2 2 0 0

Tooting Broadway 4 3 1 0

Service should go to Hertford North not Hertford East

1 1 0 0

Single tunnel up to Hackney & Dalston Junction then 2 forks to Enfield & Hertford East

2 2 0 0

Single tunnel to Tottenham to reduce cost

1 1 0 0

Sutton instead of Wimbledon 1 1 0 0

Worcester Park greater demand than Motspur

7 5 2 0

Weybridge instead of Surbiton 1 0 1 0

Y shaped route branches serving Waterloo - Liverpool Street (and further East) and North/North East branch

1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.10 CAPACITY

Theme: Capacity All areas London South East

UK

Length of trains 2 2 0 0

Use 12 car trains 1 0 1 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C

APPENDIX TABLE C.11 DISRUPTION

Theme: Disruption All areas London South East

UK

Concern - unspecific services to National Rail stations

3 1 2 0

At Hampton Court 1 0 1 0

Adds congestion at Dalston 1 1 0 0

Adds congestion to Northern line, via interchange at Tooting

1 1 0 0

Add congestion at Wimbledon 5 3 2 0

Cheshunt to Tottenham Hale route almost at capacity

1 0 0 1

Concerns about Norbiton to Waterloo service

1 1 0 0

Impact on traffic and pedestrians at Motspur Park

1 1 0 0

Potential for bottlenecks at National Rail and key underground services

3 2 1 0

Potential for bottlenecks with South West Trains into Clapham Junction/ Waterloo

8 6 1 1

Tunnel to avoid 1 0 1 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.12 INTERCHANGES

Theme: Interchange All areas London South East

UK

Ensure pedestrian interchange between Crossrail 2 and existing lines is quick and easy (e.g. provide lifts)

6 4 0 2

Links well with High Speed Rail 13 7 3 3

Links well with National Rail services 1 0 0 1

Should be able to put bikes on trains 2 1 1 0

Should interchange with Thameslink 1 0 1 0

Should interchange with South West Main Line

1 0 1 0

Wimbledon station will need reconstruction to cope with additional

1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C


UK

demand

APPENDIX TABLE C.13 INSUFFICIENT DEMAND

Theme: Insufficient demand All areas London South East

UK

Angel 1 0 0 1

Chelsea (King's Road) 8 8 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.14 REDUCES TRAFFIC

Theme: Reduces traffic All areas London South East

UK

Unspecific 3 2 1 0

Chelsea 1 1 0 0

SW London & Surrey 4 3 1 0

M25 2 0 1 1

Reduce congestion 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE C.15 NEGATIVE COMMENTS

Theme: Negative All areas London South East

UK

By trying to achieve too many objectives the proposed options are inefficient

1 0 0 1

Neither option relieves crowding on Victoria line or Northern Line (Bank branch)

1 1 0 0

Should serve less affluent areas, currently unserved

5 5 0 0

Outside the Clapham Junction to St Pancras section benefit aren't great enough to justify the cost of tunnelling

1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix C

APPENDIX TABLE C.16 GENERAL COMMENTS

Theme: General All areas London South East

UK


Better descriptions of options required 9 6 2 1


Concern about parking at Epsom 1 0 1 0

Improved frequency 1 1 0 0

Question 14 11 2 1

Support 2 2 0 0

Timescales 22 14 7 1

Would like 24 hour train service 1 1 0 0

Would like station development at Twickenham to reflect increased demand

2 2 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix D

APPENDIX

D

SUPPORT METRO DETAILED RESPONSES

Consultation Report

Appendix D

D1 SUPPORT METRO DETAILED RESPONSES

APPENDIX TABLE D.1 SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS


UK

Angel Road 1 1 0 0

Archway 1 1 0 0

Battersea 2 2 0 0

Bexley 1 1 0 0

Chigwell 1 1 0 0

Chingford 1 0 1 0

Clapham 4 4 0 0

Clapham Junction to King’s Cross & West End

1 1 0 0

Crouch End 1 1 0 0

Croydon 1 1 0 0

Earlsfield 1 1 0 0

East to West London 0 0 0 0

Epping 1 1 0 0

Essex Road 4 4 0 0

Euston 1 1 0 0

Hackney to North London 2 1 0 1

Hammersmith/Fulham 1 1 0 0


Holloway 2 2 0 0

King’s Cross 1 1 0 0

Kingston 1 1 0 0


Northumberland Park 1 1 0 0

Pall Mall 1 0 0 1

Pimlico 1 1 0 0

Ponders End 1 1 0 0

Potters Bar 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix D


UK

Redbridge 1 1 0 0


Streatham 6 6 0 0

Sutton 1 1 0 0

Waltham Cross 1 1 0 0


Welwyn 1 1 0 0


Woking 1 0 1 0

Woodford 1 1 0 0


APPENDIX TABLE D.2 OVERCROWDING/CONGESTION RELIEF

Theme: Overcrowding/congestion All areas London South East

UK

Unspecific 3 3 0 0




Piccadilly Line 3 3 0 0

Victoria 3 3 0 0

Victoria Line 3 3 0 0

Wimbledon branch of District Line 2 1 1 0

Consultation Report

Appendix D

APPENDIX TABLE D.3 ECONOMICS

Theme: Economics All areas London South East UK

Concerns over how project will be funded

1 1 0 0

Fares will be too expensive 3 3 0 0

Limited time savings 1 1 0 0

Other projects more worthy of funding 1 1 0 0

Paid for by Londoners so should only serve Londoners

2 2 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE D.4 ENVIRONMENT

Theme: Environment All areas London South East UK

Unspecific 1 1 0 0

Concern for Arlington Square conservation area

1 1 0 0

Special Interest protected area (Walthamstow, Hackney & Tottenham marshes)

1 0 1 0

APPENDIX TABLE D.5 PREFER METRO OPTION

Theme: Prefer Metro All areas London South East UK

Less disruption 2 2 0 0

Better frequency through Central London

6 6 0 0

Greatly improves North/South links 7 5 0 2

High capacity route 2 2 0 0

Improves travel times 1 1 0 0

Less costly 7 6 1 0

Links with existing central infrastructure

10 8 1 1

More reliable/efficient than Regional option

4 4 0 0

Provides links that don't currently exist

3 3 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix D

Theme: Prefer Metro All areas London South East UK

Provides most of the benefit 6 5 1 0

Quicker to implement 6 5 1 0

Simple 4 4 0 0

Would be better utilised 4 2 1 1

APPENDIX TABLE D.6 REGIONAL OPTION (NEGATIVE)

Theme: Regional option (negative) All areas London South East UK

Can already link with metro service at existing transport hubs

0 0 0 0

Little gain 8 4 1 3

Complex service prone to problems 5 3 2 0

Could be developed later 2 2 0 0

Disruption 4 4 0 0

Only as an addition not instead of Metro

1 0 0 1

Risks longer distance commuting 2 2 0 0

Risks urban sprawl 1 1 0 0

Slow down implementation of Metro Line

1 1 0 0

Too long/slow 2 2 0 0

Will degrade metro service 3 2 0 1

Would be more expensive than metro 3 3 0 0

Would require additional funding/high cost

2 2 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE D.7 WOULD RATHER IMPROVE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE


All areas London South East UK

Existing stations - Epsom 1 1 0 0

Existing stations - Wimbledon 2 0 2 0

Longer trains on SW network 2 2 0 0


Consultation Report

Appendix D


All areas London South East UK

Prioritise improving transport south of the river

1 1 0 0

Should not share existing infrastructure

3 2 1 0

Underground 2 1 1 0

APPENDIX TABLE D.8 ALREADY GOOD TRANSPORT LINKS

Theme: Already good transport links All areas London South East UK

Unspecific 1 1 0 0


Cheshunt 2 1 1 0


Dalston Junction 2 2 0 0

Epsom 4 3 1 0



Regional stops already served 1 0 1 0



Wimbledon 3 1 2 0

APPENDIX TABLE D.9 CAPACITY

Theme: Capacity All areas London South East UK

Wimbledon 3 1 2 0

Capacity is key - don't have light rail 1 1 0 0

Concern about capacity 6 6 0 0

Use trains that are designed for NR to allow interoperability & greater capacity

1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix D

APPENDIX TABLE D.10 IMPROVES LINKS

Theme: Improves links All areas London South East UK



APPENDIX TABLE D.11 SUGGESTION/SERVICE SPECIFICATION

Theme: Suggestion All areas London South East UK

Connect Wimbledon to Tooting Broadway by extending District line to South Wimbledon

1 1 0 0

Twickenham Terminus not required 1 1 0 0

Stop at Worcester Park 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE D.12 NEGATIVE COMMENTS

Theme: Negative All areas London South East UK

Compete with current services 1 1 0 0

Have simple A-B route 2 2 0 0

Increases congestion - Angel 2 2 0 0

Increases congestion - Clapham Junction

1 1 0 0

Increases congestion - Kingston 1 1 0 0

Increases congestion - Northern line 2 2 0 0

Increases congestion - Regional Option 8 5 0 3

Increases congestion - SW trains 3 3 0 0

Increases congestion - Unspecific 2 1 1 0

Just serve Wimbledon - Victoria - Euston - Alexandra Palace

1 1 0 0

Limits future development of underground tunnels

12 11 1 0

Replaces existing services 2 0 0 2

Won't provide enough capacity for Hackney

1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix D

APPENDIX TABLE D.13 GENERAL COMMENTS

Theme: General All areas London South East UK


Better description of options required 4 4 0 0

Disruption 7 7 0 0

Support 1 1 0 0

Support for Metro 20 18 1 1

Consultation Report

Appendix E

APPENDIX

E

OPPOSE BOTH DETAILED RESPONSES

Consultation Report

Appendix E

E1 OPPOSE BOTH DETAILED RESPONSES

APPENDIX TABLE E.1 SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS


UK

Unspecific 4 2 2 0

Angel 1 1 0 0

Barnet 1 1 0 0

Battersea 12 12 0 0

Bexley 2 2 0 0

Bromley 2 2 0 0

Camberwell 1 1 0 0

Camden 2 2 0 0

Canary Wharf 1 1 0 0

Cannonbury 1 1 0 0

Clapham High Street 1 1 0 0

Clapton 1 1 0 0

Croydon 10 10 0 0

Crystal Palace 1 1 0 0

Elephant & Castle 2 2 0 0

Enfield 2 2 0 0

Epping 1 1 0 0

Essex Road (Islington) 2 2 0 0

Finsbury Park 1 1 0 0

Fulham 3 3 0 0

Gatwick 4 1 2 1

Hackney 6 6 0 0

Heathrow 2 2 0 0

Herne Hill 1 1 0 0


Hounslow 1 1 0 0


Consultation Report

Appendix E


UK

Kingston 2 2 0 0

Lea Valley/ Epping Forest 1 1 0 0

Lewisham 1 1 0 0

Lots Road 18 17 0 1

Peckham 1 1 0 0

Putney 2 2 0 0

Reading 1 0 1 0

Richmond 1 0 1 0

Shepperton 1 0 1 0

Shoreditch 1 1 0 0

South of Epsom 1 1 0 0

Standsted Via Canary Wharf 2 0 2 0

Stratford 1 1 0 0

Streatham 8 8 0 0

Sutton 3 3 0 0

The City 1 1 0 0

Tooting 1 1 0 0

Tottenham/Stamford Hill 1 1 0 0

Tulse Hill 1 1 0 0

Turkey Hill 1 1 0 0

Waltham Forrest 1 1 0 0

Well Street 1 1 0 0

Well Street Common 1 1 0 0

Walworth Road 1 1 0 0

Wandsworth 4 4 0 0

Waterloo 3 2 1 0

West Norwood 1 1 0 0


Victoria Park 1 1 0 0

Areas not already served by tube 9 7 2 0

Consultation Report

Appendix E


UK


East London 1 0 0 1

East West Link 2 2 0 0

Further North East 1 1 0 0

Hertfordshire 1 1 0 0

Link with M25/outer circle line 5 4 1 0

London fringe areas - without existing infrastructure 3 0 3 0

North of Alexandra Palace 1 1 0 0


North West to West to South West London 1 1 0 0

North West London to South East London 3 1 1 1

Richmond to Wimbledon 2 2 0 0




Serve 2008 safe guarded route, but including Euston 1 1 0 0

South to West route: Clapham/Tooting to Hammersmith/Fulham 2 2 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE E.2 ECONOMIC

Theme: Economic All areas London South East

UK

Cheaper to build a deeper tube network to coinside with the existing network

2 1 1 0

Concern for cost 23 21 0 2

Concerns for property prices 1 0 0 1

Cost of tickets 4 4 0 0

Creates new geographies for business 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix E

Theme: Economic All areas London South East

UK

& residents

Funding better spent outside of London

16 8 3 5

Incorrect calculation of BCR 1 1 0 0

Introduce through ticketing fares for journeys interchanging with National Rail

1 1 0 0

Invest in other public services e.g. trains, buses

15 12 3 0

Invest in repairing roads 3 1 1 1

Not the answer to economic problems 7 7 0 0

Provide for cyclists instead 3 3 0 0

Use funding for mulitple smaller projects within London

7 7 0 0

Waste of money 19 14 1 4

Won't regenerate areas which need it 11 11 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE E.3 ENVIRONMENT

Theme: Environment All areas London South East

UK

Unspecific 7 7 0 0

Destruction of historic architecture 28 27 0 1

Flora/fauna in South London 3 3 0 0

Urban sprawl 4 3 0 1

APPENDIX TABLE E.4 WOULD RATHER IMPROVE EXISTING TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE

Theme: Existing infrastructure All areas London South East

UK


Chelsea- Hackney Line 5 5 0 0

Clapham Junction to Richmond extending to Heathrow

2 2 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix E

Theme: Existing infrastructure All areas London South East

UK

Connections to South East London 11 9 2 0

Connections to West London 1 1 0 0

Extend Bakerloo/Victoria/Northern Line

14 14 0 0

Extend District Line beyond Wimbledon

3 3 0 0

Extend Chingford Line to Loughton 2 2 0 0

Extend links to Enfield 1 1 0 0

Extend Metroploitan Line to Pliastow 1 1 0 0

Further extension of Overground Services

6 4 2 0

Improve Central London tube network 25 19 4 2

Improve underground services from Clapham Junction to South East London

2 2 0 0

Increase frequency of existing train services in rush hour

5 4 1 0

Interconnect existing zone 2 lines/ Overground overground lines

4 3 1 0

Intergrate the areas serve by the two branches of the central line

1 1 0 0

Link new 'hub' stations e.g. in Hackney 3 3 0 0

King’s Road (West), New tube station 1 1 0 0

New line from Clapham Junction via Worlds End, Euston, St Pancras, two forks in North London

2 2 0 0

South West Trains 1 1 0 0

South West to West and North West London

3 3 0 0

Thameslink 2 2 0 0

Transport links in North East London 1 1 0 0

Waterloo 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix E

APPENDIX TABLE E.5 ALREADY GOOD TRANSPORT LINKS


UK


Access to tube network at Vauxhall from South West Trains

1 0 1 0

Acton 1 1 0 0


Camden 1 1 0 0

Chelsea 27 26 0 1

Dalston 2 2 0 0

De Beauvoir 1 1 0 0

Ealing 1 1 0 0

Epsom 2 2 0 0

Hackney 4 4 0 0

King's Road 1 0 0 1

North London 2 1 1 0



Surbiton 1 0 1 0

Tooting 1 1 0 0

Twickenham to Kingston/ Wimbledon 1 1 0 0

Victoria 2 2 0 0

West End 1 1 0 0

Wimbledon 6 5 1 0

Routes duplicates existing lines 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE E.6 CAPACITY


UK

Routes duplicates existing lines 1 1 0 0

Still doesn't provide sufficient capacity/benefit

8 7 0 1

Consultation Report

Appendix E

APPENDIX TABLE E.7 DISRUPTION

Theme: Disruption All areas London South East

UK

Unspecific 12 9 2 1

Is unclear 4 3 0 1

Still doesn't provide sufficient capacity/benefit

8 7 0 1

South West Trains to Waterloo 3 2 1 0

APPENDIX TABLE E.8 INSUFFICIENT DEMAND ALONG ROUTE


UK

Unspecifc 5 4 1 0

Chelsea 3 3 0 0

From nowhere to nowhere 1 1 0 0


APPENDIX TABLE E.9 INTERCHANGE


UK

Barking to Gospel oak 1 1 0 0

Belsize park 1 1 0 0

Finchley Road 1 1 0 0

It shouldn't bypass Central to join up with HS2

1 0 1 0

With High Speed Rail 2 2 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE E.10 SUGGESTION/SERVICE SPECIFICATION


UK

Other routes suggested 1 1 0 0

Twickenham fast service to Central 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix E

APPENDIX TABLE E.11 WORSENS OVERCROWDING/CONGESTION

Theme: Worsens congestion All areas London South East

UK

Unspecific 4 3 1 0

Building services for people outside london - detrimental to London commuters

1 1 0 0




Piccadilly Line 2 2 0 0

South West Train lines 3 2 1 0

Sutton transport 1 1 0 0

To/from Heathrow 1 1 0 0

Traffic in Wimbledon 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE E.12 GENERAL COMMENTS


UK

Unspecific 3 1 1 1

Benefits only the affluent areas 4 4 0 0


Could cause the expansion of stanstead airport if train went to North East London

1 0 0 1

Disruption to homes 4 2 1 1

King’s Road could not cope with the extra congestion

1 1 0 0

No advantage to commuters 5 4 1 0

Not enough commuters from Wimbeldon, Suburbiton or Empson who commute to NE London each day

2 1 1 0

Question raised 1 1 0 0

Timescale 4 4 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix E

Where is the demand from people wanting to travel from NE London to SW London

2 2 0 0

Would want 24 hour services 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix F

APPENDIX

F

NO STRONG VIEW DETAILED RESPONSES

Consultation Report

Appendix F

F1 NO STRONG VIEW DETAILED RESPONSES

APPENDIX TABLE F.1 SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS


Rest of UK

Alexandra Palace (if doing Metro Option)

1 0 0 1

Banstead 1 1 0 0

Battersea 1 0 0 1

Berrylands 1 1 0 0

Caledonian Road 1 0 0 1

Clapton 1 1 0 0

Croydon 1 1 0 0

Crystal Palace/West Norwood 2 1 0 1

Enfield Town/ Enfield Chase 3 3 0 0

Emirates Stadium 1 1 0 0

Essex Road 1 0 0 1

Ewell 2 2 0 0

Fenchurch Street 2 2 0 0

Hampton/Hampton Court 1 0 0 1

Haringey 1 1 0 0


Holloway Road 1 0 0 1

Hornsey 1 1 0 0

King's Cross 1 0 0 1


Leytonstone 1 0 0 1

Lombard Road 1 1 0 0

Lots Road 1 1 0 0

Luton 2 0 0 2

New Cross/New Cross Gate 1 1 0 0

Nine Elms 1 0 0 1


Consultation Report

Appendix F


Rest of UK

Roehampton 2 1 0 1

South Merton 1 0 0 1

St Helier 1 0 0 1

Stamford Bridge 1 0 0 1


Stoneleigh 1 0 0 1

Streatham/Streatham Hill 2 1 0 1

Sunbury on Thames 3 3 0 0

Teddington 1 1 0 0

Tolworth 3 3 0 0

Tulse Hill 1 1 0 0

Waltham Cross 1 0 0 1


Wandsworth Town/Southside 2 0 1 1

Wandsworth Common 1 0 0 1

Ware 1 1 0 0

West Croydon 2 1 0 1

Weybridge 1 1 0 0


Wimbledon 1 0 0 1

Wood Green 1 0 1 0

Between Dalston & Seven Sisters 1 1 0 0

East to West/South West 4 1 0 3

Further north 1 1 0 0

Further South West 2 0 1 1

North West 1 0 1 0

General: serve stations to North and South not just North East to South West

2 1 0 1

Jubilee Line 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix F


Rest of UK

Lambeth 1 1 0 0

Outer circle line 2 1 0 1

Park & Ride site on M3 3 3 0 0


South East (e.g.Lewisham, Bexley & Bromley)

2 2 0 0

South East to South West 21 20 1 0


Liverpool Street to Earls Court 2 1 0 1

Paddington to Monument 1 0 0 1

Safeguarded route 1 0 0 1

APPENDIX TABLE F.2 CONGESTION/OVERCROWDING RELIEF

Theme: Congestion/overcrowding All areas London South East

Rest of UK

Unspecific 1 1 0 0


Euston 1 1 0 0

On District Line 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE F.3 ECONOMICS

Theme: Economics All areas London South East

Rest of UK

Concern for cost (of construction) 18 14 2 2

Concern for cost (fares) 5 3 0 2

Regional creates new geographies for business & residents

1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix F

APPENDIX TABLE F.4 ENVIRONMENT

Theme: Environmental All areas London South East

Rest of UK

Air quality 1 1 0 0


2 1 0 1

APPENDIX TABLE F.5 PREFER REGIONAL OPTION


Rest of UK


2 1 0 1

Reduces reliance on cars (Regional) 1 1 0 0


3 2 0 1

APPENDIX TABLE F.6 PREFER METRO OPTION

Theme: Prefer Metro All areas London South East

Rest of UK

Development of Turnpike Lane area 1 0 0 1


3 2 0 1

APPENDIX TABLE F.7 WOULD RATHER IMPROVE EXISTING TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE


All areas London South East

Rest of UK


Victoria Line (North) 2 2 0 0


3 2 0 1

Wimbledon station 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix F

APPENDIX TABLE F.8 ALREADY HAS GOOD LINKS

Theme: Already good transport links All areas London South East

Rest of UK

Unspecific 1 1 0 0


Dalston 1 1 0 0

Essex 2 1 0 1

Hampton Court to Surbiton 1 0 0 1

Hertfordshire 1 0 1 0

Thameslink 2 0 0 2

Twickenham and Kingston 1 1 0 0

National Rail (into Liverpool Street) 2 2 0 0


Tooting 4 4 0 0

Wimbledon 1 0 0 1


APPENDIX TABLE F.9 SUGGESTION/SERVICE SPECIFICATION


Rest of UK

Unspecific 5 2 1 2

Farringdon instead of St Pancras 1 0 0 1

Have high frequency services 1 0 0 1

Metro option but with extension to Surbiton for interchange with regional services

1 0 1 0

Metro option should stop at Tottenham/North Tottenham 1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix F

APPENDIX TABLE F.10 CAPACITY

Theme: Capacity All areas London South East

Rest of UK

Metro service is higher frequency 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE F.11 IMPROVES LINKS

Theme: Improves links All areas London South East

Rest of UK

North to South London 2 2 0 0

Stansted 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE F.12 INSUFFICIENT DEMAND


Rest of UK

At Alexandra Palace 2 2 0 0

King's Road 1 1 0 0


Tottenham Court Road & Piccadilly Circus are too close together

1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE F.13 NEGATIVE COMMENT


Rest of UK

Concern for ongoing engineering work after scheme opening

10 5 1 4

Congestion relief required on Northern Line

1 1 0 0

Congestion (bus & pedestrian) at King's Road

1 0 1 0

Doesn't eliminate congestion at Waterloo

14 11 1 2

Further capacity will be needed by time of completion

1 1 0 0

Increased pedestrian traffic around Wimbledon (Metro option)

1 1 0 0

Consultation Report

Appendix F


Rest of UK

Increased congestion at Seven Sister (Victoria Line)

3 2 0 1

Increased congestion at interchanges in South West London (Surbiton, Kingston)

1 1 0 0

Metro suggestion is waste of potential route options

1 1 0 0

Metro trains should not be driverless (implication is about provision of jobs)

1 1 0 0

No relief for Charing Cross, Cannon Street or London Bridge

1 1 0 0

Regional option has too many spurs 1 1 0 0

Querying route Kingston - Roehampton: worried about building through Richmond Park

2 2 0 0

Too many termini in south west 1 1 0 0

APPENDIX TABLE F.14 GENERAL COMMENT


Rest of UK

Unspecific 3 3 0 0

Accessible stations to allow access for disabled passengers

2 2 0 0

Positive comment 7 4 0 3

Timescale 10 5 0 5

Consultation Report

Appendix G

APPENDIX

G

SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS BY TFL GROUPINGS

Consultation Report

Appendix G

G1 SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS BY TFL GROUPINGS

APPENDIX TABLE G.1 SUGGESTED DESTINATIONS BY GROUPING

Not serving and do not plan to serve

Suggested destination Number of respondents

Archway 1

Ashford 1

Baker Street 1

Balham 10

Bank 1

Banstead 1

Barnes 1

Basingstoke 2

Bethnal Green 1

Between Tooting & Clapham Junction 3

Between Tottenham Hale & Cheshunt (e.g. Chingford)

1

Between Westminister and Pall Mall 1

Bexley 3

Bishops Stortford 3

Boreham Wood 1

Brentford 1

Brixton 1

Broadway Market 1

Bromley 2

Bruce Grove 1

Burntwood Lane 1

Caledonian Road 1

Camberwell 1

Cambridge (via Harlow & Sawbridge) 1

Camden 2

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Canada Water 1

Canary Wharf 3

Cannonbury 1

Carshalton 1

Charing Cross 1

Chelney Line 1

Chigwell 1

Chingford 4

Chingford Mount 1

Clapham / Northern Line 1

Clapham High Street 1

Clapham North 1

Clapton to Chingford 1

Clissold Park 1

Collier's Wood 1

Crouch End 14

Croydon 29

Crystal Palace 1

Crystal Palace/West Norwood 2

Cuffley 1

Downhills Park 1

Ealing 2

Ealing (via Kew) 1

Earlsfield 15

East Croydon 1

East Finchley 3

East London 12

East Putney 1

East to West London 1

Consultation Report

Appendix G

East/South Croydon 7

Edmonton 0

Edmonton Green 4

Elephant and Castle 2

Emirates Stadium 2

Enfield Town/Enfield Chase 1

Epsom Downs or Tottenham Corner 2

Esher 5

Ewell 1

Expansion of London Overground network (South East, East & North East)

1

Feltham 3

Fenchurch Street 1

Finchley Central 1

Finchley Road 2

Finsbury Park 1

Finsbury Park to Highgate (along disused lines) 1

Fulham 3

Fulham Broadway 1

Further North 4

Garrett Park 2

Gatwick 4

Gatwick Airport 35

Golders Green 3

Grange Park 2

Greenwich 1

Guildford 28

Gunnersbury 1

Haggerston 2

Ham 2

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Hammersmith & Fulham 2

Hamsptead Heath 1

Hanworth 1

Haringey 2

Harrow 1

Hatfield 1

Haydon’s Road 3

Heathrow Airport, e.g. via Feltham, Whitton & Twickenham

4

Heathrow Airport 45

Heathrow to Canary Wharf 1

Heathrow to Gatwick 5

Herne Hill 1

Hertford North 1

Highbury 1

Highgate 2

High Barnet 2

Hitchin 1

Holloway 2

Holloway Road 1

Horley/ Redhill 2

Hornsey 2

Hounslow 2

Hoxton 1

Interchange with Channel Tunnel 1

Isleworth 1

Jubilee Line 1

Kensal Rise 1

Kent Coast 1

Kew 1

Consultation Report

Appendix G

King’s Cross 1

Lambeth 1

Leatherhead 5

Letchworth 1

Lewisham 1

Link with M25/outer circle line 5

Liverpool 1

Liverpool Street 6

Liverpool Street to Earls Court 1

Lombard Road 1

London Bridge 3

London Fields 1

Lordship Park 1

Luton 2

Maidenhead 2

Manor House 1

Mill Hill 2

Mitcham 7

Moorgate 1

Morden 1

Muswell Hill 27

New Cross/New Cross Gate 1

Newham 1

Norbury 1

North Cheam 1

North West 3

North West London to South East London 3

North West to West to South West London 1

Old Street 1

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Old York Road 1

Paddington 1

Paddington to Monument 1

Pall Mall 1

Palmer's Green 1

Park & Ride site on M3 1

Peckham 1

Petersham 2

Picketts Lock 1

Pimlico 1

Primrose Hill 1

Purley 1

Putney 2

Putney Bridge 1

Putney Bridge/ East Putney 1

Reading 4

Redbridge 2

Redhill 1

Regional route: Serve stations to East/South East

1

Reigate 1

Richmond 25

Richmond to Wimbledon 2

Roehampton 6

Royal Albert Hall 1

Sands End 2

Shepherd's Bush 1

Shoreditch 1

Shoreditch/ Hoxton 1

Sloane Square 1

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Sough 1

South Coast 1

South East 10

South East (e.g.Lewisham, Bexley & Bromley) 21

South East London 51

South East to South West 1

South London 12

South of Epsom 1

South to West route: Clapham/Tooting to Hammersmith/Fulham

2

South Wimbledon 2

Southbury 1

St Albans 3

Stamford Bridge 1

Stamford Hill 11

Stansted Via Canary Wharf 2

Stansted to Gatwick 3

Stevenage 1

Stockwell 1

Stoneleigh 1

Streatham 14

Streatham Hill 1

Streatham/Streatham Hill 21

The City 21

Tottenham/Stamford Hill 1

Tulse Hill 2

Turkey Hill 1

Turkey Street 1

Twickenham via Acton and Bond Street 1

Vauxhall 5

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Victoria Park 1

Virginia Water 1

Walthamstow 8

Waltham Abbey 1

Walton 1

Walton-upon-Thames

Walworth Road 1

Wandsworth 4

Wandsworth Common 14

Wandsworth Town 7

Wandsworth Town / Common 1

Wandsworth Town/Southside 1

Waterloo 17

Waterloo to Liverpool Street & North East London

1

Well Street 1

Well Street Common 1

West Coast mainline and Brighton mainlines 1

West Croydon 3

West Green 2

West Ham 1

West Norwood 1

Weybridge 7

White Hart Lane 10

White Water Centre 1

Whitton 2

Winchmore Hill 4

Windsor 2

Woking 31

Wood Green 11

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Plan to serve


Alexandra Palace 16

Angel 2

Angel Road (Lea Valley) 2

Berrylands 1

Brimsdown 1

Broxbourne 6

Central London 15

Chelsea 5

Chessington 1

Chessington North 5

Chessington/Chessington World of Adventures 9

Cheshunt 11

Clapham 5

Clapham Junction 18

Clapham Junction to King’s Cross & West End 1

Combined Dalston Junction/Dalston Kingsland stop

2

Dalston 17

Dalston Junction 3

East and West Anglia 1

East to West/South West 2

East to West/South West London 1

Epsom 76

Euston 2

Friern Barnet (New Southgate station) 1

Hackney 78

Hackney to North London 2

Hackney/Hackney Downs 1

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Hampton 1

Hampton Court 10

Hertford 1

Hertford East 17

Hertfordshire 3

Highbury & Islington 6

Home Counties 1

Interchange with Crossrail 2

Interchange with East London Line 1

Interchange with GOBLIN 1

King's Road 6

Kingston 128

Lea Valley 2

Lea Valley/Lea Valley Line 3

Link with Crossrail 1 National Rail stations 5

Link with outer circle line with zone 3-4 catchment

3

Make provision for future interchanges with other lines

1

Merton 1

Motspur Park 20

New Malden 22

Norbiton 1

North East London 152

Northumberland Park (for new Tottenham Hotspurs ground development)

1

Outer circle line 4

Outside London 197

Ponders End 4

Raynes Park 16

Seven Sisters 8

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Shepperton 20

Shepperton/ Sunbury/ Hampton 4

South West London 2

Sunbury on Thames 1

Surbiton 72

Surrey 1

Teddington 15

Thames Ditton 1

Tolworth 2

Tooting 30

Tottenham Hale 5

Tottenham/Tottenham Hale 1

Turnpike Lane 10

Twickenham 117

Waltham Cross 2

Ware 1

West End station 2

Wimbledon 23

Worcester Park 61

This destination was not on the consulted routes, although we are reviewing the destination to investigate if we can serve the area


Barnet 4

Battersea 47

Clapton 19

Between Dalston & Seven Sisters 6

Enfield 2

Further North East 1

Further north of Alexandra Palace 2

Further South West 2

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Further south west of London 6

General: serve stations to North and South not just North East to South West

1

Harlow 1

Harlow Town 3

Imperial Wharf 11

Kenninghall Road 1

Lots Road 8

Newington 2

Nine Elms 4

Nine Elms/ Battersea/ Wandsworth development area

4

North of Alexandra Palace 1

Morden South 1

Potters Bar 1

Serve more stations to East 1

South Merton 1

St Helier 1

Stansted Airport 111

Stoke Newington 67

Stratford 6

Stratford/Olympic Park 2

Sutton 39

Welwyn Garden City 1

West of King's Road 1

On the previous safeguarded route, at present, we are not planning to serve this area


Chelsea to Hackney line 10

Epping 1

Essex Road 56

Consultation Report

Appendix G

Hainault via Wanstead 1

Homerton 3

Lea Valley/ Epping Forest 1

Leytonstone 4

London fringe areas - without existing infrastructure

3

Parson’s Green 5

Piccadilly Circus 27

Safeguarded route 7

Serve 2008 safe guarded route, but including Euston

1

Southfields 4

Waltham Forest 4

Woodford 1

Consultation Report

Appendix H

APPENDIX

H

STAKEHOLDER SUMMARY

Consultation Report

Appendix H

H1 STAKEHOLDER SUMMARY

Stakeholders

H1.1 The analysis is based on responses from 166 Stakeholders.

APPENDIX TABLE H.1 STAKEHOLDERS WHO RESPONDED TO THE CONSULTATION

Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea

African Community

Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust

Amhurst Road Properties Limited

Association for Consultancy and Engineering

Association of County Transport Officers

Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC)

Barnet Labour Group

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

Battersea Bus Users Group (B/BUG)

Battersea Project Land Company (BPLC)

Bedford Borough Council

Borough Councillor, Elmbridge Borough Council

Broxbourne Borough

Camden Town Unlimited

Campaign for Better Transport London Group

Canal & River Trust

Caroline Pidgeon AM Leader of the London Assembly Liberal Democrat Group

Centre Point Tower Almacantar

Chairman, Dovehouse St. Residents' Association

City of London

City of Westminster

City University London

Clapham Transport Users Group

Claygate Parish Council

Cllr John Farebrother

Coast to Capital LEP

Consultation Report

Appendix H

Colliers Wood Residents’ Association

Conservative Group of the London Borough of Merton

Councillor Keith Prince - London Borough of Redbridge

Croydon Old Town

Cubitt Artists [ www.cubittartists.org.uk ]

Culverley Green Residents Association

Dalkeith Court Residents Association

De Beauvoir community

Earlsfield Community Centre

East Hertfordshire County Council

Edmonton Constituency Labour Party

Enfield Commuter Club/ Enfield Transport Users Group

English Heritage

Environment Agency

Epping Forest District Council

Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrats

Essex Chambers of Commerce

Essex County Council

Federation of Small Business, Central London Branch and Central London Translations Ltd

Friends of Argyle Square

Future Planning and Development Town Planning Consultancy on behalf of Grainger PLC

Gatwick Airport

GLA Constituency of Merton & Wandsworth

Goldsmiths Student Union

Guildford Borough Councillor Pirbright Ward

Hampshire County Council

Hampton Court Crescent Management Board

Haringey Cycling Campaign

Hart District Council

Heathrow Airport Ltd

Hermes Real Estate Investment Management Ltd

Hertfordshire County Council

Consultation Report

Appendix H

ICE

International Students House Students Union

Islington Liberal Democrat Group

Jam Factory Residents Association

Jennette Arnold GLA Member

Joanne McCartney AM - London Assembly Member for Enfield and Haringey

John Biggs Assembly Member for City & East London

Kingston Federation of Residents Limited

Kingston First Business Improvement District (BID)

Kingston University

Kingston upon Thames Society

London Assembly Transport Committee

Land Securities Group PLC

LB Barnet

LB Brent

LB Barking and Dagenham

LB Enfield

LB Hammersmith & Fulham

LB Haringey

LB Hillingdon

LB Islington

LB Richmond

LB Southwark Council

LB Tower Hamlets

LB Bexley

LB Camden

LB Hackney

LB Lambeth

LB Merton

LB Newham

LB Redbridge

Consultation Report

Appendix H

LB Sutton

LB Waltham Forest

LB Wandsworth

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)

London City Airport

London Community Learning Trust

London Councils

London Federation of Small Businesses

Lee Valley Estates

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA)

London First

London Forum of Civic & Amenity Societies

London Italian West Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregation

London Luton Airport

London Mandarin School

London Travel Watch

London Wildlife Trust

M.A.G/Stansted Airport Limited

Mill street Residents' Association

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign Trailblazers

Natural England

North London Area

Peabody estate residents

Kingston Upon Thames Residents

Poole Borough Council

Radlett Society & Green Belt Association

Railfuture, London & South East Regional Branch

Raynes Park & West Barnes Residents' Association

RB Kingston Upon Thames

Retained Advisor to Trustees of the Evelyn Estate

Rhodes Estate Tenants’ and Residents’ Association

Richmond Upon Thames Residents and Local Business Collective

Consultation Report

Appendix H

Roehampton Villagers (RoVers)

RB Kensington and Chelsea

Runnymede Borough Council

South London Partnerships

St Margarets Community Website

Sadiq Khan MP

Stagecoach South Western Trains

Standard Life Investments

Stokenewington.info

Streatham Hill councillor

Streatham Liberal Democrats

Surrey Connects

Surrey County Council

Surrey Leaders Group

Tandridge District Council

The All England Lawn Tennis Club

The Community Ward of Tottenham/South Tottenham

The Directors Guild Trust

The Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

The King's Road Trade Association

The Merton Green Party

The Solent Local Enterprise Partnership

The Teddington Society

The Urswick School

The White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood

The Wimbledon Society

Thurrock Council

Tottenham Hotspur Football & Athletic Co Ltd

Tottenham Land Owners

TRAG

Transport for All

Consultation Report

Appendix H

Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight

TSSA

University of Roehampton Business Club

Uttlesford District Council

Victoria Business Improvement District

Wandsworth Living Streets

Wandsworth Society

Ward Member, Bramley and Sherfield, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

Welcome to Fleet

West Anglia Rail Group

West London Residents Association

West Sussex County Council

Windsor Lines Passengers Association

Woking County Council

H1.2 Of the 166 stakeholder replies analysed, 11 stakeholders only completed the closed questions and did not offer any further comment.

H1.3 For those stakeholders who made a comment, a code was assigned to the comment for analysis. If a stakeholder made more than one comment, these comments were also assigned a code so common themes and trends could be identified.

H1.4 All comments were assigned codes and the code framework can be found in Appendix I.

H1.5 The table below sets out support or opposition for the Principle of Crossrail 2. Most stakeholders either completed the online questionnaire or referenced their support or opposition in their reply to the consultation.

APPENDIX TABLE H.2

Stakeholders Opinion Do you support the principle of Crossrail 2?

Strongly Support 84 (51%)

Support 59 (35%)

Neither support nor oppose 11 (7%)

Oppose 3 (2%)

Strongly oppose 2 (1%)

Not answered 7 (4%)

Total 166 (100%)

Consultation Report

Appendix H

H1.6 As well as seeking the views from stakeholders regarding the principle of Crossrail 2. The consultation asked for views on the route options. Table H.3 and H.4 below show the stakeholders’ preferences for the options.

H1.7 Stakeholders could strongly support both options or support one but not oppose the other.

APPENDIX TABLE H.3

Stakeholders Opinion Do you support the Metro Option?


Support 36 (22%)


Oppose 20 (12%)


Not answered 14 (8%)

Total 166 (100%)

APPENDIX TABLE H.4

Stakeholders Opinion Do you support the Regional Option?


Support 50 (30%)


Oppose 4 (2%)


Not answered 8 (5%)

Total 166 (100%)

H1.8 The Regional option received a lot of support from stakeholders. This is reflected in the comments stakeholders made when responding to the consultation. Table H.5 and Table H.6 set out the top themes in support of the Regional option as well as the most common concerns.

Consultation Report

Appendix H

APPENDIX TABLE H.5

Code Comment Total number of times issue raised

L8 Both options would provide benefits for Northern Home County’s residents and business by improving the connectivity and capacity of rail journeys to the capital.

28

L9 Fully supports Regional option 19

D4 Regional option seems better value for money 18

H14 Serve Stansted Airport 17

L7 Regional option benefits passengers from Counties in the south

15

H10 Serve station on WAML 12

C7 Must be fully accessible 10

I10 Will relieve pressure on infrastructure at Waterloo 9

APPENDIX TABLE H.6

Code Comment Total number of times issue raised.

A4 Build / Add eastern branch to current safeguarded route 17

D1 Establishing a financial package should be a priority for the project

13

J2 More detailed work to be done in general to fully understand costs and benefits

12

C5 How would Euston / St Pancras work? More detail required 10

H54 More information on King’s Road Chelsea Station required 9

I3 Will not reduce crowding on Central line 9

N1 Request further work to be done to establish impact during construction phase

9

F1 Request for more safeguarding information as project develops and the impact on local property

8

Full list of comments received and coded

H1.9 There were a lot of requests for Crossrail 2 to serve different stations and different areas to those set out in the proposed Crossrail 2 options. These destinations are included in the code frame set out in Table H.7.

Consultation Report

Appendix H

H1.10 Some of these destinations are being reviewed as part of the next steps for the project. However, some of the suggested destinations are some distance away from the proposed routes and Crossrail 2 would not be able to serve these areas without significant cost and benefit implications to the project. Once all of the destinations have been reviewed, a report will be published to provide answer to issues raised and reasons for why some areas cannot be served.

APPENDIX TABLE H.7

Code Theme Total Comments

L8 Both options would provide benefits for Northern Home Counties residents and businesses by improving the connectivity and capacity of rail journeys to the capital.

28

I19 Suggestions made to the National Rail network that is out the scope of this project.

23

J3 Understand in more detail what the potential impact of Crossrail 2 would be on the National Rail network

20

L9 Fully supports Regional option 19

D4 Regional option seems better value for money 18

A4 Build / Add eastern branch to current safeguarded route 17

H14 Serve Stansted Airport 17

A2 Request for service level information 16

L7 Regional option benefits passengers from Counties in the south 15

D1 Establishing a financial package should be a priority for the project 13

H10 Serve station on WAML 12


12

I6 Suggestions made to the London Underground network that is out the scope of this project.

11

L1 Good news from Central Government funding 11

C5 How would Euston / St Pancras work? More detail required 10

C7 Must be fully accessible 10

H54 More information on Kings Road Chelsea Station required 9

I3 Will not reduce crowding on Central line 9

I10 Will relieve pressure on infrastructure at Waterloo 9


9

Consultation Report

Appendix H



8

L4 Supports possible expansion to Euston 8

I20 Provide information and take in to account the impact on level crossings when planning service levels

7

C2 More detailed work to be carried out at Clapham Junction and Tooting Broadway

6

C11 Design new stations by public consultation process to fit local character

6

A1 No eastern branch in the consultation 6

H56 Kingston must be served 6

L2 Supports Clapham Junction being served 6

A9 Provide a Gatwick Airport, Croydon and Sutton Branch. 5

H55 Oppose Kings Road Station 5

H57 Serve Twickenham and rebuild station 5

B3 Provide better interchange at Hackney Central with Hackney Downs and the North London Line

4

B7 Kings Road should be at new Battersea site 4

B16 Serve Barking 4

C9 Detail must be worked on for construction sites and works traffic 4

E2 Delivery Crossrail 2 quicker than proposed timescale 4

F2 Welcomes current safeguarding update 4

G1 Metro route to serve Seven Sisters 4

H35 Serve Barnet 4

K1 Eastern Branch costs 4

L10 Great idea 4

N2 Support is dependent on there being no significant environmental or economic disbenefits

4

A8 Do not change safeguarded route 3

B5 New interchange station at Stoke 3

B6 Align route to serve Imperial Wharf to relieve congestion at Clapham Junction

3

B19 Serve Streatham 3

Consultation Report

Appendix H


C8 More detailed work to be carried out on how the route will serve TCR

3

C14 Ideas for location of vent shafts 3

C15 Suggestions for depot locations 3

H24 Serve Welwyn Garden City via Moorgate 3

I5 Need to upgrade Victoria Line further as well as Crossrail 2 3

I7 Incorporate Northern Line Extension work in to Crossrail 2 works to avoid duplicate construction issues.

3

L6 Supports Epsom Branch 3

A5 Do not serve Euston 2

A7 Request for specific route information that is not yet known 2 2

B11 Build and serve a new station in Roehampton 2

B15 Serve Harlow 2

B20 Serve Earlsfield 2

C1 Proposed Euston connection with Crossrail 2, HS2 and underground is insufficient

2

D5 Use some of the £2m Central Government money to fund proper feasibility study of eastern branch

2

E1 Take Crossrail 2 down the Development Consent Order route 2

E3 The Regional option should be constructed only on further evidence of need and should in no way delay the construction of the Metro option.

2

G2 The Metro option is absolutely vital to relieve the current and expected pressure on London rail transport in the next 15 years.

2

G3 Serve Crouch End / Muswell Hill 2

H11 Serve Hackney Central 2

H12 Serve Worcester Park 2

H18 Serve Basingstoke 2

H34 Serve Motspur Park 2

H53 Provide new station with interchange between Dalston Junction and Dalston Kingsland

2

H58 Allow interchange at Severn Sisters with Barking & Gospel Line 2

I2 Reinstate the plans for the Cross river Tram 2

Consultation Report

Appendix H


I8 Extend Tramlink to Sutton 2

I9 Project not connected to aviation strategy 2

I12 Constructed to be compatible with the already funded third tracking scheme between Coppermill Junction and Angel Road

2

I15 Crossrail 2 should go ahead despite HS2 2

I17 Invest in orbital railway rather than Crossrail 2 2

I18 Upgrade bus network to help station interchange 2

J5

Interchange between Crossrail 2 and the West London line will become even more important if TfL and the councils achieve their aim of a West London Line connection to the HS2 station at Old Oak Common.

2

J8 Instead of focusing on projections to 2031, project growth to 2041 and this enhances the eastern branch benefits to more than the options consulted on.

2

L5 Regional option and branch lines seem better for the environment 2

L11 Fully support Metro option 2

M2 Scheme would destroy independent traders in smaller areas 2

O1 there should be constant engagement with the Federation of Small Businesses and similar organisations

2

B4 New Station in the Leabridge area 1

B8 New Station at St Georges Hospital Wandsworth/Tooting 1

B12 Euston Cross Scheme 1

B17 Serve Walworth Road 1

B18 Serve Edmonton Green 1

B21 Serve Richmond 1

B22 Serve Clapham North via Streatham not Tooting 1

B23 Serve Stamford Hill 1

B24 Serve Old Street 1

B25 Serve Finsbury Park 1

B26 Serve Heathrow 1

B27 Serve Leyton 1

B28 Serve Leytonstone 1

C4 Crossrail 2 must be sensitive towards small business parking policy 1

Consultation Report

Appendix H


and should consider improved parking at stations.

C12 Have same cycling policy as London Overground 1

C13 Unused tunnels could be used and save money potentially 1

D2 There should be no move to excessively burden small businesses at a time of increasing economic pressures

1

D3

If the costs of improving Euston were removed from HS2 Ltd so TFL can create Euston St Pancras, then there may be additional funds available to HS2 Ltd to improve mitigation measures, notably tunnelling under the Colne Valley.

1

D6 Boroughs directly served should bear higher costs 1

D7 Home Counties should be made to pay higher percentage of cost 1

D8 Urban realm monies for stations should be in the starting budget and not added to it for each location of station.

1

H3 Regional option to take over Central Line Epping Branch 1

H13 Serve Woking 1

H16 Serve Southampton 1

H17 Serve Cambridge 1

H19 Serve Portsmouth 1

H23 Include the West Anglia suburban services in to the service pattern 1

H27 Regional option trains should start with 12 not 10 car trains 1

H29 Serve Raynes Park 1

H41 Serve Stevenage 1

H42 Serve Bishops Stortford 1

H47 Serve Enfield 1

H52 New station at Parkway Jct 7 of M11 1

H59 Double ended station at Angel 1

H60 Provide an exit at Euston station for Camden Town, allowing for better access from this station

1

H61 Serve and completely rebuild Wimbledon Station providing better interchanges and access

1

I1 Bakerloo Line Extension should be prioritised 1

I4 Need to upgrade Piccadilly Line as well as Crossrail 2 1

I11 Project should not halt improvements plans at Waterloo 1

Consultation Report

Appendix H


International platforms

I13 Reinstate Hall Farm Curve to serve Chingford 1

I14 Other schemes must not be compromised to build Crossrail 2 1

I16 Complete Crossrail 1 before planning further schemes. 1

J1

High volume of Crossrail 2 service required via Alexandra Palace. There is no evidence that such a high volume of service needed based on existing tube catchments, so what is TfL’s underlying rationale?

1

J4 Understand in more detail the impact on car travel Crossrail 2 would have

1

J7 More work to be done on the Metro option to provide an additional standalone solution to go beside a Regional Crossrail 2 scheme which is regional

1

L3 Support Tooting Broadway being served 1

M1 Does not benefit South East London 1

M3 Waste of public money 1

M4 Opposed to development 1

O2 Piccadilly Circus not on Regional option is a mistake on the consultation’s part.

1

O3 Consultation too minimalist 1

O4 Did not consult on current safeguarded route 1

O5 Additional options document online did not provide enough information to make a reasonable decision.

1

O6 Further engagement with TOC must be on-going 1

H2 STAKEHOLDER CODE FRAMEWORK

H2.1 The coding is different between the public and stakeholder responses to the consultation. This is due to the stakeholder replies being analysed by the Crossrail 2 project team because of the in depth nature of the stakeholder replies and the detailed request for information that were received during the consultation process.

H2.2 The method of analysis is consistent however and each comment received, was grouped and coded so common trends and themes could be identified during and after the consultation process.

Consultation Report

Appendix H

Code A

H2.3 Comments assigned an A code have asked for a completely new route or branch line to be created that was not in the route options consulted on.

APPENDIX TABLE H.8 A - ROUTE

A1 No eastern branch in the consultation

A2 Request for service level information

A4 Build / Add eastern branch to current safeguarded route

A5 Do not serve Euston

A7 Request for specific route information that is not yet known

A8 Do not change safeguarded route

A9 Provide a Gatwick Airport, Croydon and Sutton Branch

Code B

H2.4 Comments assigned a B code suggested a station location that was not on the routes consulted on and would require an additional spur or re-route of the options consulted on.

APPENDIX TABLE H.9 B – STATION LOCATION OFF LINE OF ROUTES CONSULTED ON

B3 Provide better interchange at Hackney Central with Hackney Downs and the North London Line

B4 New Station in the Leabridge area

B5 New interchange station at Stoke Newington

B6 Align route to serve Imperial Wharf to relieve congestion at Clapham Junction

B7 Kings Road should be at new Battersea site

B8 New Station at St Georges Hospital Wandsworth/Tooting

B11 Build and serve a new station in Roehampton

B12 Euston Cross Scheme

B15 Serve Harlow

B16 Serve Barking

B17 Serve Walworth Road

B18 Serve Edmonton Green

B19 Serve Streatham

Consultation Report

Appendix H

B20 Serve Earlsfield

B21 Serve Richmond

B22 Serve Clapham North via Streatham not Tooting

B23 Serve Stamford Hill

B24 Serve Old Street

B25 Serve Finsbury Park

B26 Serve Heathrow

B27 Serve Leyton

B28 Serve Leytonstone

Code C

H2.5 Comments assigned a C code includes suggestions or comments regarding infrastructure or other aspects of the projects such as ventilation shaft locations. Although the actual location or feasibility of most of the comments received was not known at the time of coding, the project team have been passed the comments for review and investigation.

APPENDIX TABLE H.10 C – INFRASTRUCTURE / VENTS / DEPOTS

C1 Proposed Euston connection with Crossrail 2 HS2 and underground is insufficient

C2 More detailed work to be carried out at Clapham Junction and Tooting Broadway

C4 Crossrail 2 must be sensitive towards small business parking policy and should consider improved parking at stations

C5 How would Euston / St Pancras work? More detail required

C7 Must be fully accessible

C8 More detailed work to be carried out on how the route will serve TCR

C9 Detail must be worked on for construction sites and works traffic

C11 Design new stations by public consultation process to fit local character

C12 Have same cycling policy as London Overground

C13 Unused tunnels could be used and save money potentially

C14 Ideas for location of vent shafts

C15 Suggestions for depot locations

Consultation Report

Appendix H

Code D

H2.6 Comments assigned a D code made reference or asked questions regarding the costs of the project.

APPENDIX TABLE H.11 D – COST

D1 Establishing a financial package should be a priority for the project

D2 There should be no move to excessively burden small businesses at a time of increasing economic pressures

D3

If the costs of improving Euston were removed from HS2 Ltd so TFL can create Euston St Pancras, then there may be additional funds available to HS2 Ltd to improve mitigation measures, notably tunnelling under the Colne Valley

D4 Regional option seems better value for money

D5 Use some of the £2m Central Government money to fund proper feasibility study of eastern branch

D6 Boroughs directly served should bear higher costs

D7 Home Counties should be made to pay higher % of cost

D8 Urban realm monies for stations should be in the starting budget and not added to it for each location of station

Code E

H2.7 Comments assigned an E code made reference or asked questions regarding the timescale of the project.

APPENDIX TABLE H.12 E – TIMESCALE

E1 Take Crossrail 2 down the Development Consent Order route

E2 Deliver Crossrail 2 quicker than proposed timescale

E3 The Regional option should be constructed only on further evidence of need and should in no way delay the construction of the Metro option

E4 Start Building straight after Crossrail 1 finishes to avoid losing expertise

Code F

H2.8 Comments assigned a F code made reference or asked questions regarding the current safeguarding, the proposed review of the safeguarded route and the impacts of safeguarding.

Consultation Report

Appendix H

APPENDIX TABLE H.13 F – SAFEGUARDING


F2 Welcomes current safeguarding update

Code G

H2.9 Comments assigned a G code requested a station specifically for the Metro option.

APPENDIX TABLE H.14 G – METRO ROUTE SUGGESTIONS

G1 Metro route to serve Seven Sisters

G2 The Metro option is absolutely vital to relieve the current and expected pressure on London rail transport in the next 15 years

G3 Serve Crouch End / Muswell Hill

Code H

H2.10 Comments assigned a H code requested a station specifically for the Regional option. Some areas have been grouped together as the answer to the request is the same due to the locations of areas of the request.

APPENDIX TABLE H.15 H – REGIONAL ROUTE SUGGESTIONS OFF LINE OF ROUTE

H3 Regional option to take over Central Line Epping Branch

H10 Serve station on WAML

H11 Serve Hackney Central

H12 Serve Worcester Park

H13 Serve Woking

H14 Serve Stansted Airport

H16 Serve Southampton

H17 Serve Cambridge

H18 Serve Basingstoke

H19 Serve Portsmouth

H23 Include the WA suburban services in to the service pattern

H24 Serve Welwyn Garden City via Moorgate

H27 Regional option trains should start with 12 not 10 car trains

H29 Serve Raynes Park

Consultation Report

Appendix H

H34 Serve Motspur Park

H35 Serve Barnet

H41 Serve Stevenage

H42 Serve Bishops Stortford

H47 Serve Enfield

H52 New station at Parkway Jct 7 of M11

H53 Provide new station with interchange between Dalston Junction and Dalston Kingsland

H54 More information on Kings Road Chelsea Station required

H55 Oppose Kings Road Station

H56 Kingston must be served

H57 Serve Twickenham and rebuild station

H58 Allow interchange at Severn Sisters with Barking & Gospel Line

H59 Double ended station at Angel

H60 Provide an exit at Euston station for Camden Town, allowing for better access from this station

H61 Serve and completely rebuild Wimbledon Station providing better interchanges and access

Code I

H2.11 Comments assigned an I code made reference to an existing or future project that is outside the scope of the current Crossrail 2 project. requested a station specifically for the Metro route option.

APPENDIX TABLE H.16 I – OTHER SCHEMES REFERENCED

11 Bakerloo Line Extension should be prioritised

I2 Reinstate the plans for the Cross River Tram

I3 Will not reduce crowding on Central Line

I4 Need to upgrade Piccadilly Line as well as Crossrail 2

I5 Need to upgrade Victoria Line further as well as Crossrail 2

I6 Suggestions for the London Underground network that are out the scope of this project

I7 Incorporate Northern Line Extension work in to Crossrail 2 works to avoid duplicate construction issues

I8 Extend Tramlink to Sutton

Consultation Report

Appendix H

I9 Project not connected to Aviation strategy

I10 Will relieve pressure on infrastructure at Waterloo

I11 Project should not halt improvements plans at Waterloo International platforms

I12 Constructed to be compatible with the already funded third tracking scheme between Coppemill Junction and Angel Road

I13 Reinstate Hall Farm Curve to serve Chingford

I14 Other schemes must not be compromised to build Crossrail 2

I15 Crossrail 2 should go ahead despite HS2

I16 Complete Crossrail 1 before planning further schemes

I17 Invest in orbital railway rather than Crossrail 2

I18 Upgrade bus network to help station interchange

I19 Suggestions made to the National Rail network that is out the scope of this project

I20 Provide information and take in to account the impact on level crossings when planning service levels

Code J

H2.12 Comments assigned a J code made reference to or asked questions of the modelling data for the project that has been presented for the 2013 consultation.

APPENDIX TABLE H.17 J – MODELLING

J1 High volume of Crossrail 2 service required via Alexandra Palace. There is NO evidence that such a high volume of service needed based on existing tube catchments, so what is TfL’s underlying rationale?


J3 Understand in more detail what the potential impact of Crossrail 2 would be on the National Rail network

J4 Understand in more detail the impact on car travel Crossrail 2 would have

J5 Interchange between Crossrail 2 and the West London line will become even more important if TfL and the councils achieve their aim of a West London Line connection to the HS2 station at Old Oak Common.

J7 More work to be done on the Metro option to provide an additional standalone solution to go beside a Regional Crossrail 2 option which is regional

J8 Instead of focusing on projections to 2031, project growth to 2041 and this enhances the eastern branch benefits to more than the options consulted on

Consultation Report

Appendix H

Code K

H2.13 Comments assigned a K code made reference to or asked questions about the Business Case data for the project that has been presented as part of the 2013 consultation.

APPENDIX TABLE H.18 K – BUSINESS CASE

K1 Eastern branch Costs

Code L

H2.14 Comments assigned an L code made positive comments about the project that was consulted.

APPENDIX TABLE H.19 L – GENERAL POSITIVE

L1 Good news from Central Government funding

L2 Supports Clapham Junction being served

L3 Supports Tooting Broadway being served

L4 Supports possible expansion to Euston

L5 Regional option and branch lines seem better for the environment

L6 Support Epsom Branch

L7 Regional option benefits passengers from Counties in the South

L8 Both options would provide benefits for Northern Home Counties residents and business by improving the connectivity and capacity of rail journeys to the capital

L9 Fully supports Regional option

L10 Great idea

L11 Fully support Metro option

Code M

H2.15 Comments assigned an M code made negative comments about the project that was consulted.

APPENDIX TABLE H.20 M – GENERAL NEGATIVE

M1 Does not benefit South East London

M2 Scheme would destroy independent traders in smaller areas

M3 Waste of public money

Consultation Report

Appendix H

M4 Opposed to development

Code N

H2.16 Comments assigned a N code referred to comments or asked questions regarding the environmental impacts about Crossrail 2.

APPENDIX TABLE H.21 N – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS


N2 Support is dependent on there being no significant environmental or economic disbenefits

Code O

H2.17 Comments assigned an O code made general comments or complaints about the consultation process and the materials and information used to consult with.

APPENDIX TABLE H.22 O – COMMUNICATIONS/CONSULTATION

O1 There should be constant engagement with the Federation of Small Businesses and similar organisations

O2 Piccadilly Circus not on Regional option is a mistake on the consultation’s part

O3 Consultation too minimalist

O4 Did not consult on current safeguarded route

O5 Additional options document online did not provide enough information to make a reasonable decision

Consultation Report

Appendix I

APPENDIX

I

SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

Consultation Report

Appendix I

I1 SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS

I1.1 Stakeholders who submitted a response to the consultation have had their reply analysed and summarised. Below is the summary of the stakeholder responses. These have been edited by TfL consultation staff to give a summary of the key points raised.

I1.2 They have been grouped by:

I London Boroughs

I District & County Councils

I Political stakeholders

I Business Groups

I Resident & Community Groups

I Accessibility Groups

I Transport / User Groups

I Environment / Aviation

I Investment / Property

I Engineering

I Education

I Other

I2 LONDON BOROUGH’S

City of London

I2.1 Supports the principle of Crossrail 2 with a strong preference for the Regional option as this offers greater potential for increased connectivity, higher capacity and journey time savings combined with greater crowding relief on National Rail routes into Liverpool Street and Waterloo. The City’s support is however subject to certain points presented in the full consultation response.

City of Westminster

I2.2 Acknowledges the need for Crossrail 2 to help alleviate severe overcrowding on London’s rail network. Supportive of Crossrail 2, following the 2008 safeguarded route through Westminster, as already set out in our adopted planning briefs for Victoria and Tottenham Court Road. Crossrail 2 will further increase the capacity of public transport in Westminster and we support provision of Crossrail line 2 stations in the Tottenham Court Road and Victoria Opportunity Areas, where they offer the potential for regeneration and growth, and integration of the new line with the existing regional rail network and it is in this context that the Regional option is preferential to the Metro option.

I2.3 Significant further work with TfL is required to refine and clarify the extent of any changes to the safeguarding and look forward to developing these proposals with you over the forthcoming months.

LB Barking and Dagenham

I2.4 Profound disappointment over the omission from the Crossrail 2 proposals of the previously proposed eastern route extension. Remain convinced that this opportunity should be taken to provide a link between the sub-region’s largest

Consultation Report

Appendix I

growth centre (Stratford) and the sub-region’s largest growth corridor (the Thames Gateway). TfL to reconsider its inclusion. The eastern spur also has the added advantage of providing services to Grays and potentially Stanford-le-Hope the location of the London Gateway Port.

LB Barnet

I2.5 Welcomes the proposed connection to Alexandra Palace on the Welwyn Garden City route to Kings Cross and Moorgate. Also welcomes the proposed connection to the Piccadilly Line at Turnpike Lane, and the connections with the northern end of the Victoria Line. All of these will help benefit residents and businesses in the east of the borough by providing improved connectivity by train/tube and/or relief to existing congested commuter routes as well as, improving connections outwards to destinations such as Stansted airport.

I2.6 Would like to see a review of orbital rail linkages undertaken as part future developmental work on Crossrail 2. Currently Barnet residents and businesses who need to travel to Stratford and Canary Wharf, will continue to be forced via Kings Cross, Euston or Bank.

LB Bexley

I2.7 Believe the first priority should be to complete the existing Crossrail project including the safeguarded extension to Gravesend and this occur before resources are diverted to other schemes.

LB Brent

I2.8 Strongly supportive of Crossrail 2 and the improved capacity and connections it will create throughout London. While Crossrail 2 does not directly serve Brent, support it because it will help ensure future growth in London to the benefit of all London’s residents. In terms of the proposed options, strongly supports the Regional option due to the improved wider connectivity and its applicability for future cross London rail lines to link up suburban services on either side of London.

I2.9 Crossrail 2 will reduce over-crowding on several London Underground lines including the Victoria and Piccadilly lines. It will also abstract passengers off West Anglia, First Capital Connect services out of Moorgate and London Overground, which will further reduce crowding particularly on the Victoria line, as this provides a fast route to the West End and interchange with the above lines.

LB Camden

I2.10 Although the Council supports the project in principle for the reasons above, this does not mean that the Council would not object to aspects of the project as more detail is developed, adverse impacts would need to be eliminated or reduced as much as possible, and mitigations considered. Support would be subject to assurances that modelling work demonstrates that the stations in Camden would not be congested and that they could be served in an operationally robust way in relation to the project as a whole. Support is given on the basis that Euston-St Pancras station should be configured so that it connects and integrates to both mainline stations (and Underground services) through walkways and travelators in such a way that provides a high quality interchange for passengers and that is suitable to the UK’s largest transport hub. The Regional option is more strongly supported.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

LB Enfield

I2.11 Strongly supports Crossrail 2 as it will deliver much needed capacity to the existing public transport network and support regeneration and growth by improving connectivity and accessibility. In particular, Enfield supports the Regional option because it offers far greater capacity, connectivity and more regeneration benefits to London. It will provide greater crowding relief on the existing public transport network in particular the Victoria Line.

I2.12 The borough lists key areas of the borough that have been highlighted as opportunity areas, which Crossrail 2 will support. Four tracking of the Lee Valley Mainline remains a crucial requirement if rail services are to improve and meet current projected increased demands. However, the implications of associated level crossing closures need to be fully understood and measures identified to maintain local accessibility. The Regional option could serve Stansted.

LB Hackney

I2.13 Support the Regional option as while it is more expensive. It the potential for further capacity, and would involve bringing Crossrail 2 services to both Dalston Junction and Hackney Central rather than solely Dalston which is the case with the Metro option. There is an issue with the detail of the consultation in that the additional branch to Tottenham Hale is described as a ‘possible additional route’. TfL officers have given assurances that this means ‘additional to the Metro option’ and would be part of the core proposed Regional option but nonetheless we consider that it is worth restating as part of the consultation response that we wish it to be considered as part of the core Regional option rather than being a possible addition. The second point for the Council is that we are seeking assurances that the stations at Dalston Junction and Hackney Central will be core stations so that we have certainty that they will be delivered.

LB Hammersmith & Fulham

I2.14 Either option should be routed via Imperial Wharf as this would relieve congestion at Clapham Junction. Interchange between Crossrail 2 and the West London line will become even more important if TfL and the councils achieve their aim of a West London Line connection to the HS2 station at Old Oak Common.

LB Haringey

I2.15 Fully supports the principle of Crossrail 2. This key transport project would provide essential rail capacity to meet predicted population and jobs growth. Strongly supports the Regional option as it provides much greater benefits for London and areas outside of London. The consultation only includes the branch via Tottenham Hale as a possible option. It is essential this line up to Cheshunt and Hertford East forms part of the Regional option to ensure the regeneration and connectivity benefits is provided for the Upper Lee Valley including the Council’s key regeneration area of Tottenham. Would want Seven Sisters station to have an additional southern entrance to allow much better interchange with South Tottenham Overground station on the Barking Gospel Oak line. All stations must be fully accessible.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

LB Hillingdon

I2.16 Broadly supports the development of Crossrail 2. Is concerned about the lack of integration between Crossrail 2 and other wider transport strategies, particularly regarding aviation. Very disappointed that the Regional option for Crossrail 2 ends a little over 10 miles short of both Gatwick and Stansted. There appears to be no proposals to advancing connections to these London airports.

LB Islington

I2.17 Regional option has more regeneration opportunities, however does not make the most of this if going through Islington. Investigate a double ended station at Angel in between Northern line and City Road. The council should be involved in Crossrail plans at Angel from the outset. There should be a Crossrail 2 station at Old Street. Consider an alignment that would also provide interchange at Finsbury Park. Crossrail 2 will help capacity issues on Victoria, Northern and Piccadilly lines. Would like to see Crossrail 2 serve Stansted Airport. Support both proposals subject to the continued inclusion of a station at Essex Road. We acknowledge the broader advantages of the Regional option.

RB Kensington and Chelsea

I2.18 Support Crossrail 2 and support both proposed options. Concerned about passenger flows and seek clarification from TfL about this. Need the Chelsea-Hackney line as we only have Sloane Square and lots of buses which are not quick. Proposed location of King’s Road station (old fire station) is very close to Sloane Square and South Kensington and would provide an overlap. Believe it would be of greatest benefit to residents if it was located further west so that the south of the borough would be within a kilometre of at least one underground station, including the Lots Road triangle area. Suggested were made for alternative locations for King’s Road station were made.

RB Kingston Upon Thames

I2.19 Believe this will help Kingston Town centre remain a competitive retail centre. On both options the council believes that the Regional option will improve frequencies on South Western services which currently serve Waterloo. This would benefit the borough as currently services via Chessington and Hampton Court are very poor. We strongly support the Regional option. However, have the following concerns, the ability of Clapham to cope with the demand of being a very busy interchange station. The constraints of level crossings at Motspur Park and at West Barnes lane, on improving frequencies on the Chessington branch. To ensure existing frequencies to Waterloo are not reduced.

LB Lambeth

I2.20 Supports in principle the current proposals for Crossrail 2 and the opportunities that this will bring to the wider south London area. Particularly welcomes the new alignments under both Crossrail 2 options. By providing stations at Clapham Junction and Tooting, Crossrail 2 will be able to interchange with the wider south west London transport network in a way that the currently safeguarded Chelsea/Hackney line fails to do. Thus supports the removal of the safeguarding of the Chelsea-Hackney route and supports the safeguarding of the new Crossrail 2 alignment in its place. Requests more detailed information on how Crossrail 2

Consultation Report

Appendix I

impacts on the Northern Line. has no strong preference for one route option over the other at this stage, but the Regional option appears to offer wider benefits, such as new connections from south Lambeth to south west London and releasing capacity at Waterloo station.

LB Merton

I2.21 Fully supports the Crossrail 2 project and the borough is keen to take an active role in the development of the scheme. Has a strong preference for the Regional option, principally due to the greater capacity improvements and the potential to offer broader benefits to the South sub- region as a whole. In particular, by releasing pressure on severely congested Network Rail lines within the Southwest area, the Regional option offers up the possibility of improved service frequencies to the neighbouring boroughs of Kingston, Richmond and beyond, as well as helping to further realise economic development potential. In addition, welcomes the opportunity that Crossrail 2 offers in terms of providing additional HS2 links at Euston, and its potential to take pressure off existing Northern and District line services.

LB Newham

I2.22 Perceived the consultation to be too minimalist and raised concerns as to why the current safeguarded route was not consulted on. Would like to see are evaluation of the Eastern Branch figures and for the Eastern Branch to be put back in to the Crossrail 2 scheme as feel this has more economic benefits than the branch to Lea Valley. Concerns also raised about the figures produced for the Eastern Branch that was published. Suggested using some of the £2m Government funding to re-evaluate the eastern branch. Would like to see longer passenger forecasts to 2041 from the published 2031 data.

LB Redbridge

I2.23 Supports the Regional option - as it offers greater capacity, suburban and regional services, and is considered to be better value for money. Although this would be conditional upon the Regional option including:- A spur or loop to Stratford station; offering a direct link from North to Eastern boroughs, with connections between Crossrail1 and Crossrail 2 as well as Tottenham Court Road.- Central line enhancements; that will partly compensate for Crossrail 2 no longer going through the borough, but helping to accommodate increasing demand.

LB Richmond

I2.24 Believe that the Regional option offers greater potential for increased connectivity, higher capacity and additional journey time savings over the Metro option. See great opportunities and benefits by running some of the inner suburban trains from Waterloo underground releasing capacity for additional services to be provided into Waterloo. It could provide significant travel time savings and reductions in crowding for passengers in this area. Twickenham is confirmed on the Crossrail2 network. Twickenham is an important destination in the south west of London. Information regarding service level patterns for the loop services in the borough is also requested.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

LB Southwark

I2.25 Support Crossrail 2 but will not benefit Southwark. Priority should be given to the Bakerloo line extension under Mayor's 2020 vision. Reiterate what we said in response to the HS2 consultation to improve connectivity from Euston to South London.

LB Sutton

I2.26 Supports the Epsom route and a stop at Worcester Park on this route to serve the people of Sutton. Currently lobbying for an extension of the Croydon tram from Wimbledon to Sutton, and linking this to Crossrail 2 at Wimbledon, is an additional benefit.

LB Tower Hamlets

I2.27 Will help to improve connectivity which will enhance London's social, environmental and economic wellbeing. Would like a Crossrail 2 eastern branch for an Interchange at Stratford International onto HS2.

LB Waltham Forest

I2.28 Strongly supports the further development and implementation of the Regional option for Crossrail 2. However, alongside this a long term strategy for development of the London Underground Central Line also needs to be progressed. We are at the start of a very lengthy process and the Council would urge Transport for London and Network Rail to continue to engage effectively with local stakeholders and the general public as the scheme proceeds.

LB Wandsworth

I2.29 Believes Crossrail 2 should run via Clapham Junction rather than use the Chelsea Hackney line. This will enhance links to Tooting. Crossrail 2 will relieve congestion on National Rail routes into Waterloo through Earlsfield and Putney. Concerns that Crossrail 2 must not lead to changes/reductions on National Rail services. Highlighted concerns of the potential impact on residents if Crossrail 2 runs beneath or next to their properties. A detailed study of the funding of Crossrail 2 should be a priority.

I3 DISTRICT / COUNTY COUNCIL

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

I3.1 Strongly supports the concept of Crossrail 2 and specifically the Regional option, which would offer benefits and opportunities for greater access to additional destinations in central and north London, which would be advantageous for borough residents and employers. However, it should be noted that any future improvements must not result in a net overall reduction in services and frequency of direct trains between Basingstoke and Deane and Central London in general.

Bedford Borough Council

I3.2 Supportive of these plans to increase connectivity from St Pancras. Wishes to express strong support for an effective interchange point at Euston/St Pancras, which must have sufficient capacity to accommodate passengers from three main line termini, plus High Speed services.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Broxbourne Borough

I3.3 Regional option better for environment.

East Hertfordshire County Council

I3.4 Partly supports the principle of a Crossrail 2. Offers limited support for the Crossrail 2 Regional option. The scheme should not extend as far as Hertford East but should terminate at either Cheshunt or Broxbourne. Does not support the Crossrail 2 Metro option. Also made comments about the consultation material and questions and felt the material and questions were “leading”.

Epping Forest District Council

I3.5 Will not reduce crowding on Central line.

Essex County Council

I3.6 Strongly supports Crossrail 2 and strongly supports the Regional option. In support of this stance, we believe that Crossrail 2 should be developed within a wider framework that also delivers faster and more frequent services from west Essex and Stansted Airport to London alongside a frequent service for north London. Crossrail 2 also provides an opportunity to examine the provision of fast and convenient rail services between Stansted Airport and other London airports. We therefore believe that Crossrail 2 is entirely dependent upon the delivery of the Lea Valley 4-track proposal between Coppermill Junction and Broxbourne.

I3.7 Whilst the extension of Crossrail 2 to Stansted might initially seem desirable, our position is that the focus on rail access to west Essex and Stansted should be on securing a commitment to the 4-tracking of the West Anglia mainline towards the airport rather than a Crossrail service itself.

I3.8 Welcomes enhanced interchange opportunities at Tottenham Hale and Hackney. The re-routing of inner suburban survives via Crossrail 2 also has the potential to relieve congestion at Liverpool Street providing much needed terminus capacity for outer suburban and express services. Essential that the focus on the Central Line is not lost. Appropriate investment should also be made in the Central Line to address current and anticipated capacity and frequency issues to maintain and enhance the level of service offered to travellers from the Epping Forest area.

Hampshire County Council

I3.9 Supports the Regional option for Crossrail 2. Fully support the work being carried out by Network Rail to identify solutions to this shortfall in capacity. Clearly investment in extra capacity is required, of which Crossrail 2 can be an important part.

I3.10 Supports TfL’s rationale that new Crossrail 2 infrastructure would be used by a proportion of suburban services, freeing up some capacity on the existing slow lines that could be used instead by either of outer suburban or South West mainline services.

I3.11 Would like to see a Regional ‘plus’ option investigated, where Crossrail 2 would function in a role more similar to Thameslink, with termini further afield than within Greater London, such as Cambridge or Stansted to Southampton, Portsmouth or Basingstoke.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Hart District Council

I3.12 The Regional option would potentially provide an opportunity for overhauling the South West mainline in coming decades.

Hertfordshire County Council

I3.13 Both options would provide benefits for Hertfordshire residents and business by improving the connectivity and capacity of rail journeys to the capital. However, the Regional option would offer significant extra benefits in terms of higher frequencies, faster journey times and more direct connections. The support of the County Council is however dependent on there being no significant environmental or economic disbenefits for Hertfordshire

Poole Borough Council

I3.14 Supports the Regional option and services stopping at Clapham Junction.

Runnymede Borough Council

I3.15 Supports the Regional option of Crossrail 2, in view of the benefits that it could bring to users of the rail service from Runnymede borough, as well as, wider economic benefits. Subject to confirmation of there being no significant adverse effect on the quality of existing local rail services.

Surrey County Council

I3.16 Strongly supports Crossrail 2. Would like to advocate the Regional option as the scheme most likely to boost economic growth and benefit the travelling public in Surrey and across Southern England. While fully supporting the Regional option, Surrey would expect to see no loss of service or declines in frequency of service to Central London from any station in Surrey as a result of Crossrail 2.

Thurrock Council

I3.17 Strongly supports the principle of a Crossrail 2 scheme and recognises the significant, positive economic benefits an infrastructure project of this scale will have for London and the South East. Of the two proposed options, would prefer the Regional option, which offers greater potential for increased connectivity, higher capacity and additional journey time savings over the Metro option. However, is disappointed that the proposals do not include an eastern alignment connecting to Stratford International, Barking, Dagenham Dock and Eastwards to Grays, and on to London Gateway and to the proposed new Enterprise Zone at Corydon.

Uttlesford District Council

I3.18 In favour of the Regional option. However, support for the Regional option is on the basis that there are proven benefits to all Uttlesford rail users and not just those travelling to and from Stansted Airport. Whilst the Council has long campaigned for improved rail connections to the Airport and faster journey times to London, this would have to be done in a way that did not adversely affect rail services for non-airport travellers and commuters.

West Sussex County Council

I3.19 The Regional option for the Crossrail 2 scheme has the potential to address forecast capacity gaps on the South West Main Line into London Waterloo,

Consultation Report

Appendix I

significantly reduce pressure on the Brighton Main Line into London Victoria, as well as reduce pressure on the London Underground network. Support further development of this scheme. In particular, welcome the opportunities that may be created by the freeing up of capacity for train paths into London Waterloo, and the opportunities this may provide for additional long distance trains from the south coast, via the South West Main Line and potentially the Horsham-Dorking line.

Woking County Council

I3.20 Would like to see Crossrail 2 linked to Woking as it would benefit so many people and link well with the Heathrow rail air link-the impact of this would be fewer people at the main terminal stations.

I4 POLITICAL STAKEHOLDERS, MP’S GLA MEMBERS, COUNCILLORS

Barnet Labour Group

I4.1 Supports Crossrail 2 in principle, and the Regional option in terms of route, but is disappointed that the route will not be coming through Barnet.

I4.2 Strongly believe there is an economic case to be made for an extension from Alexandra Palace to either East Finchley or Finchley Central, in light of a number of factors including population growth and the potential for economic development in the Borough. There would be strong benefits for Enfield, Barnet and Harrow should an extension from Alexandra Palace be created through Barnet, including linking up with any orbital rail and the benefits that would also bring to Brent, Ealing and Hounslow.

Borough Councillor, Elmbridge Borough Council

I4.3 There is a clear need for greater rail capacity for commuters from North Surrey.

Caroline Pidgeon AM

I4.4 Express strong support for the proposed Crossrail 2 scheme. Out of the two options presented would favour the Regional option. Would like to fully understand what service level you would expect from South West London into Waterloo and what service level on the new Crossrail 2 route. There must be a significant increase in services for Londoners in this part of the capital for the project to move forward.

I4.5 In addition would like to see all stations on the Crossrail 2 line fully accessible from street to train. Would like to see some detailed consideration of adding an additional spur to Hackbridge.

I4.6 As a construction project Crossrail has made positive steps in cycle safety, employment of apprentices and supporting UK businesses. Would like to see the Crossrail 2 project build on this success and go even further.

Conservative Group of the London Borough of Merton

I4.7 Very much support the concept of Crossrail 2 and investment in local infrastructure in general. Believe that Transport for London and Network Rail should push ahead with the smaller Metro option initially as a major new service for Wimbledon, which is the borough’s principal transport hub. However, appreciate that the need to divert various existing lines from Surrey away from the

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Waterloo choke points on platforms 1 - 6 and to enable commuters to alight at other places along the new route is the reason that consideration is also being given to a second Regional option.

Cllr John Farebrother

I4.8 Use the existing rail route from Wimbledon via Tooting to Streatham Junction and then into Clapham Junction via Balham which could provide a half hour service. As a consequence this would bring improvements to the frequency of services between Wimbledon and Tooting. It may be possible then to consider building in addition a new station by St George's Hospital at the site of the Kenlor Road pedestrian footbridge bridge.

Councillor Keith Prince - London Borough of Redbridge

I4.9 There is a critical need to improve and upgrade the existing Central Line services, increase network capacity and improve connectivity for people living and working within the borough. As both the Metro and Regional options will bypass the borough, there will be no direct impact therefore our deliberations have been based on seeking maximum advantage and benefits through wider transport links and capacity. Consequently the borough supports the Regional option - as it offers greater capacity, suburban and regional services, and is considered to be better value for money. Although this would be conditional upon the Regional option including: A Spur or loop to Stratford station, Central Line enhancements that will partly compensate for Crossrail 2 no longer going through the borough.

Edmonton Constituency Labour Party

I4.10 Believes the Regional option makes the most sense for London as a whole, both for the flexibility of service options. Greatly encouraged by the incorporation of the Lea Valley main line into the route, as it dovetails with the proposed four tracking of that particular section of line, possibly link to Stansted Airport? Cause for concern is the fact that central Edmonton is bypassed by both routes. Would welcome the West Anglia Inner Suburban services to be included in the proposed route.

Epsom and Ewell Liberal Democrats

I4.11 Strongly supports this project which would bring the tube to our constituency. Should alleviate chronic overcrowding on Southwest Trains. Construction should immediately follow on from Crossrail 1, enabling expertise and experience to be maintained.

GLA Constituency of Merton & Wandsworth

I4.12 The Metro option is absolutely vital to relieve the current and expected pressure on London rail transport in the next 15 years. The Regional option should be constructed only on further evidence of need and should in no way delay the construction of the Metro option. There is no doubt that some need exists in SW London where the current main line services are badly congested, and there may be need in N London, but consideration of all this must not delay construction of the Metro option.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Guildford Borough Councillor Pirbright Ward

I4.13 The Regional option would provide additional capacity on the main lines to Southampton and Portsmouth which is desperately needed.

Islington Liberal Democrat Group

I4.14 Welcome wholeheartedly the latest versions of these proposals - the new Crossrail 2 line. Both the Regional and Metro options would create new, direct journey opportunities between north-east and south-west London with faster journey times and improved transport connections, as well as relieving overcrowded existing underground lines and buses into central London

I4.15 Do not consider it acceptable that Canonbury and Essex Road should have suddenly dropped off the map like this for no known reason. It was always planned to have a station at Essex Road on this line. Plans for a ventilation shaft in Rosemary Gardens should be dropped.

I4.16 Wish to object to these two aspects of the Crossrail 2 proposals.

Jennette Arnold OBE, AM

I4.17 Supports the Regional option. Would like to see a continuation of the close working relationships between all parties concerned.

Joanne McCartney AM

I4.18 Due to London’s growth, the request is to start work as soon as possible on Crossrail 2. Would like to express support for the Regional option in this consultation as it offers further capacity and connectivity in constituency. Urges that the branch via Tottenham Hale to Cheshunt must be considered as a core component of the plans as it will add to the wider regeneration of the area of the Upper Lee Valley and Tottenham, and will address issues of low employment and deprivation in the constituency.

I4.19 Crossrail 2 to stop at other stations along any route to maximise the benefits of the scheme to the highest number of people. Welcomes the branches to Alexandra Palace via Seven Sisters and to Cheshunt via Tottenham Hale. Consider Crossrail 2 to stop in Enfield rather than pass through the borough. would like to ensure that all Crossrail 2 stations, both existing and newly-created stations must be made fully accessible and provide step-free access from the street to the platform. John Biggs AM

I4.20 Disappointed that the option of a branch Eastwards through Newham and Barking and Dagenham, onwards to Grays, has been apparently ruled out. It is, after all, East London which is taking the greatest strain in regeneration.

London Assembly Transport Committee

I4.21 There is a strong case for a new SW-NE rail link. A Regional option would have the greatest benefits for Londoners in the long term. The Committee and other stakeholders would welcome further information about the data behind TfL’s route options analysis for Crossrail 2. Securing a funding package for Crossrail 2 is its most significant challenge and we welcome the announcement of central funding for a feasibility study to examine funding options.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

London Councils

I4.22 Welcomes the joint consultation on Transport for London (TfL) and Network Rail’s options for Crossrail 2. Of the two options defined in the current consultation, considers that the Regional option offers greater potential for increased connectivity. Requested a review of the routes to link with the London Airports and requested that the eastern branch to Stratford is re-evaluated. Recognised benefits to people outside of London, especially the Lea Valley. However, raised concerns about passengers not benefiting now on the Central line.

I4.23 Requests were made to serve stations along the WAML as well as investigating stations to Sutton and serving Imperial Wharf. Highlighted that a funding package would be a priority, as well as establishing the full impact on National Rail services and level crossing impacts need to be confirmed.

The Merton Green Party

I4.24 Support the encouragement of using more public transport. However do have concerns how this will affect the congestion of the road around Wimbledon, and whether there will be allowance for bike users to park their bikes in the area around the station. With Wimbledon's current transport infrastructure, feel that there must be careful consideration in how we can encourage individuals to use other means than cars to reach Wimbledon station

Streatham Hill councillor

I4.25 The need in south London for a new Tube line is south through Lambeth to Streatham, not south west to stations already served by the Overground or Underground.

Streatham Liberal Democrats

I4.26 Neither of the proposed routes for Crossrail 2 reflects the right priorities for the growing population of London, and particularly of South London. An underground extension directly south of Central London, to Streatham, is long overdue. Links to the West End from Streatham are at present very poor, with the only direct route being by bus on the 159. This takes approximately an hour from Streatham to Oxford Circus. Crossrail 2 as presently envisaged could be designed to radically reduce this journey time by stopping in Streatham without unduly impacting on the rest of the planned route.

Sadiq Khan MP

I4.27 Crossrail 2 is welcomed as it would help crowding at Tooting Broadway. Concerns raised about the service pattern at Earlsfield Station. Also requested that disruption when constructions takes place is considered on the local areas.

Ward Member, Bramley and Sherfield, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

I4.28 Believe that the Southern terminus should be outside of London perhaps in Basingstoke (or Fleet or Woking). In addition, looking at the demographic of people commuting in from the SW, it would make more sense for the line to run through to the City of London - perhaps linking into Bank or Moorgate? From here it could travel north to Kings Cross St Pancras to link with HS1 - improving connectivity to HS1 for the south of England and for the City.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

I5 BUSINESS GROUPS

Camden Town Unlimited

I5.1 Fully support the principle of Crossrail 2. Welcomes Crossrail 2 and urges Transport for London to progress this scheme as quickly as possible. sees value in both options. However given the position and current status of Camden Town we see greater value in the Regional option.

Centre Point Tower Almacantar

I5.2 Broadly support the introduction of Crossrail 2 with a new station at Tottenham Court Road. It will make significant improvements to the accessibility of the area from the south-west and north-east of London and beyond and will provide substantial additional capacity to the West End and the eastern end of Oxford Street in particular. In terms of Metro option vs Regional option, have no strong views but consider that if the Metro option is selected then the design and construction should facilitate later construction of the Regional option if practicable.

Coast to Capital LEP

I5.3 Supports the Regional option as it improves connectivity of the LEP area with London, contributes to the development of new jobs and supports long term development plans within the LEP.

Cubitt Artists [ www.cubittartists.org.uk ]

I5.4 Concerned that the old industrial space occupied (under a 10 year lease, with 8 years to run) could be at risk of acquisition by Crossrail 2 as part of its construction operations.

The Directors Guild Trust

I5.5 Strongly supports Crossrail 2. The proposed Regional option gives wider access to our place of work.

The Enterprise M3 Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

I5.6 Strongly supports the Regional option for Crossrail 2. The Regional option would generate considerably greater benefits and connectivity improvements than the Metro option for the Enterprise M3 LEP area. The Regional option has the potential to meet a large proportion of the forecast future demand for rail capacity on much of the suburban network – both inner and outer suburban services running into London Waterloo.

Essex Chambers of Commerce

I5.7 The Regional option offers the best solution for Essex residents and businesses by providing a direct link to the West End and beyond. The provision of a branch to the Upper Lea Valley also offers opportunities to improve connections to Stansted Airport which is a major economic driver for growth in west Essex and east Hertfordshire. A pre-requisite for Crossrail 2 is four tracking of the Lea Valley Main Line via Tottenham Hale and this should be a priority for delivery as soon as possible and this should be completed before construction of Crossrail 2 starts in the 2020's. Crossrail 2 should serve Stratford. Whilst welcoming the commitment

Consultation Report

Appendix I

by the Government to provide £2m funding for development work on Crossrail 2, are concerned that there does not appear to be any further commitment over and above that by them. A priority therefore must be to obtain a further large scale commitment from them to be able to take the project forward.

Federation of Small Business, Central London Branch and Central London Translations Ltd

I5.8 Much better idea than HS2! The longer the line the better/ In the image of the Thameslink.

The King’s Road Trade Association

I5.9 Agree with the idea of Crossrail 2 in principal. Strongly oppose a Station on the King's Road, Chelsea at the Fire Station/Dove House Green site. Dovehouse Green is a vital open space. Are concerned that if the development of this went ahead would lose the Farmers Market behind and other independent businesses in the area. The King’s Road station would be better located further down the road, however, the architecture of the building should reflect that of the Chelsea area, and be iconic.

Kingston First Business Improvement District (BID)

I5.10 Fully supports the Regional option as it offers many more benefits over the Metro option. Destinations further afield, such as Woking, Basingstoke, Southampton and Portsmouth, will be indirect beneficiaries. Strongly encourage the Mayor to opt for the Crossrail 2 Regional option following this consultation. Future safeguarding should be on the basis of the Regional option. Note the limited information provided at this stage on precise Regional options and service patterns in both the SW and NE, and would encourage TfL and Network Rail to set out a greater level of detail on the potential direct and indirect benefits of the Crossrail 2 Regional option before the end of the year.

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)

I5.11 Support Crossrail 2. Welcomes the government funding for the project. Sees major benefits for Waterloo and supports the expansion of Euston to link with HS2. Would like to see Stansted investigated as a destination. Would like to see construction begin straight after Crossrail 1 is complete, so no expertise is lost in the industry.

London Federation of Small Businesses

I5.12 Fully supports the Crossrail 2 project and recognises that in addition to helping London's transport network keep pace with growth, Crossrail 2 would offer benefits to local residents and businesses by offering more direct, fast, frequent services that are not available at present. Passengers would have new travel choices to avoid crowded transport interchanges. Recommends the Regional option which combines underground and Overground railway linking to the Metro option. This potentially offers greater benefits terms of capacity and geographical coverage. It would also release pressure on National Rail lines into Waterloo and King's Cross St Pancras, by diverting some suburban trains onto Crossrail

I5.13 There should be no move to excessively burden small businesses at a time of increasing economic pressures and when small business are dependent on their vehicle for essential business journeys. Congestion in key bottlenecks across

Consultation Report

Appendix I

London already frequently results in delays costing small businesses time and money.

London First

I5.14 Offers strong support for the project and the Regional option as this offers better value for money. Sets out benefits for people living outside of London. They also welcome the updating of the current safeguarded route. Welcomes the money from government and thinks the financial package is now a priority for the project.

London Forum of Civic & Amenity Societies

I5.15 Felt that the consultation was asking the wrong question. Hackney-Chelsea has been needed since 1991 and nothing has been published to undermine the case for a station serving King’s Cross. Feels TfL do a disservice in linking the scheme to HS2 as it is needed even if HS2 does not happen or does not come to Euston. The original scheme includes a station at Essex Road. Essex Road and Walworth Road have the highest volume of bus passengers in London. As well as serving a huge community in its own right, an Essex Road station would open up this line giving two services for the cost of one. Prefer the Metro option because all our experience of overcrowding is that it is predominantly on relatively short distance services. The extensions might be added later.

North London Area

I5.16 Strongly in favour of the Metro Crossrail 2 option. Strongly support the extension to Alexandra Palace as this area very much needs stronger and quicker transport links in to central London. However, would also like to ask if you would consider building a cross rail station in Crouch End or Muswell Hill the area of the old Northern Heights line that used to run from Finsbury park through to Alexandra palace via Crouch End! Cranley Gardens and Muswell Hill.

The Solent Local Enterprise Partnership

I5.17 Broadly support the Regional option proposals over the Metro option proposals as there is greater potential for this option to free-up mainline pathways and so have the potential for the Solent area to realise improved journey time and frequency of service into London. However, will be interested to see detailed work to evidence the scale of benefits, particularly for longer distance trains on the South West Main Line. It is unlikely that the scale of benefits will be sufficient to cater for forecast growth on this route and therefore, urge Network Rail to consider a more comprehensive capacity solution to address the forecast capacity shortfall into Waterloo from on the South West Main Line.

South London Partnership

I5.18 Fully supports the Crossrail 2 project. While Metro option will advance the south London strategic travel objectives and therefore has general support from the Partnership believe that greatest benefits to our sub-region and to London is through implementing the Regional option. Prime support for the Regional option is based on the following key benefits: Improved accessibility, frequencies and capacity for our key metropolitan centres. Economic benefits derived from improved access to employment (inbound and outbound), education, healthcare, retail and leisure.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Surrey Leaders Group

I5.19 While fully supporting the Crossrail 2 Regional option, would expect to see a positive impact overall on rail journey times, service frequency and journey opportunities to Central London from all stations in Surrey as a result of Crossrail 2. We would not want an improved service in parts of the county to come at the expense of services to another. Further, improvements to signalling and level crossing management would be needed to ensure that level crossing downtimes do not impact on road congestion and air quality in certain areas. Would also expect engagement with Network Rail and Transport for London in the assessment of route options, train pathing and stopping patterns, including decision making on which Surrey stations should receive a direct Crossrail 2 service.

Victoria Business Improvement District

I5.20 Would like to express its support to the planned rail scheme. Are of the opinion that the proposed Crossrail 2 line will have a significant positive impact on both Victoria’s future economic growth and relief of Victoria’s transport hub overcrowding. The new route would alleviate crowding on the London transport network, especially on the London Underground Victoria and National Rail, thereby improving transport capacity and supporting Victoria’s growth and economic prosperity.

Welcome to Fleet

I5.21 Strongly supports Crossrail 2. Would like to see the southern lines extend to areas such as Woking, Guildford and Farnborough. Services to Hampshire and Surrey would be beneficial as huge commuter towns are based here.

I6 RESIDENT / COMMUNITY GROUPS

Alexandra Park and Palace Charitable Trust

I6.1 Supports the Regional option. In line with London Plan policies, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the London Borough of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies document, the Regional option will support local and strategic access to London improving the range of transport options serving Alexandra Park and Palace. Essential to the delivery of the London Plan’s wider strategic objectives, CR2 Regional option proposal will deliver a wide range of benefits to both Alexandra Park and Palace and the wider Borough. The Community Ward of Tottenham/South Tottenham

I6.2 Strongly support Crossrail 2. Favours the Metro option and strongly opposes the Regional option. The Tottenham area is greatly in need of regeneration. Seven Sisters, and the West Green Road area need further transportation links to bring in better businesses and working citizens who travel to central London.

Croydon Old Town

I6.3 Why hasn't Croydon got a station on the map?

Culverley Green Residents Association

I6.4 This further network would seem to benefit only a narrow corridor within the larger metropolis. The south-east sector of London especially is lacking in such infrastructure with only remote possibilities of extending the DLR or underground.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Dalkeith Court Residents Association

I6.5 Cannot support this apparent waste of public monies on a scheme which links nobody new to rail other than the richest residents in England. Currently at least the rail termini at Victoria, Waterloo and St Pancras limit the numbers capable of squeezing onto the Underground. Air condition the whole of LUL first please, that is what is required.

De Beauvoir Community

I6.6 This is a great opportunity and it will benefit many people

Dovehouse St. Residents' Association

I6.7 Strongly oppose the proposed location for the King's Road Station. The Dovehouse Street/Green area is already very well served by public transport. If there is to be a station on King's Road, it would be much more sensible to locate it further west. A still better option would be the "Battersea option," i.e. to route the entire Crossrail2 line closer to the Thames viz. Victoria/Battersea/Clapham Junction.

Earlsfield Community Centre

I6.8 Crossrail 2 should stop at Earlsfield.

Friends of Argyle Square

I6.9 Sought more information regarding the station proposal for Euston St Pancras. Without more details cannot properly reply to this consultation.

Jam Factory Residents Association

I6.10 Regional option preferred as it provides far wider benefits in terms of additional capacity. The Regional option trains should be 12 car, not 10 car. Link Stansted Airport is an obvious opportunity. Development programme is far too slow - i.e. 2018 or 5 years just to get to the stage of submission of the formal request for powers. Crossrail 2 should start construction in 2018 - when Crossrail 1 is completed in order to use the knowledge gained by design and construction teams working in Crossrail 1.

Kingston Federation of Residents Limited

I6.11 For Kingston to reach its economic potential, it desperately needs vastly improved (i.e. faster, more frequent) rail connectivity with central London. Only the Regional option for Crossrail 2 can achieve this.

Kingston upon Thames Society

I6.12 Strong support for the Regional option for Crossrail 2. The London Plan confirmed Kingston ’s strategic importance as a Metropolitan Centre however our transport links are poor.

London Community Learning Trust

I6.13 The Metro option is essentially of benefit to commuters. The Region option is much preferable as it both benefits commuters and will improve prospects for employment and business. This is especially in the Lea Valley on the extension to Cheshunt where there is a considerable amount of industry. It will promote decentralisation of commerce and industry, thus reducing congestion in the centre of London. With the Regional option envisage trains being full in both directions

Consultation Report

Appendix I

during peak times. it thus represents much better value for money and a better investment in the future.

London Italian West Jehovah’s Witnesses Congregation

I6.14 Perfectly placed for the south west of London will connect three of the busiest node of the area Wimbledon Tooting Broadway and Clapham Junction. Surprisingly not done before! Well done.

Mill Street Residents' Association

I6.15 Must have CR2 linking Kingston to central London and beyond. Kingston suffers with lack of fast direct routes into London compared to the likes of Surbiton, Richmond and Wimbledon.

Peabody Estate Residents

I6.16 The station linking Clapham Junction and Victoria should not be situated at Kings Road. Should be at Battersea Bridge/Grosvenor Road junction and combined with a river boat stopping and bus stops.

People who live in Kingston Upon Thames

I6.17 Need better services for Kingston.

Raynes Park & West Barnes Residents' Association

I6.18 The Regional option is our preferred option as it provides a direct link for our residents, businesses and visitors, avoiding the need to interchange at Wimbledon station. Would recommend, however, that the following points be taken into account during the early design work. A single, very clear objective must be established to ensure that no local stations are left worse off with Crossrail 2. In our local area, would ask that the Crossrail 2 route includes a station stop at Raynes Park, as it is not clear whether this is currently the case. For the Regional option, strongly recommend that early consideration be given to resolving and removing key local pinch points. In the Motspur Park (West Barnes) area, there are two at-grade level crossings close to the existing station. Rhodes Estate Tenants and Residents Association

I6.19 Need a station between Dalston Junction and Seven Sisters please.

Richmond Upon Thames residents and local business collective

I6.20 Option 2 would be the best option available because it reaches out to regional areas of greater London such as |Twickenham that don't have access to Underground frequency trains into various parts of central London. Equally it would give travellers from the nearby Heathrow airport an alternative route into the city, reducing strain on the existing routes. An additional option would be to include Richmond station which has the connecting option of the District line and also shares good proximity to the airport.

Roehampton Villagers (RoVers)

I6.21 Although support the principle, only utilising existing train stations in SW London. This could be an ideal opportunity to widen connectivity by creating new and much-needed train stations in largely populated areas in SW London which are not currently serviced by any train service at all. i.e. ROEHAMPTON. This would be a stop between Tooting and Wimbledon marginally to the west.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

St Margarets Community Website

I6.22 Linking Twickenham in would make getting to North London a lot easier as well as make going to Stansted much easier.

Stokenewington.info

I6.23 Need a Crossrail station at Stoke Newington.

The Teddington Society

I6.24 There is a need to increase South West Train services from Shepperton to Waterloo via Wimbledon and to Waterloo via Richmond to four trains per hour rather than two. Believe that Twickenham Station should be a key transport super hub for South and Southwest London. The upgrade of platforms 1 and 2 and linked tracks are absolutely essential. Why not start Crossrail 2 from Heathrow? As Crossrail 2 has almost started with a blank canvas, were more than a little surprised at the lack of proposals for the provision of a rail link from South and Southwest London to Heathrow. Such a link, plus a direct rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick, would significantly reduce traffic volumes, congestion, and air pollution all across London south of the Thames.

Wandsworth Society

I6.25 Broadly supports Crossrail 2, concerns over whether surface will be lost at Wandsworth Common.

West London Residents Association

I6.26 The eastern end of the Kings Road is already well served by public transport. A station at Worlds End and Lots Rd, where major residential developments will go ahead would be more beneficial to the whole area including Chelsea Harbour.

The Wimbledon Society

I6.27 Not able to comment on the merits or otherwise of the level of investment in this type of major infrastructure, as compared to say the same level of investment in other forms of transport improvement: but supports increased transport investment in principle. However, would expect Wimbledon station to be rebuilt to accommodate the increased passenger usage.

I7 ACCESSIBILITY GROUPS

Action Disability Kensington & Chelsea

I7.1 Support expressed is subject to further access information. Full support of the proposal would require guarantees, including ring-fenced funding, that ALL stations would have step free access and that all lifts or other step free installations, real time service information and on-train announcements would be adapted for blind and deaf passengers. In addition there would need to be guarantees of equivalent station entry - to- station exit journey times for disabled passengers including adapted signage, access to platform level assistance and interchange routes at key stations and for onward travel by National Rail.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign Trailblazers

I7.2 Full wheelchair access to the carriages is vital. Disabled access is crucial for future generations, families and the elderly. Inclusive access should be built into the planning at this early stage to ensure platforms and carriages are level, lifts are used where possible. Having level platforms rather than portable ramps reduces dwell time cuts costs and improves efficiency in the long run.

Transport for All

I7.3 It is of the upmost importance that all Crossrail2 stations to be fully accessible to disabled and older people from the start in terms of access to platform. As Crossrail2 will involve new rolling stock, this is an opportunity to make train carriages as accessible as possible.

I8 TRANSPORT/PASSENGER GROUPS

Association of County Transport Officers

I8.1 Would underline need for sustained public transport investment; especially where not only is Greater London is better provided for, but the importance of the outer London Authorities is comprehensively recognised. The "journey to work" area for London includes the Home Counties; thus the Regional option may be the best. Check the operational robustness of such a project. it may be useful to look at the route in relation to the extension of the Mayor's forthcoming control of Anglia's suburban services. Co-ordinating these with the finally agreed route of Crossrail is essential. The style of Crossrail 2 services, which ever option is determined is probably unsuited to the "long haul" out to Stansted Airport.

ATOC

I8.2 Believe that developing the proposition can assist in provision for much-needed additional capacity as set out by TfL. Believe that the proposals can benefit from more detailed and objective analyses of the best options for passengers overall in terms of the ultimate origin and destination of services. These should incorporate transparent demand forecasting and collaborative engagement with train operators, which will support detailed engineering and operational planning.

I8.3 It is expected the central area operation, at least, would be automatically operated to maximise available capacity and performance. This does raise significant consequential concerns around potential changes to the profile and volume of interchanging passengers at already-busy stations such as Clapham Junction and Victoria. As the project develops, recognise that a holistic approach to planning operations, engineering and depot strategy will need to be in place, integrated with wider rail industry planning processes, which will need to address this point.

Battersea Bus Users Group or B/BUG

I8.4 Underground railway sidings (Proposed under Battersea Park), will ruin the look of the surface views if Airshafts and emergency fire access points are built within the park. Alternatively: Short branch-line into SW8, to area under the present Dickens Street coach and train sheds, could provide additional central rail facilities for Crossrail 2. With a carriage lifting shaft like at Lambeth North, above ground maintenance sheds, and extra staff accommodation.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Campaign for Better Transport London group

I8.5 The Metro option would only relieve congestion in the short term and not leave room for expansion. It also excludes Hackney the serving of which was one of the drivers of the scheme. The Regional option would answer a lot of issues including relieving Waterloo and enabling south west suburban commuters to travel into central London without changing and also contributing to the development of the Lea Valley. It would of course add to the pressure for four-tracking the Lea Valley with its problems about level crossing elimination.

Clapham Transport Users Group

I8.6 Made several requests for Crossrail 2 to serve “overcrowded” stations at Clapham North, Clapham Common as we ll as requesting the route to serve Streatham. These requests were on the basis of crowded stations and trains on the Northern and Victoria Lines.

Haringey Cycling Campaign

I8.7 Regional option looks better connected to National Rail so useful for wider range of work/leisure travel, similar in concept to London Overground. London Overground's policy on cycle parking and access to stations and trains is excellent and should be followed as an example of good practice for Crossrail 2.

London TravelWatch

I8.8 Fully supports Crossrail 2 and the Regional option would seem to offer better value for money. Requests that the station at Kings Road is reviewed, to make sure this station offers value for money. Would like to see more detailed working on the Clapham Junction Tooting part of the route carried out. Requests that a station of link to Stansted Airport is considered. Request that the project is not delivered to the detriment of other major transport projects.

Railfuture, London & South East regional branch

I8.9 In the south-west, widening to five or six tracks between Hampton Court Junction and Wimbledon, and grade separation at Woking Junction, will be necessary to provide additional capacity for the main line services from beyond Hampton Court and Surbiton. Earlsfield currently has an 18tph service during the peak, which is why it has a tube-style footfall of 5.4m pa. When some of the slow line trains are diverted to Crossrail2, either the frequency will drop (and so the station will lose its attractiveness) or more likely services from further out will be diverted to the slow lines to maintain the frequency and use the capacity, which will significantly slow down these services from eg Woking, Guildford, Farnham and Basingstoke. The number of destinations seems to have dropped from 5 to 3 without any explanation. Is the idea to terminate some trains at Wimbledon or Clapham Junction, and perhaps to project them over the Brighton or Sutton lines later? Crossrail 2 will free up paths for southern access to Heathrow from Waterloo via Twickenham and Staines by breaking the Kingston loop at Twickenham. In the centre, Euston St. Pancras should take seriously the prospect of Euston Cross.

Stagecoach – SWT

I8.10 Raised concerns regarding the franchise and requested that it would need to change. The service patterns would need to dovetail with SWT. Requested

Consultation Report

Appendix I

information on depot locations. Also, requested that the six track still happens on the network.

Surrey Connects

I8.11 Strongly supports Crossrail 2. Strongly advocates the Regional option as the scheme most likely to boost economic growth and benefit residents and business in Surrey and beyond. This support is conditional on the assessment of route options. Surrey would expect to see a positive impact overall on rail journey times, service frequency and journey opportunities to Central London from all stations in Surrey as a result of Crossrail 2. Would not want improved services in parts of the county to come at the expense of services to another. Further, improvements to signalling and level crossing management would be needed to ensure that level crossing downtimes do not impact on road congestion and air quality in certain areas, which has been developed with the active involvement of the Partnership.

Transport for South Hampshire and Isle of Wight

I8.12 Broadly support the Regional option proposals over the Metro option proposals as they would generate greater benefits and connectivity improvements to the South Hampshire area. However, will be interested to see detailed work to evidence the scale of benefits, particularly for longer distance trains from on the SWML. It is likely that the scale of benefits will be significantly insufficient to cater for forecast growth and therefore, urge Network Rail to consider a more comprehensive capacity solution.

TRAG

I8.13 Supports Metro option and opposes Regional.

West Anglia Rail Group (WARG)

I8.14 Supportive of Crossrail 2 because it adds capacity across the network, relieves pressure on key lines and supports growth and regeneration along several corridors. In terms of the proposed options, the Regional alignment offers increased capacity and improved connectivity, particularly in Hackney which currently does not have a station on the Underground network. There would be wider regeneration benefits along the Upper Lee Valley, which as the largest growth area in London, encompasses the major growth site of Meridian Water and the key regeneration location of Tottenham.

Windsor Lines Passenger Association

I8.15 Broadly supports Crossrail 2 and the Regional option. Crossrail 2 stopping at Twickenham would mean that there would be a better frequency from Twickenham to Teddington. However, Twickenham station will need a total rebuild to accommodate terminating trains both from the Kingston direction (Crossrail) and from London via Richmond (ex. Kingston loop trains).

I9 ENVIRONMENT / AVIATION

Canal & River Trust

I9.1 Preferred option is the Regional option. The level of detail is limited at this early stage of the consultation exercise Crossrail 2 Route 2, and connecting Crossrail 2 with the West Anglia Main Line at Tottenham Hale, is essential for Tottenham and

Consultation Report

Appendix I

the Upper Lee Valley to be able to deliver their full growth potential. Request work is done to investigate the service to Stansted Airport.

English Heritage

I9.2 The construction of Crossrail 2 has for potential for a range impacts on the historic environment which we would expect to be fully identified and assessed in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA).It will be crucial that the proposed station locations are established following a comprehensive assessment of historic significance, sensitivities and threats. It is essential that the Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report does scope accurately the potential archaeological impacts of the scheme so that the ES identifies and addresses all potentially significant effects.

I9.3 Once the station locations are known, would expect the EIA consultants to look at the locations in far greater detail adding additional data. This would include study of historic maps, existing impacts, geological and topographic factors, setting and our knowledge of the general spatial distribution of archaeological assets across the landscape. A list of buildings to be taken in to consideration when building/construction planning needs to be taken in to account was also provided.

Environment Agency

I9.4 Do not have an opinion on either option.

London City Airport

I9.5 The Regional option simply allows more people easier access to Central London.

London Luton Airport

I9.6 Supports the existing proposals for Crossrail 2 and would like to emphasise the necessity of an efficient interchange at Euston St Pancras to St Pancras International which satisfies the different wants and needs of air passengers as well as commuters. A 24/7 train service to support journey opportunities and connectivity for users of the all-night Thameslink services.

London Wildlife Trust

I9.7 Generally support the principle of Crossrail 2 of encouraging passenger traffic off the roads in London, which should provide longer-term environmental benefits for the city. One issue of concern will be the impacts of construction, and where the spoil from tunnelling will be deposited. The northern tunnel exit of the Regional option, by Coppermill Junction, is right by two Sites of Special Scientific Interest including Walthamstow Reservoirs, internationally important for their bird populations. Would encourage that any ecological impacts on the construction of Crossrail 2 should be mitigated (and/or compensated) through appropriate biodiversity gains - not only at these sites, but potentially other sites on the above ground route - within London.

M.A.G/Stansted Airport Limited

I9.8 Set out their vision for Stansted Airport and requests that the Regional option serves Stansted Airport.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

Natural England

I9.9 Requested that more work needs to be done and published so the benefits and costs and impacts could be fully assessed. Requests that Environmental Impact Assessments are carried out and at all times, consideration is given to the environment.

Radlett Society & Green Belt Association

I9.10 If a Metro extension to Alexandra Palace were built it should use the surface corridor from Highgate and serve Highgate and Muswell Hill. Then to Crouch End and Stroud Green on existing sites. New Interchange at Finsbury Park and presumably new TBM route to Dalston Junction and onwards to Angel and HS2.

Wandsworth Living Streets

I9.11 Strongly supports the principle of Crossrail 2. Want this new line built as quickly as possible. London needs it.

I10 INVESTMENT/PROPERTY

Battersea Project Land Company (BPLC)

I10.1 Would like to see the Battersea area served.

Future Planning and Development Town Planning Consultancy on behalf of Grainger PLC

I10.2 Fully support Crossrail 2, particularly the proposals contained within “Route 2. Regional option”. A commitment to delivering Crossrail 2 Route 2. Regional option will further cement the fundamental perception change that is driving investment and regeneration in Tottenham and will play a key part in realising the ambitions to transform Tottenham.

I10.3 Believe that there is no credible alternative to Crossrail 2 and conclude that there is a very strong case for Route 2 in terms of improving connectivity, capacity, supporting growth and regeneration and providing the best return on investment.

Hermes Real Estate Investment Management Ltd

I10.4 Fully support Crossrall 2, particularly the proposals contained within “Route 2. Regional option”

Land Securities Group PLC

I10.5 Strongly supports the delivery of Crossrail 2.It is necessary to meet the shortfall identified in the “Summary of Option Development” document. Crossrail 2 would significantly increase capacity and improve services on some of the most crowded sections of the Underground network It would relieve the entirety of the Victoria line, and much of the Northern and Piccadilly lines, shorter journey times into central London. Destinations further afield, Hampshire and Surrey will be indirect beneficiaries. Crossrail 2 would also provide vital new connectivity for Islington, Hackney, Tottenham and the Lee Valley in north-east London. It would help drive regeneration in these areas. A single Crossrail 2 station should serve Euston, King’s Cross and St Pancras, with below surface connections to all three. Links to HS1, Strongly supports the Regional option of Crossrail 2. The Regional option represents value for money when compared to the Metro option. The Regional

Consultation Report

Appendix I

option effectively captures the maximum benefit from the disruption that either scheme would incur on workers, residents and businesses in Central London.

Lee Valley Estates

I10.6 Fully support Crossrail 2 in particular the Regional option as believe that this will deliver the greatest contribution to supporting economic growth, new housing opportunities and regeneration in London and Upper Lee Valley and Tottenham.

Retained Advisor to Trustees of the Evelyn Estate

I10.7 Concern and opposition to proposals (albeit not yet confirmed) for the compulsory acquisition of all or part of the Estate's properties to facilitate below ground works.

Tottenham Land Owners

I10.8 Fully supports Crossrail 2 in particular the proposals contained within the Regional option. Believe that this will deliver the greatest contribution to supporting economic growth, new housing opportunities and regeneration in London and Upper Lee Valley and Tottenham.

I11 ENGINEERING

Association for Consultancy and Engineering

I11.1 ACE does not feel it is the organisation position to preference on route over the other. ACE recognise benefits of both options, the Metro option being cheaper owing to limited scope, route length. Although, the Regional option benefits many more areas and people by providing better connectivity

I11.2 Ace further welcomed the funding announced from central government to help establish a funding package for the project which is listed as a key thing to get right.

The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)

I11.3 Strongly supports the principle of Crossrail 2, to serve and underpin anticipated population and economic growth in London over future decades the Regional option is our preferred choice. Recommend that further route development work is undertaken on the Metro option to optimise the route and understand the real benefits case as a standalone scheme, rather than being treated simply as a truncated version of the Regional option.

I11.4 Crossrail 2 should complement existing commuter services and would like to see clear objectives set to ensure that the impact of Crossrail 2 on communities around existing stations is not detrimental, particularly in relation to commuter service frequency

I11.5 It seems likely that the Mayor may need to consider innovative funding mechanisms for the scheme, particularly if it is to be delivered quickly

I11.6 Recommend that early consideration be given to resolving issues of level crossing delays.

Consultation Report

Appendix I

I12 EDUCATION

City University London

I12.1 Supports the principle of Crossrail 2 and views it as a very positive initiative aimed at partially addressing some of London and the South East’s future transport challenges. Strongly supports the Crossrail 2 Regional option for many of the reasons set out in London First’s response to TfL’s consultation and, specifically, because it provides access for our students and staff from a wider geographical area to the main site close to Angel. Is neutral about the Metro option because, in terms of making a choice between the two options, it has a strong preference for the Regional option. However, City University London believes there are benefits attached to both options since either would allow greater access to central London from some of the relatively affordable areas within London’s northern suburbs as well as improved access to the regions.

Goldsmiths Student Union

I12.2 Regional option over the Metro option possibly ending at Stansted. More stations in underserved Hackney, maybe one in Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill.

Kingston University

I12.3 Strong preference would be for the Regional option. This would dramatically improve access to central London for those living in south-west London. At peak times, the current SW Trains are congested and some routes are poorly served. Furthermore many journeys involve changing at Waterloo for underground trains

London Mandarin School

I12.4 Build as soon as possible

University of Roehampton Business Club

I12.5 Strongly supports Crossrail 2. Disappointed that the proposals do not include Roehampton. Would like to see an underground line that goes across Roehampton that would cut down on the journey times to further areas in the South West. Currently Roehampton is the only University in the Wandsworth Borough and would deem it appropriate if the proposals took into account a station that would open up Roehampton areas to the rest of London.

The Urswick School

I12.6 Strongly support Crossrail 2 and the Regional option. Hackney Central along with most of the east end has historically suffered from a direct rail link to central London or the west end. The Overground is overcrowded now and does not run directly into central London. Liverpool Street is handy for the city but not much use for more central destinations.

I13 OTHER

The All England Lawn Tennis Club

I13.1 Fully supports the recently published Crossrail 2 proposals and is supportive of both the Regional and Metro options. The Crossrail 2 proposals would halve the journey time from Wimbledon to some parts of London such as Euston. This is seen

Consultation Report

Appendix I

as a significant benefit for all users of the Club and in particular visitors to the Championships.

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA)

I13.2 Generally supportive of Crossrail 2. Welcomes a full review of the safeguarded route.

Tottenham Hotspur Football & Athletic Co Ltd

I13.3 Support the principles of Crossrail 2 and in particular, the proposals contained within the Regional option as we believe it will provide another strategic and high quality connection into this part of North London. It will deliver the greatest contribution to support economic growth, new housing opportunities and regeneration across Tottenham, the Upper Lee Valley and London.

TSSA

I13.4 Fully supports plans to develop Euston as a transport hub. The Regional option is our preferred option, offering two northern access points and three southern, this will help reduce interchange congestion and increase access.

The White Ribbon Alliance for Safe Motherhood

I13.5 Strongly supports Crossrail 2. A high frequency service for central London is the most important thing - so that between Wimbledon and Seven Sisters they are frequent enough to just turn up and wait. Trains have to be at least every 5 minutes or so to get to this level of dependability. Additional integration of Regional option is very positive, but if it means frequency of trains is higher than this Metro has to be better.

crossrail 2 - tfl consultations · 2014. 10. 28. · crossrail 2 . consultation report . report ....

Documents