tramlink dingall road loop extension · 1.2 passenger demand for trams is anticipated to grow from...

Tramlink Dingall Road Loop extension 2015 Public Consultation report

Tramlink

Dingwall Road Loop extension

Published April 2015

Contents

1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 4

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 6

3 Background to the scheme ......................................................................................... 7

4 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 8

Scope of consultation......................................................................................................... 8

Outside the scope of this consultation ................................................................................ 8

Consultation objectives ...................................................................................................... 8

Consultation tools .............................................................................................................. 9

The online survey and questionnaire ................................................................................. 9

5 Overview of consultation responses .......................................................................... 10

Who responded? ............................................................................................................. 10

Number of public responses ............................................................................................ 10

Geography of respondents............................................................................................... 10

How did they hear about the consultation? ...................................................................... 13

6 Analysis of responses from the general public .......................................................... 13

Question 6 ....................................................................................................................... 13

Analysis of the open question sections of questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 .................................. 15

Question 7 ....................................................................................................................... 16

Question 8 ....................................................................................................................... 18

Question 9 ....................................................................................................................... 20

Question 10 ..................................................................................................................... 22

7 Responses from stakeholders ................................................................................... 23

8 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 25

9 Next steps ................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix A – Comments for questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 ......................................................... 26

Appendix B – Consultation leaflet ........................................................................................ 34

Appendix C – Consultation letter ......................................................................................... 39

Appendix D – Consultation letter distribution area ............................................................... 40

Appendix F – Scheme update on TfL Twitter feed ............................................................... 42

Appendix G – List of stakeholder contacted ......................................................................... 43

Appendix H – Answers to questions raised .......................................................................... 46

4

1 Executive Summary 1.1 In 2014 Transport for London (TfL) conducted a six week public consultation on the

proposal to extend the tram network in Croydon, by building a new loop in the town centre. The consultation asked for comments on the principle of an extension and on three possible route options. It ran from 3 November to 14 December 2014.

1.2 Passenger demand for trams is anticipated to grow from 31 million journeys in

2013/14 towards nearly 60 million journeys by 2031. A new loop would enable additional trams to be run to Dingwall Road from the east while avoiding the existing town centre loop, which is the most congested part of the network. This would help maintain current service and reliability levels as and when more trams are added to the network. Further information on our long term planning is available in our information paper “Trams 2030” which is published with this report.

1.3 Members of the public and stakeholders were invited to give their views either by filling in the questionnaire online or by responding via post or email. The proposals could also be viewed and commented upon at two consultation events. Paper copies of the consultation were available on request, together with the questionnaire. Both were also available on request in alternative formats such as large print, audio or another language.

1.4 The consultation was supported by a marketing campaign:

1,500 letters were distributed to addresses around Dingwall Road

35,000 emails were sent to Oyster users who use the tram and who had signed up for service updates

Letters and emails were sent to local, London wide and national stakeholders

Public displays of the information at Croydon Central Library and the Tram Shop during the consultation period.

Face to face distribution of 6000 consultation leaflets on trams

Updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the consultation and the roadshow events

1.5 The questions were structured to provide TfL with an understanding of the level of support in principle and to understand whether they had a preferred option:

In principle, do you support a new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity?

Please give us your views on option one

Please give us your views on option two

Please give us your views on option three

We also asked four follow up questions, three of which asked respondents to elaborate on previous answers on the different route options, with the fourth inviting any further general comments.

1.6 The consultation generated 554 written responses. 545 responses came from members of the public and 9 came from stakeholders. Support for the scheme was high; with 390 members of the public (72%) stating that in principle they support a

5

new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity. 93 respondents (17%) stated that they do not support the proposal.

1.7 Option 1 was the preferred option with consultees, with 306 (56%) respondents

either supporting or strongly supporting an extension and 144 (26%) opposing or strongly opposing. A breakdown of results for options 1, 2 and 3 is provided in section 6 of the report.

1.8 An analysis of all consultation responses are available in section 6 of this report (analysis of responses from the general public), section 7 (responses from stakeholders) and Appendix A (a comprehensive summary of comments on questions 7, 8, 9 and 10). Our response to questions raised during the consultation is provided in Appendix H.

1.9 Consultation and engagement on the proposals are ongoing. Since the consultation

closed in December 2014, we have engaged further with land owners and interested parties whose property or business operations may be impacted by the scheme. We continue to respond to individual requests for information.

1.10 We will return for another round of consultation later in 2015, with further details on

the preferred option and explain why a tram extension on Dingwall Road is preferred over alternative schemes. Depending on the progress of the scheme’s design, which will take into account comments we received during the consultation process, we anticipate making an application for a Transport and Works Act Order in October 2015.

1.11 A Statement of Consultation, summarising all the consultation and engagement activities conducted to inform the proposals, will be submitted as part of our Transport and Works Act Order application for powers to build and operate an extension.

1.12 Report structure

Section 2 is a high level explanation of what was proposed

Section 3 provides the background to the scheme and explains why it is necessary

Section 4 describes how we consulted

Section 5 provides an overview of who responded

Section 6 reports on responses from members of the public. (A comprehensive summary of responses is provided in appendix A).

Section 7 provides a summary of stakeholder responses

Section 8 is the conclusion of the report

Section 9 describes the next steps

The appendices provide information on consultation material .

6

2 Introduction

2.1 Transport for London (TfL) has proposed three options for an extension of the tram

network in Croydon:

Option 1 would run anticlockwise via Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road, returning to the existing network on Wellesley Road.

Option 2 would run clockwise via Wellesley Road/Lansdowne Road and Dingwall Road, returning to the existing network on George Street.

Option 3 would run anticlockwise via Dingwall Road and Sydenham Road returning to the existing network on Wellesley Road.

2.2 Options 1 and 2 include a new tram stop on Lansdowne Road; option 3 includes a new tram stop on Sydenham Road. Figure 1 shows our emerging preferred option.

Figure 1: Option 1, the emerging preferred option, via Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road

2.3 TfL undertook a public consultation on the three options between 3 November and

14 December 2014. The responses received will be used to inform further design and planning work.

2.4 Subject to the consultation and the proposal being endorsed by the Mayor, we intend to apply to the Department for Transport for powers to construct and operate an extension through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO). We anticipate making the application in October 2015.

7

3 Background to the scheme 3.1 There has been significant growth on London Trams since its inception, despite

relatively small changes in capacity. There were 31 million journeys on Trams in 2013/14. This is expected to continue to grow rapidly with development in Croydon, towards nearly 60 million passengers by 2031.

Figure 2 Annual tram passenger numbers (actual and forecasted)

3.2 To accommodate growth, the Wimbledon Line Enhancement Project was developed and is now being delivered. This provides infrastructure and rolling stock to support a 12tph (trams per hour) service from Wimbledon to Croydon – a 50 per cent increase in frequency and capacity.

3.3 Since this commitment, growth has accelerated. The Croydon Opportunity Area now includes Westfield-Hammerson shopping centre development, due to open in 2019 - creating 5,000 jobs in 1.5 million square feet of retail space – and proposals for 7,300 new homes in the town centre. Westfield alone will account for two million extra annual trips on Trams.

3.4 We need to upgrade the Tram network to accommodate this growth. A long term

strategy has been developed to meet this need. Our objectives are to:

Maintain high reliability levels, as good as or better than the current reliability

Deliver sufficient capacity to support the growth of Croydon without leaving passengers behind

Reduce wait times to meet growing expectations

8

Integrate successfully with a revitalised town centre in Croydon without excessive impact on the quick and reliable journey times that make Trams attractive

3.5 We propose the Dingwall Loop, a new section of tramway between East Croydon

and Wellesley Road. The new loop would allow TfL to run additional trams from the east to Westfield while avoiding the existing town centre loop, which is the most congested part of the network. Further information on our long term planning for 2030 is available in our information paper “Trams 2030” which is published with this report.

3.6 The Dingwall Loop would be part funded through a Section 106 agreement,

committing Westfield-Hammerson to a £15 million contribution towards enhancements of the tram network necessary to accommodate the development.

4 Methodology

Scope of consultation 4.1 The consultation was planned to seek people’s views on the principle of an

extension, three possible route options and to identify any local issues which could inform the design and planning of the scheme.

4.2 Particular consideration was given to people living and working around the proposed

routes, as well as tram customers. We also consulted with key local stakeholders along the tram routes, including the neighbouring Boroughs of Bromley, Merton and Sutton. However, this did not prevent any stakeholder or member of the public with a view on the proposals from participating in the consultation. Outside the scope of this consultation

4.3 For this consultation, the following was out of scope:

The Limits of Deviation or Land to be Acquired/Used

Location of infrastructure, such as overhead electrification

Any construction sites, routes or requirements

Any future tram extensions

Any other complimentary transport interventions

Other conditions relating to Westfield-Hammerson

Consultation objectives 4.4 Pre-application consultation is strongly recommended in the Government’s Guide to

Procedures for obtaining orders under the Transport and Works Act (1992), as a means of involving affected parties in the development of a project and avoiding unnecessary objections following submission of the application. This approach is also consistent with TfL’s own consultation aspirations and our statutory obligations in other parts of the business. The consultation sought to:

Introduce the new scheme and understand the level of support in principle

Explain the three route options and ask for views

Identify any significant unknown issues and allow for mitigation where possible

9

Make clear the decision making process, timescales and next steps

Highlight channels through which responses to the consultation could be sent, and make participation easy and inclusive

Inform the design and decision making process

Consultation tools 4.5 A range of methods were adopted to ensure that members of the public and

stakeholders were aware of the consultation and how they could respond. The consultation was hosted on the online TfL Consultation Tool. Paper copies of the consultation and a questionnaire were available on request to anyone who did not have access to the internet.

4.6 A number of promotional activities were undertaken to support the consultation and let people know how they could participate:





Face to face distribution of 6000 consultation leaflets

Updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the consultation and the roadshow events

4.7 The primary means of collecting the views of consultees was through TfL’s online

Consultation Tool, enabling participants to view the material and respond using an online survey. The online survey and questionnaire

4.8 The questions were structured to provide TfL with an understanding of the level of support in principle, and to ensure further comments could inform the development of the project: About you 1) What is your name? 2) What is your email address? 3) What is your postcode? 4) If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group,

please provide us with a name. 5) How did you hear about the consultation? About the proposals 6) In principle, do you support a new tram loop to sustain reliability and improve

capacity?

7a) Please give us your views on option one (Strongly support/Support/Neither support nor oppose/Oppose/Strongly oppose)

7b) Please tell us why here

8a) Please give us your views on option two (Strongly support/Support/Neither support nor oppose/Oppose/Strongly oppose)


10

9a) Please give us your views on option three (Strongly support/Support/Neither support nor oppose/Oppose/Strongly oppose)


10) Do you have any further comments?

4.9 All responses submitted using the online survey were sent an automated

acknowledgement. Due to the high number or responses, it has not been possible to reply to each consultee on an individual basis. Appendix H provides our responses to issues raised during the consultation.

5 Overview of consultation responses

Who responded? 5.1 The consultation generated 554 written responses. 545 came from members of the

public, with the remaining 9 received from stakeholders, including political and

industry stakeholders and local developers. 95% (516) of the public responses were

online; 5% (29) were received by email, post or at an exhibition. There were seven

instances of duplicate responses. The duplicates were consolidated to give an

individual response for each respondent, with the remainder removed.

Number of public responses 5.2 Not every respondent answered every question. Of the 545 members of the public

who responded:

522 responded to question 6

524 responded to question 7a, while 352 responded to question 7b



282 responded to question 10

Geography of respondents 5.3 92% (499) of the respondents provided their home postcodes, with 462 of these

being successfully mapped within the Greater London area. Focusing on the London

Borough (LB) of Croydon where the Dingwall loop is situated, there were 360

responses. The other three boroughs where Tramlink currently serves, LB Bromley,

LB Merton and LB Sutton, received 41, 18 and 14 responses respectively.

5.4 Based on TfL’s Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs), the maximum walk

time to a station on a light rail system like Tramlink is 12 minutes (960m). GIS was

used to select the respondents with postcodes within a 12 minute (960m) radius of

the proposed Dingwall Road loop, for analysis in section 5. This radius should be

used as an approximate guide because PTAL walking times are based on the actual

walking time which is affected by the local walking network, and not point to point

distance as represented by the radii. Detail of response by geography can be seen in

Figures 3 and 4.

11

Figure 3: Distribution of respondents in the area surrounding the existing Tramlink network

12

Figure 4: Distribution of respondents within a 12 minute walk of the proposed Dingwall Road loop

13

How did they hear about the consultation? 5.5 To understand how news about the consultation was received, respondents were

asked how they heard about the consultation. Figure 5 indicates the information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation.

Figure 5: Information channels through which respondents heard about the consultation

Respondent type Number of

respondents %

Received a letter from TfL 7 1%

Received an email from TfL 294 54%

Read about it in the press 40 7%

Through social media 63 12%

Saw an advert on the TfL website 18 3%

Other 86 16%

Not Answered 37 7%

6 Analysis of responses from the general public

Question 6

6.1 Question 6 asked “In principle, do you support a new tram loop to sustain reliability

and improve capacity?” To understand the level of support, we gave respondents

three answers from which to choose:

Yes - in principle the respondent supports the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop

No - the respondent does not support the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop

Not sure - the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns

6.2 Support for the scheme was high, with 390 respondents (72%) stating that in

principle they support the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop and 93 respondents

(17%) stating that they do not support the proposal. Figure 6 illustrates the proportion

of support and opposition for all general public responses.

14

Figure 6: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to the proposed

Dingwall Road tram loop.

6.3. Figure 7 shows the level of support for the proposed Dingwall Road loop for the four

boroughs that received more than 10 responses. It is evident that a lower percentage of

respondents from Croydon supported the proposed Dingwall Road loop, than from Sutton,

Merton or Bromley.

Figure 7: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to the proposed

Dingwall Road tram loop separated by borough.

Yes72%

No17%

Not sure7%

Not answered

4%

Croydon Sutton Merton Bromley

Not answered 9 0 0 1

Not sure 30 0 1 4

No 72 1 1 3

Yes 249 13 16 33

69%

93%89%

80%

20%

7%

6%

7%

8%6%

10%

3% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

15

6.4 Support for the scheme within a 12 minute walk (960 metre) of the proposed

Dingwall Road loop was high with 65 respondents (78%) stating that in principle they

support the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop, and 8 respondents (10%) stating that

they do not support the proposal. Figure 8 illustrates the proportion of support and

opposition for all responses received within a 12 minute walk of the proposed loop.

Figure 8: Proportion of support and opposition to the proposed Dingwall Road tram loop, from

responses received within a 12 minute walk of the proposed loop.

Analysis of the open question sections of questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 6.5 Individual responses for questions 7, 8, 9 and 10 have been coded to one or many

codes as appropriate. The code frameworks include several overall themes and specific comments within these. For example, the consultation received responses about congestion. These comments were further divided by transport mode/location (Trams, Bus services, Roads, East Croydon train station, Non specific mode) and by whether the concern/comment relates to current or future congestion.

6.6 As some respondents mentioned more than one specific comment, there were more

codes than the total number of responses. Only the most frequently mentioned comments for each question are discussed in this report. A full breakdown of codes and the totals recorded are provided in appendix A.

Yes78%

No10%

Not sure10%

Not Answered

2%

16

Question 7

6.7 The first part of Question 7 asked “Please give us your views on option one,

anticlockwise – George Street/Dingwall Road/Lansdowne Road/Wellesley

Road/George Street.” To understand the level of support, we gave respondents five

answers from which to choose:

Strongly Support - the respondent strongly supports option one

Support - the respondent supports option one

Neither support nor oppose - the respondent is not fully in support, or has some concerns

Oppose - the respondent opposes option one

Strongly Oppose - the respondent strongly opposes option one

6.8 Figure 9 shows that there is overall support for option one, with 306 respondents

(56%) stating that they support or strongly support option one and 144 respondents

(26%) stating that they oppose or strongly oppose option one.

Figure 9: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to option one

6.9 The second part of Question 7 asked respondents to expand on their response to the first part of Question 7 by asking “Please tell us why here”. 352 respondents from members of the public raised 62 comments.

6.10 Figure 10 shows the top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the

second part of Question 7. There was a high level of positive commentary in relation

to its support of the development area/shopping centre and the low non time specific

negative impact/disruption of the option. The most frequent negative commentary

Strongly support

Support

Neither support

nor

oppose

OpposeStrongly oppose

Not answered

Number of responses 171 135 74 76 68 21

% 31% 25% 14% 14% 12% 4%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Nu

mb

er

of

res

po

ns

es

17

could be accounted to the general principle of the design and the limited benefits

offered by option one. Option one was frequently stated as the favoured option.

Figure 10: Top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for the second part of Question 7

Top comments Number of participants

Positive comments in relation to overall strategy

Supports development area/shopping centre 25

Positive comments in relation to design

New tram stop location 18

Direction of tram movement 12

Benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 17

General principle of design 20

Benefits in relation to congestion/capacity/delay

Tram (Future) 13

Other positive comments

Ease of construction/Simple design 22

Cost effective 22

Low negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 46

General positive comment 14

Negative comments in relation to design

Conflicting movement between trams 13



Concerns in relation to congestion/capacity/delay

Tram (Future) 12

Roads (Future) 11

Other negative comments

Cost 25

Accessibility and transport options 14

Limited benefits 31

General negative comment 11

Alternative suggestions

Improvements and extensions to the existing tram network/infrastructure

10

Consultation materials

Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing infrastructure/services

10

Option rating

A comment suggesting that option 1 is the favoured option 29

18

Question 8

6.11 The first part of Question 8 asked “Please give us your views on option two,

clockwise via Wellesley Road/Lansdowne Road/Dingwall Road/George Street.” To

understand the level of support, we gave respondents five answers from which to

choose:

Strongly Support - the respondent strongly supports option two

Support - the respondent supports option two


Oppose - the respondent opposes option two

Strongly Oppose - the respondent strongly opposes option two

6.12 Figure 11 shows that there is overall opposition towards option two, with 217

respondents (40%) stating that they oppose or strongly oppose option two and 176

respondents (32%) stating that they support or strongly support option two.

Figure 11: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to option two

6.13 The second part of Question 8 asked respondents to expand on their response to

the first part of Question 8 by asking “Please tell us why here”. 321 respondents from

members of the public raised 64 comments.


second part of Question 8. There was a high level of negative commentary in relation

to its design; the tram contraflow, complicated/dangerous junction designs and the

Strongly support

Support

Neither support

nor

oppose


Not answered


% 14% 18% 24% 21% 19% 4%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Nu

mb

er

of

res

po

ns

es

19

general principle of the design were all stated frequently. Other negative comments

frequently stated included the cost and limited benefits offered by option two.







Reduced conflicting movement between trams 10



Tram (Future) 12

East Croydon station (Future) 14





Tram contraflow and its conflict with other road users 43


Complicated/dangerous junction designs 28



Cost 27


Limited benefits 26

Negative impact/disruption (Time period not specified) 11


Option rating


A comment suggesting that option 1 is preferred 16

20

Question 9

6.15 The first part of Question 9 asked “Please give us your views on option three,

anticlockwise via George Street/Dingwall Road/Dingwall Road (North)/Sydenham

Road/Wellesley Road/George Street.” To understand the level of support, we gave

respondents five answers from which to choose:

Strongly Support - the respondent strongly supports option three

Support - the respondent supports option three


Oppose - the respondent opposes option three

Strongly Oppose - the respondent strongly opposes option three

6.16 Figure 13 shows that there is overall opposition towards option three, with 267

respondents (49%) stating that they oppose or strongly oppose option three and 136

respondents (25%) stating that they support or strongly support option three.

Figure 13: Proportion of support and opposition from general public responses to option three

6.17 The second part of Question 9 asked respondents to expand on their response to the

first part of Question 9 by asking “Please tell us why here”. 337 respondents from members of the public raised 56 comments.


second part of Question 9. There was a high level of negative commentary in relation

Strongly support

Support

Neither support

nor

oppose


Not answered


% 13% 12% 21% 26% 23% 5%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Nu

mb

er

of

res

po

ns

es

21

to cost and non time specific negative impact/disruption. There were frequent

negative comments in relation to the design, most notably the new tram stop location

and the limited benefit provided by the large loop. There was a noticeable amount of

positive commentary in relation to option three serving a larger area and providing

more of an addition to the network.




Supports Croydon and its population 11

Serves a larger area/More of an addition to the network 45





Negative comments in relation to overall strategy

Fails to serve development area and shopping centre 13




The large loop is unnecessary and provides limited benefit 38



Roads (Future) 18


Journey times 22

Cost 52


Limited benefits 30




Suggested location for an additional new stop 18


10

Option rating


A comment suggesting that option 3 is the least preferred option 10

22

Question 10 6.19 Question 10 asked “Do you have any further comments?”. 282 responses from

members of the public raised 51 comments.

6.20 Figure 15 shows the top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for

Question 10. There were frequent suggestions for Tramlink capacity enhancements

including the increased capacity of platforms and tram services. Tramlink extensions

were also frequently mentioned, with the Crystal Palace extension and general

comments in relation to expansion recurring regularly. There was a noticeable

amount of negative commentary in relation to the lack of information and explanation

provided in the consultation materials, for the impact to existing tram infrastructure

and services.

Figure 15: Top comments (stated by 10 or more participants) given for Question 10


Positive comments towards the proposed options

General principle of loop 11


Negative comments towards the proposed options

Costs outweighs benefits 20


General principle of Dingwall loop 19


Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing tram infrastructure/services

27

Tramlink capacity enhancement suggestions

Increase the capacity of tram services: Longer carriages and increased frequency

53

Increase the capacity of platforms: Larger and additional platforms 26

Tramlink extensions

Proposed extension to Crystal Palace 23

General comment in relation to the expansion of Tramlink 22

Other comments

Comment in relation to favoured/disfavoured option 15

23

7 Responses from stakeholders

Comments from political stakeholders

7.1 London Borough (LB) of Croydon LB Croydon acknowledges that the proposal will increase Tramlink capacity and support their objectives to deliver a pedestrian and cycling friendly centre with calmer traffic, but opposes the proposal until TfL provide information that gives them confidence regarding the following points:

Quality of the public realm

Deliverability

Consideration of and integration with other schemes in the pipeline

Tram speeds

Maintenance arrangements LB Croydon’s preferred option is option one, but Lansdowne Road must be delivered as a shared space environment with pedestrian priority. Option three is preferred if this cannot be delivered.

7.2 Councillor Sean Fitzsimons (Labour) Addiscombe Ward (Croydon)

Councillor Sean Fitzsimons supports the principle of a new tram loop. Councillor Sean Fitzsimons strongly opposes option’s one and two due to their negative impact on the bus passengers who use Dingwall Road, but strongly supports option three. Concern was raised that no information was provided on the impact of the scheme on bus routes.

7.3 Croydon Liberal Democrats The Croydon Liberal Democrats oppose the principle of a new tram loop, due to its

high cost and the requirement to terminate trams before the desired passenger destinations.

The Croydon Liberal Democrats propose that Tramlink capacity should be increased

by:

Buying more trams

Lengthening the existing trams

Lengthening the platforms to be able to serve 4 car trams

Adding a 2nd traffic lane to the Station Road/Wellesley Road junction

Using one track of the Sandilands tunnel to store trams overnight

Doubling the track by Reeves corner to aid tram turn back 7.4 Croydon and Sutton Green Party The Croydon and Sutton Green Party is not sure whether they support the principle

of a new tram loop, but oppose all three proposed options because they are expensive and fail to serve local residents.

The Croydon and Sutton Green Party made the following recommendations:

24

Finance the tram loop with funds from the businesses that benefit from the scheme, rather than from tax payer funds.

Extend tram carriage and platform capacity

Extend the tram network to serve Crystal Palace

Implement a park and ride service

Improve cycling provision in the town centre

Comments from transport industry stakeholders

7.5 East Surrey Transport Committee East Surrey Transport Committee supports the principle of a new tram loop, and

prefers option two due to the greater flexibility of track layout, and the common stop for all south/eastbound trams in Dingwall Road. East Surrey Transport Committee suggests that an additional stop should be provided in Dingwall Road between East Croydon station and Lansdowne Road.

Comments from developers

7.6 Croydon Gateway Ltd Partnership (Ruskin Square development) Croydon Gateway Ltd Partnership supports the scheme in principle but has the Following concerns:

Restricted access to the Ruskin Square development site along Dingwall Road.

The supports for the overhead power lines are likely to be located in the Ruskin Square development site.

A worksite for the construction of the proposed Dingwall Road loop is being considered within the boundary of the Ruskin square development site.

Croydon Gateway Ltd Partnership made the following recommendations:

Provide further information on the impact of the development to the land immediately to the east of AMP House.

TfL should contribute to improvements to the public realm in the vicinity of the Dingwall Road loop.

7.7 Croydon Limited Partnership Croydon Limited Partnership supports the scheme in principle and recognises its benefits for both the town centre and the Whitgift centre development. The preferred option of Croydon Limited Partnership is option one, with the new stop serving the main Wellesley Road pedestrian entrance and providing relief from the existing overcrowded Wellesley Road tram stop. There is however uncertainty surrounding the track arrangement at Lansdowne Road and it’s interaction with the flow of traffic and buses. Croydon Limited Partnership has concerns for option two due to the contraflow tram flow and the need for further junction works, while option three provides a tram stop further away from the pedestrian entrance to the Whitgift centre.

25

Comments from statutory stakeholders

7.8 English Heritage English Heritage stated that as the Government’s adviser on all matters pertaining to

the historic environment and a consultee for the purposes of Rule 8 (4) of the Transport and Works (Application and Objections Procedure (England and Wales) Rules 2006, they have written to the Department of Transport saying that whichever alternative is chosen, it should not involve significant effects on the historic environment, including archaeology. Other than this they had no further comments to make.

Comments from utility companies

7.9 National Grid National Grid confirmed that National Grid Gas and National Grid Electricity

Transmission have no assets located within or in close proximity to the proposed development.

8 Conclusion

8.1 TfL believes the case for improving the tram infrastructure to meet the growing demand by 2031 is strong. A new loop would enable an increase in services from the east along Dingwall Road, while delivering a similar frequency of services to current levels around the existing town centre loop. This would enable TfL to build resilience into the service and increase capacity to meet additional demand.

8.2 390 members of the public (72%) have given their support to the principle to a new

tram loop to sustain reliability and improve capacity. Option one had the highest levels of support and the lowest levels of non-support. We will develop option one further prior to submitting a Transport and Works Act Order application, for powers to construct and operate a tram extension.

9 Next steps

9.1 This phase of public consultation has closed, but conversations with land owners and interested parties remain ongoing. We will continue to answer questions on the proposals submitted to [email protected] or in writing to Freepost TfL Consultations.

9.2 We will return for another round of consultation later in 2015, with further details on

the emerging preferred option and explain why a tram extension on Dingwall Road is preferred over alternative schemes. We will also provide more information on how future tram services might look with the Dingwall Road Loop. Depending on the progress of the scheme’s design, which will take into account comments we received during the consultation process, we anticipate making an application for a Transport and Works Act Order in October 2015.

mailto:[email protected]

26

Appendix A – Comments for questions 7, 8, 9 and 10

Question 7 (comments on option 1)





Supports the current tram network and passenger needs 2

Provides Tramlink extension opportunities 1


Provides a tram turnaround 8


Direction of tram movement 12




Tram (Future) 13



Service reliability/efficiency/convenience 4

Journey times 9

Ease of construction/Simple design 22

Cost effective 22


Low negative impact/disruption (During construction) 8

Low negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 3




Limited area gaining benefit 9

Developer focused design 3

Disadvantages the current tram network and its passenger needs 6


Tram movement and its conflict with other road users 5



Limited benefits in relation to existing infrastructure 5



27


Tram (Current) 4

Tram (Future) 12

Roads (Current) 1

Roads (Future) 11

Pedestrian subway (Future) 1


Non specific mode (Future) 4


Journey times 8

Cost 25


Noise pollution 2

Impact on bus services/infrastructure 6

Limited benefits 31

Negative impact/disruption (During construction) 3




Alternative location for new stop 6


Provision for cyclists 1

Provision for pedestrians 4

Specific features of the design 4

Management during work 2

Overall scheme 7


10



10

Lack of explanation for loop 3

Option rating




A comment suggesting that options 1 and 2 have equal preference 1

Other comments

Neutral 3

28








Provides a tram turnaround 2


Direction of tram movement provides fewer conflicts with other road users

5

Reduced conflicting movement between trams 10

Design is flexible for modification 1




Tram (Future) 12

Roads (Future) 5




Journey times 5


Low negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 1




Fails to serve Croydon and its population 1






Tram contraflow and its conflict with other road users 43



Loss of existing tram stop 3


Creates an abandoned tram track 2



29


Tram (Current) 1

Tram (Future) 9

Roads (Current) 1

Roads (Future) 4

Bus services (Future) 3


Inconvenient 3

Journey times 7

Difficult to construct 2

Cost 27

Noise pollution 2


Impact on existing tram services 2


Limited benefits 26


Negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 4






Public realm improvements 2

Specific features of the design 2


Overall scheme 7


8



9


Option rating





Other comments

Neutral 3

30






Serves a larger area/More of an addition to the network 45

Serves government buildings in the area 3



Direction of tram movement provides fewer conflicts with other road users

4

Design is flexible for modification 3



Tram (Future) 4

Bus services (Future) 1


Service reliability/efficiency/convenience 3











Tram movement and its conflict with other road users 6





The large loop is unnecessary and provides limited benefit 38



Tram (Current) 3

Tram (Future) 8

Roads (Future) 18



31


Journey times 22

Difficult to construct 3

Cost 52

Negative environmental impact (including noise pollution) 9



Limited benefits 30


Negative impact/disruption (Post completion) 1







Option 4: Same loop as Option 3 with clockwise tram movement 4

Overall scheme 6


10



6


Cost benefit analysis should be provided 4

Option rating





Other comments

Neutral 2

32

Question 10 (General comments)


Positive comments towards the proposed options

Serves a larger geographical area 1

Supports Croydon's future plans and development 3

Increases tram capacity and frequency/Reduces tram congestion 8

General principle of loop 11


Negative comments towards the proposed options


Provides a limited expansion to the tram network (town centre only) 4


Costs outweighs benefits 20


Impact on cyclists 8

Pedestrian safety 1

Reduced road capacity/increased traffic congestion (Future) 8

Tram capacity/increased congestion (Future) 7


Negative impact on existing businesses 2

Limited benefits 9

General principle of Dingwall loop 19


Extensions/alterations to the proposed options


Alternative loop orientation 7

Improve loop access for existing routes 5

Infrastructure changes to reduce the impact on road users and avoid the town centre (for example, flyovers and underpasses)

5

Provide two-way tram tracks 2

Passive provision for future expansion 1

Transport network integration/accessibility 4

Changes to traffic management and road layout 4



Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing tram infrastructure/services

27

Lack of information/explanation provided for impact to existing bus infrastructure/services

6

Cost benefit analysis should be provided 4

Some affected residents were deliberately not informed 2

Residents have not been consulted on what extensions they want 2

33

Tramlink capacity enhancement suggestions

Increase the capacity of tram services: Longer carriages and increased frequency

53

Increase the capacity of platforms: Larger and additional platforms 26

Tramlink extensions

Proposed extension to Crystal Palace 23

Proposed extension to Sutton 7

Proposed extension to the Bromley area 4

Proposed extension to the Purley area 6

Proposed extension to the Thornton Heath area 4

Proposed extension to Mitcham/Morden 2

Proposed extension to serve the hospital 4

Extend Tramlink to cover a larger area of Croydon and South London

5

General comment in relation to the expansion of Tramlink 22

General Tramlink comments/suggestions

Positive comment in relation to Tramlink in general 7

Negative comment in relation to Tramlink in general 1

Improvements to cycling safety at tram tracks 3

Improvements to existing infrastructure/routes 8

Other comments

Comment in relation to favoured/disfavoured option 15

Retain a good service on existing lines during construction 2

Specific comment in relation to an individual’s use of the tram system

2

34

Appendix B – Consultation leaflet

39

Appendix C – Consultation letter

40

Appendix D – Consultation letter distribution area

41

Appendix E – Email to Oyster users

42

Appendix F – Scheme update on TfL Twitter feed

43

Appendix G – List of stakeholder contacted

AA DriveTech

Action for Blind People

Action for Children

Action on Hearing Loss (RNID)

Age UK London

Automobile Association (AA)

British Deaf Association (BDA)

British Gas

British Red Cross

British Sky Broadcasting Ltd

British Youth Council

Broad Green & Waddon Neighbourhood Partnership

Bromley and District Consumer Group

BT Group plc

BT Openreach

Cable & Wireless

Campaign for Better Transport

Campaign for Clean Air in London

Canal & River Trust

Centre for Cities

Centre for London

City Year London

Corona Energy

Coulsdon College

Council for Disabled Children

Crossrail Ltd

Croydon BID

Croydon Chamber of Commerce

Croydon College

Croydon Safer Transport Team

Croydon Transport Focus

CTC

Department for Communities and Local Government

Disabled Persons Transport Committee

44

Dong Energy UK

E on UK

East Surrey Transport Committee

EE

EEF (Engineering Employers' Federation)

English Heritage

Environment Agency

Environment Agency (London team)

Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

Freight Transport Association (FTA)

Friends of the Earth

Gavin Barwell MP

Gazprom Energy

GDF Suez Energy Ltd

Greater London Authority

Greater London Forum for Older People (GLF)

HS2 Ltd

Inclusion London

Independent Disability Advisory Group (IDAG)

Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)

John Ruskin College

Leonard Cheshire Disability

LFEPA (London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority)

London Borough of Croydon

London Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI)

London Civic Forum

London Councils

London Cycling Campaign

London First

London TravelWatch

London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF)

London Voluntary Service Council

London Wildlife Trust

Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership

Metropolitan Police

Multiple Sclerosis Society

45

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign

National Council for Voluntary Youth Services (NCVYS)

National Grid

National Union of Students

Natural England

NHS Care Commissioning Group

Npower

Older Peoples' Network Croydon

Passenger Focus

People First

Plusnet

Princes Trust

RAC Foundation for Motoring

Richard Ottaway MP

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)

Royal London Society for the Blind (RLSB)

SCOPE

Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE)

Scottish Power Energy Retail Ltd

Steve O'Connell AM

Steve Reed MP

Sustrans

Telefonica UK

Thames Water

The Association of Guide Dogs for the Blind

Total Gas & Power

Transport for All

UK Broadband

UK Citizens

Virgin Media

Virtual Norwood Forum

Whizz-Kidz

YMCA England

46

Appendix H – Answers to questions raised

The responses are grouped under the headings listed below.

A. Further information for the rationale for the scheme B. Future tram services C. How the scheme fits into the wider 2030 tram strategy D. Impacts during construction E. Impacts during operation F. Alternatives to the Dingwall Road loop G. Design comments H. General comments

The questions and issues relate to all three options, unless stated otherwise.

A. Further information for the rationale for the scheme

1. Why do we need an extension on Dingwall Road? We already have a good service.

We are planning for the future. The current demand of 31m passenger journeys per year

is expected to nearly double by 2030. In order to be able to maintain current levels of

reliability, we need to invest in the tram service and make choices about how the service

will look in fifteen years. The current infrastructure would not be able to accommodate the

anticipated growth in demand while maintaining current service levels.

The Dingwall Loop is the first stage in a series of wider improvements set out in our 2030

plan. Extra platforms at Wimbledon and double tracking at Mitcham are both already

under construction; while possible future improvements include an extension to South

Wimbledon and Sutton, double tracking from Wandle Park to Reeves Corner, an Old

Town loop (to allow a turn back for South Wimbledon services), improvements to Elmers

End and double tracking or additional loops on the Beckenham Junction branch. The

changes would allow us to run more trams to both sides of the town centre, while

continuing to run services around the existing loop.

We are prioritising the proposed Dingwall loop in order to accommodate the Westfield-

Hammerson development, which is expected to contribute 2m additional passenger

journeys per year.

2. How would a loop increase capacity and reliability? If turning trams around is required, why not do so at East Croydon station, given that trams using a loop would come back this way in any case?

Turning trams around on a new loop would allow us to recast the timetable in way that

would not be possible if we simply turned trams at East Croydon, as trams would need to

leave as soon as they arrived. This would not help us meet the capacity and reliability

requirements needed for 2030. A new loop would enable us to increase the number of

trams running to the east of the town centre, where they can wait or be turned around,

without compromising the frequency or reliability of the rest of the network It would also

enable us to accommodate the Westfield-Hammerson development, which is expected to

47

bring an additional 2m passengers a year.

3. The scheme may help bring people to the new development, but what is the benefit to local people and existing businesses in Croydon?

Access to local shops and other destinations would be maintained via the existing loop.

The improvements would allow us to run additional trams on the network, helping maintain

current levels of reliability as the demand for tram services grows. If the town centre

became impassable for any reason, it would be much easier to continue running services

to the east of the town centre. If we did nothing, the additional demand would lead to

congestion on the existing network.

4. None of the options provide a stop at Westfield-Hammerson. In all cases people still have to cross the main road. Why not run the tram along the western side of Wellesley Road?

Running the tram southbound, on the western side of Wellesley Road with option 1 would

create a significant traffic conflict. Whilst a contra-flow system could enable trams to

operate safely, it would have significant impact on other road users and lead to

congestion. We would prefer to run the tram on the eastern side with this option. With

option 2, running a clockwise tram on the western side of Wellesley Road would create

tram track conflicts at the junctions with Lansdowne Road and George Street. A separate

scheme is seeking to improve the pedestrian crossings at Wellesley Road.

5. Options 1&2: Why build a new stop at Lansdowne Road given the short distance from East Croydon station to Westfield?

The stop at Lansdowne Road would be used to help regulate tram services, ensuring that

eastbound departures from Wellesley Road and East Croydon run on time. It would also

be much closer to Westfield than East Croydon.

6. Why extend the tram before the Northern Line extension to Battersea?

We need to invest in tram infrastructure in order to meet the expected growth in demand

by 2030. The markets for the Northern Line and Tramlink services are very different and a

Northern Line extension would not impact on our long term tram strategy.

7. Does the scheme take in account the impact of the Bakerloo Line extension?

Our current demand forecasts do not include the Bakerloo Line Extension as it is not

currently funded or committed. However, the scheme enables higher service frequencies

in the future, including more trams to Beckenham Junction and Elmers End, allowing more

passengers to reach potential Bakerloo Line Extension services.

8. How much would the loop cost?

The scheme is being proposed in order to meet the long term growth in demand, including

an additional 2 million passengers per year as a result of the Westfield Hammerson

development. As part of the planning process for their development, Westfield-

Hammerson are contributing £15m towards the cost of the scheme through a Section 106

Agreement. The total cost of a loop is currently estimated at circa £27m. The final cost will

48

be determined during the detailed design phase, prior to the submission for powers.

9. The scheme is required to accommodate the Westfield-Hammerson development. As a decision on this development is still pending, are plans for the loop not premature?

A turn back loop of some form is an integral part of our long term planning. Following the

results of our first consultation, when 72% of respondents said they agreed in principal to

an extension to increase capacity and reliability, we will take the project forward to the

next stage.

B. Future tram services

10. What would the impact be to tram services? Would fewer trams go around the existing loop, and if so, which routes are affected?

We currently operate 22 trams per hour (tph) through the town centre. With the new Loop in place we are currently considering running 19tph around the existing loop and 5tph around the Dingwall Road loop, a total of 24tph serving Croydon centre. With later stages of the 2030 Strategy, more services could be operated when additional trams are purchased. (Please see the Tram 2030 Strategy published on our website for further details). To achieve this, we would need to re-cast the timetable across the network once Dingwall Loop is available. Our current thinking is for Wimbledon services to operate to Beckenham Junction and Elmers End, with New Addington services alternating between the existing town centre loop and the new Dingwall Loop, but increasing in frequency:

I. Everyone from the eastern branches would have a direct service available to Church Street and beyond (and for the return journey, from Centrale eastwards).

II. The Beckenham branch would gain through services to Wimbledon – there are more passengers travelling from this branch across Croydon towards the Wimbledon branch than there are from the New Addington branch – so this pattern better fits demand

III. Overall, the proportion of passengers needing to interchange would not alter. At least 86% of passengers would continue to have a direct service to their destination at least every 12 minutes.

IV. We intend for all Wimbledon services (12tph from 2016) to continue to operate across the town centre. The Old Town turnback facility is needed to turn back additional services – our proposed future services from South Wimbledon.

11. Any scheme should accommodate a Wimbledon – Beckenham direct service

We intend to operate direct services from Wimbledon to Beckenham Junction every 10

minutes as and when we re-cast the timetable with the Dingall Loop.

12. Will TfL address overcrowding on trams?

A loop would allow us to run more trams to the east of the town centre, helping relieve

congestion in the short term. The loop is a vital first stage in our long term planning to

ensure future services can accommodate an anticipated demand of nearly 60m passenger

journeys by 2030 and mitigate congestion. Timetable improvements that are enabled by

the Dingwall Loop would also even out service intervals between trams, with much less

bunching and therefore reduced crowding.

49

13. Options 1&3: Customers may be confused about which tram to catch to travel west from East Croydon

The final destination would continue to be displayed on the tram, with announcements

made to new customers wishing to board as they are now.

14. Options 1&2: would the Dingwall Road/George Street junction have enough capacity to cope with any new tram movements, or would journey times be adversely affected?

Junction capacity can be delivered more easily with option 1, as option 2 would require

additional land and the introduction of a contraflow system to enable trams and other road

traffic to use the highway.

C. How the scheme fits into the wider 2030 tram strategy

15. Are you planning any future extensions, such as to Crystal Palace, Sutton or Thornton Heath?

The Dingwall Loop would not preclude future extensions. We are continuing to progress

proposals for extensions to South Wimbledon and Sutton. More information on our 2030

vision is available in an information paper.

16. The scheme doesn’t provide a ‘turn back’ facility to the Wimbledon branch, which is one of the busiest routes and would benefit from a more regular service to the town centre.

A turn back loop for the west is very much a part of our long term planning for 2030. We

are prioritising an east loop in Dingwall Road because of the need to accommodate the

Westfield-Hammerson development, which is located east of the town centre and which is

expected to contribute about 2m extra passenger journeys per year.

We expect to increase frequency to Wimbledon by 50% to 12 trams per hour from 2016,

and are proposing an additional South Wimbledon service and even more frequency in

our 2030 plan.

D. Impacts during construction

17. If approved, the constructions works for the tram loop on Dingwall Road could take place between spring 2017 and autumn 2018. Over this construction schedule, three periods were identified as likely to have a significant temporary impact on vehicle movement in the area. Wellesley Rd/Lansdowne Rd Junction Roadworks

Southbound and northbound carriageway at the Wellesley Road/ Lansdowne Road junction would be reduced from two lanes to one lane for general traffic

Wellesley Rd northbound outside lane would be coned off Closing the westbound movement on Lansdowne Rd and diverting traffic via Sydenham Rd onto Wellesley Rd would allow the Wellesley Rd southbound movement to have green stage for the majority of the time, except for the tram arrival at the junction.

50

George St / Dingwall Road

George St would be closed to traffic, but a one lane bi-directional access would be put in place to allow for public transport movement

Bi-directional access through George St (signal controlled) for Public Transport and bi-directional access to Dingwall Rd would be required in order not to further increase delays in the network Dingwall Rd and Lansdowne Rd - Tram works and roadworks / Pedestrian area reinstatements

Lansdowne Rd would operate one-way westbound and Dingwall Rd one-way northbound

As a potential mitigation measure, bi-directional access to Dingwall Rd is being considered

E. Impacts during operation

18. How would vehicle access to Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road be affected?

TfL is not promoting any permanent change to North-South traffic movements on Dingwall

Road as part of the scheme. Lansdowne Road would become one-way towards Wellesley

Road.

19. How would bus routes be affected?

With options 1 and 2, Lansdowne Road would become one-way with the tram. Option 1

would route traffic westbound with an anticlockwise tram, option 2 would run traffic

eastbound with a clockwise tram. The rerouting of bus services affected by such changes

would be subject to a separate consultation.

20. If TfL run more trams, would junction capacity at Chepstow Road and Cherry Orchard Road need improving?

We believe that this junction can handle additional tram frequency, but we continue to

review the various junctions along the Tram network to ensure that our proposals do not

have a significant impact on other road users.

21. Would the roundabout at Dingwall Road become controlled by traffic signals?

Working with the London Borough of Croydon, TfL will develop a junction design suitable for the urban environment. It is proposed that the residential / office location would be better suited to an unsignalled junction. However, safety, highway and tram operational considerations need to be considered during the detailed design.

22. Would an extension impact negatively on taxis and other motorists?

The Dingwall loop would allow us to increase services to the east of the town centre, while

running services through the town centre at about the current level. This would benefit

motorists (including taxi drivers) as well as tram passengers, as it would not overload the

town centre loop which is already the most congested part of the route. The taxi rank on

Lansdowne Road would be retained.

51

F. Alternatives to the Dingwall Road Loop

23. Why not improve bus services and introduce buses for areas where the tram cannot reach?

This would not address the issues of tram capacity and reliability. Any necessary changes

to improve bus services in the future would be subject to a separate consultation.

24. Money would be better spent improving existing infrastructure. Why not just couple trams together and invest in longer stops and junction priority for trams?

Considerable thought has been given to the lengthening of trams and tram stops and they

form part of our longer term planning towards accommodating passenger growth by 2030.

We have looked at options for single trams up to 43m long, as well as coupling two trams

together.

Both options would require significant platform lengthening works across the network. This

would require us to buy additional land, and would also have an impact on highway

operations, particularly at junctions. Another key consideration is the statutory need to

retain good access to trams for those with mobility impairments or pushchairs – which in

some cases would force us to realign the track.

It is therefore much more cost-effective to increase frequency as far as possible before

lengthening trams. Stop lengthening would cost many millions and could not be delivered

for the cost of the Dingwall Road Loop, which is estimated at £27m (and includes a £15m

contribution under the Westfield-Hammerson planning conditions). The Loop would help

enable us to increase tram frequencies to the east of the town centre, and we are also

developing proposals to increase frequency to the west, including 12 trams per hour to

Wimbledon from 2016.

25. Alternative route: up North End, then back east via West Croydon

The main purpose of the Dingwall Loop is to enable some services to avoid the busiest

part of Wellesley Road. A route via North End would not meet this requirement; running

through the busy shopping area here would require trams to operate quite slowly and

there would therefore have a detrimental affect on the network.

26. Alternative route: George Street, Katherine Street, Park Lane, George Street.

Katherine Street is particularly important to the reliable operation of the bus network in

Croydon, with numerous services waiting there at bus stands at the end of their journeys.

This route would therefore cause significant disruption to the bus network compared to

Dingwall Road.

27. Alternative route: East Croydon may become a bottle neck after the extra loop. A solution might be to form a loop around East Croydon, with trams going north along Dingwall Road, over the railway station and return east (roughly via cherry Orchard Road). This would help take tram traffic away from the area near NLA tower.

This route would require a new tram bridge over East Croydon station, making it

52

significantly more expensive than the proposed Dingwall Loop. The Dingwall Loop would

also bring passengers closer to the town centre and the Westfield-Hammerson

development, via a new stop at Lansdowne Road and the existing stop at Wellesley Road.

G. Design questions

28. Options 1&2: The proposed Lansdowne Road stop is located on a side road. Will customers be at a greater risk of crime?

With the improved crossing across Wellesley Road and the new route into East Croydon

station, we expect Lansdowne Road to become much more used by pedestrians in future,

making the area feel more active and deterring crime.

29. Options 1&2: Can the tram physically make the turn into Wellesley Road (Option 1) or Lansdowne Road (Option 2)?

Yes it can.

30. Will tram rails be in a reserved area on Dingwall Road?

Trams would run in the highway; there would not be a reserved area.

31. Do options 1 and 2 address safety, capacity and track maintenance issues considering westbound trams cross oncoming eastbound services?

Junctions would be signalised and be fully ORR (Office of Rail Regulation) compliant

32. With option 2, TfL should consider allowing trams to turn right or left onto George Street, providing both westbound and eastbound reverse loops.

We can’t accommodate such a movement at this junction without additional land take and

the introduction of a contraflow on Wellesley Road. However, a turn back loop is also

planned to services from the west as part of our long term 2030 planning.

33. Option 2 disadvantages customers wishing to stop at Wellesley Road

With Option 2, customers would have alighted at a new stop at Lansdowne Road and

make use of the new crossing at Wellesley Road to access Westfield-Hammerson.

Customers wishing to access George Street would have either walked from Lansdowne

Road or continued to East Croydon, depending on their ultimate destination.

34. Why don’t the proposals include a new tram stop on Dingwall Road to access other businesses and developments?

There is no obvious location in which to put a stop. Dingwall Road is more heavily used by

general road traffic than Lansdowne Road, so building a tram stop in the highway would

have a greater impact on road congestion, while building it next to the road would require

additional land take.

53

H. General questions about the scheme

35. Why propose to remove the subway at Wellesley Road. A surface crossing could create pedestrian-vehicular conflicts and have more safety issues than the existing subway.

The Greater London Authority has a policy to remove subways and replace them with surface crossings where it is feasible to do so. Some people do not feel safe using subways, as they can provide shelter to anti-social or criminal behaviour.

36. Will TfL address operational and commercial impacts to business and developments in the area?

We will liaise directly with businesses and developers who may be affected by the

proposals as we seek to take the scheme forward. We will seek to mitigate impacts to

businesses and developers as much as practicable.

37. How would cycle provision be addressed by the scheme?

Cycling provision on Dingwall Road would be retained. We are looking at three new cycle

crossings at all three junctions as part of the scheme. This will be reflected in the detailed

design, which will follow the consultation process. While we are not consulting on a cycling

scheme, comments on cycling provision are welcome and will be include in the

consultation report.

38. The first round of Public Consultation was poorly advertised and did not contain enough information to provide a meaningful response.

The public consultation ran from 3 November to 14 December 2014 and was publicised

using a number of different methods:





Two staffed events at Croydon Library where people could put questions to members of the project team

Face to face distribution of 6000 consultation leaflets on the trams

Updates on the TfL twitter account to alert/remind people about the consultation and the staffed events

We periodically review our house style for consultation documents to make sure they are

as clear and accessible as possible.

The consultation last year was very useful in understanding the level of support in principle

for an extension. We will return later in 2015 for a further round of consultation, prior to

making an application for powers to construct and operate an extension through a

Transport and Works Act Order. The 2015 consultation will include details on future tram

services through the existing and proposed Dingwall Road loop. These details were not

sufficiently developed for inclusion in the 2014 consultation.

54

39. Please explain the Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) process. Who decides whether the scheme proceeds?

We anticipate making a TWAO submission to the Department for Transport (DfT) in

October 2015 for powers to construct and operate an extension. An independent

inspector, appointed by the DfT, would decide the extent of any Public Inquiry. The

inspector would review the evidence and make a recommendation to the Secretary of

State for Transport, who would have the final decision. More information is available in a

guide provided by the DfT:.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273359/twa-

orders-summary-guide-2013.pdf

40. Option 1: There are no opportunities for streetscape improvements along George Street.

Improvements to George Street are already underway. While provision of such urban

realm falls outside the scope of the project, we are happy to work with Croydon Council to

identify potential funding opportunities which may help deliver further improvements.

41. Option 1: The Lansdowne Road stop would be underused off-peak

Demand to and from the Westfield-Hammerson development is expected to be strong all

day, as Westfield will have extended opening hours. In addition, the stop at Lansdowne

Road would be used to help regulate tram services, ensuring that eastbound departures

from Wellesley Road and East Croydon run on time.

42. The scheme could increase usage of Wellesley Road tram stop and the pedestrian subway. Should the stop be moved or improved?

Wellesley Road tram stop will be improved as a result of the Westfield-Hammerson

scheme. This is being delivered as a separate scheme.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273359/twa-orders-summary-guide-2013.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273359/twa-orders-summary-guide-2013.pdf

tramlink dingall road loop extension · 1.2 passenger demand for trams is anticipated to grow from...

Documents