Writing about public consultations on the proposed Northern Line extension to Battersea seems to be developing into somewhat of a May tradition.
In May last year, TfL and Battersea Site owners Treasury Holdings undertook a public consultation aimed at establishing which of four Northern Line extension proposals should be taken forward by the developers (you can find all the proposed options here). Today, the two bodies have announced that a final likely route has been chosen and they are now ready to begin the final stage of the consultation process – a public consultation on that specific option.
It appears that the route chosen was option 2 in the proposal. To summarise, this was Kennington – Battersea Power Station via South Nine Elms and involves a 3km tunnel from Kennington to Battersea Power Station with a mid-station in south Nine Elms (see map below).
This new public consultation will run from today until Friday 17 June, with leaflets to be distributed to local residents (if any LR readers receive one we would obviously be interested in seeing it) and a number of public exhibitions on the dates below:
– Wednesday 18 May and Monday 6 June from 12pm to 8pm at the Acquire Arts Gallery, 155 Battersea Park Road, London SW8 4BU
– Friday 20 and Saturday 21 May from 10am to 6pm at The Long Room, The KIA Oval, Kennington, London SE11 5SS
– Thursday 26 and Friday 27 May from 10am to 6pm at Sainsbury’s Nine Elms, 62 Wandsworth Road, London SW8 2LF
A Question of Cost
The elephant in the room of course with any Battersea Extension proposal is financing. TfL have always made clear that whilst they support an extension, they cannot commit any funding to it. Tube extensions obviously don’t come cheap and although costs are not yet available it seems likely that the Battersea Extension would be in the £350m or above range. In that light, the single-developer supported model for private financing that London has so far seen in West London with Westfield or over in Woolwich with Berkley Homes (for the Crossrail station box there) seems unlikely. Indeed, developers Treasury Holdings/REO would likely not even be able to support such a cost even if they wanted to – they were hit heavily by the recession both here and in Ireland (from whence they originate) and this was a major factor in the lack of movement on the Battersea Project towards the end of last year.
We have covered in some detail before where all this probably leaves the extension in terms of finance. In summary, it seems likely that any funding cost is likely to be met by a combination of the three fund-raising options below:
– Developer Contributions from REO
– Other Developer Contributions in the area which would otherwise have gone to Crossrail
– A Tax Increment Funding scheme put together by Wandsworth Council
The developer contributions from REO obviously needs little explaination. The sitution with regards to contributions from other developers, however, is slightly more complex, and is the result of Wandsworth having kept their eye on the “long game” when it came to large-scale transport funding for some time.
The first signs of this came back in 2009, when Wandsworth Council questioned the distribution of transport contributions raised in relation to Make’s Vauxhall Tower. To provide some background, councils can demand S106 contributions from developers in relation to new projects with the money raised being used to improve transport links in the area (the idea being that this means new developments contribute to improving the transport links in areas where they are increasing the transport needs). Even though Make’s tower fell within Lambeth’s beat, Wandworth objected to the amount of money from that project that got swept into the general pot for Crossrail rather than for locally targetted works.
Wandsworth’s words were obviously written with half an eye on their home turf. With both the potential Battersea site and the new US Embassy both falling within the Borough’s borders (and more specifically within its designated Nine Elms development area), the Council was clearly determined not to see the majority of any transport contributions from those two projects syphoned off to Crossrail under the Mayor’s London Plan (the “Crossrail Levy” – a kind of London-wide S106).
It was an issue the Council continued to press on and, in October 2009, the Mayor’s office confirmed that supplementary guidance to the London Plan on Crossrail contributions would be issued. This indicated that any office development in Vauxhall and Nine Elms would be exempted from the Crossrail Levy, with any contributions sought from all new developments available to be used as funding for any proposed Northern Line Extension.
Objectively speaking, it seems likely that Wandsworth’s victory here was as much a political one as one based on common sense. Wandsworth’s very vocal objections were raised at a time when there was growing discomfort in various Boroughs over the Crossrail Levy (particularly those not set to benefit directly from the scheme) and when Crossrail’s gestation was at a critical and fragile point. Thus this NLE extension clause was likely aimed as much at quickly shutting up a vocal Borough around which others might rally as anything else.
Nonetheless, it was a major victory for Wandsworth and as a result it means that the full value of any contributions raised not just from REO but also from other developments in the area will be available for the NLE pot.
The final funding source mentioned above is Tax Increment Funding (TIF). Again, this is a topic we have covered before (more information for those interested here). TIF is a funding model that has traditionally been more common in the US than it has here. It relies on the fact that most large-scale infrastructure projects (particularly transport ones) lead to a measurable increase in tax revenue within a given area when they are completed (in this case, that would be the London Borough of Wandsworth). This is the “tax increment” and – the theory goes – if you can accurately estimate what this increase is likely to be, then there is nothing to stop you borrowing the money to pay for said infrastructure project and financing the loan via that future tax revenue increase.
In a nutshell, therefore, Wandsworth would take out a loan to cover any contributions it needed to make to the NLE. The NLE (and associated developments) would, upon completition, lead to a boost in the Borough’s taxes and that increase would be used to pay off the loan Wandsworth had taken.
Up until recently, there had been no framework in place at a UK Government level for Boroughs who wished to look into using TIF to fund projects, but recently the Goverment’s stance on TIF has become far more positive, and this now seems likely to emerge. Given that Wandsworth have again been one of the Borough’s most vocal about developing said framework, therefore, it seems highly likely that we will see it in some form on the NLE.
Overall then, the Northern Line Extension to Battersea has crept forward again. It is a slow process and it seems unlikely that we’d see a Transport and Works Act Order submission before the Autumn rather than the “Spring” the Treasury Holdings site still optimistically suggests, but it is progress nonetheless. Should that submission take place, and going on previously indicated work timescales, then an extended Northern Line by 2018 is not entirely out of the question.
Maybe not so much, now?
Unless, of course “City AM” have got this wrong ….
It is entirely possible. They (City AM) do not seem very good at distinguishing between millions and billions. But the possibility of the station not being opened if negotiations fail is not really “news”. More of a Pope-is-Catholic sort of declaration. (Other sylvan ursine obvious claims are available, though perhaps not on this site).
Very bad article but some underlying facts correct.
The developers asked for alterations to the station design after work had already started so they could build a massive high rise on top which wasn’t in the original plan (covered in one of PoP’s more recent NLE articles).
TfL have presented the extra cost of £240m to the developers, who have gone very very quiet. TfL also suggesting trips to court as a first step.
The timing of when the developers asked for the alterations was about as bad is it could have got for cost implications. the NLE power station site works also interface with the supersewer works which have now started increasing complexity and cost.
@NGH: I guess the phrase “There goes the new yacht…” (or similar) might have been used.
Re SH(LR),
A back of the fag packet estimate suggests the extra cost is more than the developers will get from selling /leasing the extra space above, way way beyond the yacht and the market isn’t as buoyant as when they made the requests.
I wouldn’t be surprised if an option is reviewed to run trains in passenger service to Nine Elms, continue out of service to BPS and back (auto-reverse there, with other precedents then existing such as Crossrail at Westbourne Park), and resume service inbound from Nine Elms.
Saves all the costs of completing and staffing a station at BPS except for a pair of emergency exit stairs, and possibly one fewer train too. Then invite third parties to leverage completion funds and remaining reimbursement gap…
The timing of any operational announcement might be before or after the next mayoral election. It will also be dependent on progress of any negotiations with developers. TfL will be even shorter of cash then than now, as a consequence of the present budget parameters.
This makes the two-station extension stub seem even more pointless.
Milton Clevedon,
What an interesting thought! It never occurred to me that TfL might not finish the job until payment was guaranteed, Apart from anything else it avoids the situation where the works are complete but TfL refuses to open the station which gives the excuse for the government to call the action disproportionate. “Disproportionate” seems to be a favourite term when they know what TfL is doing is right but they don’t agree with it.
I don’t think they would delay ordering one train though. They would either order the lot or delay (or cancel) ordering the lot. The Metropolitan line extension shows that you can end up with a bastardised train if you mess around with the order and, anyway, it is very uneconomic to build single trains.
I can see this used as an excuse for TfL to delay ordering any extra Northern line trains for the initial opening of the extension. They have already hinted they could try and open it with only the existing fleet but slightly more fleet availability. Once the East Finchley turn back is built and in service they can slightly reduce the service to High Barnet in the peak (and maybe off-peak as well).
The developers will have to be careful that TfL don’t argue that if the delays get too great then it is not worth ordering more trains for 16 or 17 years use as Northern line trains are due to be replaced in 2040. The thing is, especially with finances the way they will be, TfL won’t be bluffing.
So, mess us around too much and, when it does open, you will only get 16tph on the Battersea Power Station branch for the next couple of decades instead of the 30tph you were eventually expecting.
I suppose the obvious question now is …
“Who blinks first”?
Greg Tingey,
In situations like this simply ask yourself, who can keep it up for longer? Or who has most to lose?
I can’t see why TfL can’t maintain their stance indefinitely. Political pressure might be the hardest bit. Whereas the developers need to recoup their investment and if not having a tube station has an affect on sale prices then they will have to work out which is the least unprofitable route.
Could raise the further interesting scenario of Battersea Park station being dangerously overcrowded so that gets closed as well. More likely some people will simply walk to Nine Elms.
PoP, Milton Clevedon. No auto-reverse facility is planned to be provided. The signalling system is capable of supporting it, but hardware modifications would be required to all 106 trains and is non-trivial.
The delayed fit out would, fairly obviously, have to provide for reversing in one or both platforms with provision for fit out to be completed whilst the tracks and platforms are in use for reversing including the emergency exit already mentioned.
PoP
Or … the larger over-station buildings simply doesn’t happen & all goes ahead as originally planned (?)
I meant to add to my earlier comment that the income generated by Battersea Power Station tube station in its first few years is not expected to be large judging by passenger projections. Rather like the initial years of Meridian Water (to replace Angel Road) the importance of the station is as a statement of the facilities that will be available in future.
So, by the time LU offset reduced operating costs against income, I think, from a financial perspective, TfL hold all the cards.
On the subject of auto-reverse, I cannot see this happening on the Northern line because, as far as I am aware, currently there are no sidings where currently timetabled trains normally reverse. It probably wouldn’t be worth the aggravation of doing it for a temporary situation.
It might be different if the reversing point at
EachEast Finchley was built and commissioned. Even then it is probably not worth doing until it is established on the Jubilee line – where it would offer a far greater benefit. Also the Jubilee line first goes through the pain of modifying trains – which are very similar to Northern line trains.Just to reiterate, LU have never stated it is their intention to introduce auto-reverse trains in future.
Greg 09:47,
My understanding it that it is too late to continue with the original plans. The changes have been made – at great cost.
Based on ngh’s comments, I suspect the developers would love to be able to turn the clock back and stick to the original plan.
Pedantic of Purley 1 October 2017 at 09:48
“Each Finchley”
Already shortlisted for “best typing error by a pedant south of the Thames”.
Almost as good as “All Actons” – or even “Acton Stations!” I suppose.
Or maybe all five of the Ealings… ( Pealings? )
[ There being, what …. Seven stations lablled Acton – 4 compass points, plus Central, Main LIne & Town. I don’t think there is any other place with so many repetitions of its name in stations, is there? ]
Re PoP and Greg,
Indeed well beyond the point of no return (the delay to replan alone cost huge amounts).
In the interim the Chinese government has been introducing controls to reduce capital flight so the volume of buyers has potentially been reduced and some those who are already signed up might be regretting it.
Greg
Not forgetting Acton Bridge, which is of course some 190 miles distant. Pity the poor visitor who ends up there by mistake!
THC
@GT
Lympstone in East Devon has two stations of its name and a population of under 2,000.
The greatest barrier to auto-reverse may not be the hardware changes to the trains. LUL drivers are very sensitive to changes in working practices. I believe, but am not sure, that LUL have still not succeeded in bringing in ADO, automatic door opening as the train comes to a platform stop, on the Victoria line. (Although I would appreciate being corrected by someone who is certain) . So auto-reverse will only be introduced with much blood letting, or ironically much payment. Has a bearing on this thread as it will reduce the cost of running to the empty terminal station.
@Greg. There are 5 in Ruislip but could we stretch that to 7 by counting the National Rail stations separately?
Moosealot: Tyndrum has a population of 167.
Has the question of a new track layout to facilitate reversing at East Finchley been solved yet? Earlier discussion of the various constraints revealed that this is a difficult project.
@GT – and 7 for Harrow if you include Sudbury and Harrow Road, and Sudbury Hill, Harrow.
@MOOSEALOT 2 October 2017 at 11:24
“Lympstone in East Devon has two stations of its name and a population of under 2,000”
Although one is not supposed to be open to the general public, only those with business at the Marine base. Even though a public footpath, running between the railway and the base, now gives access to the station, guards at the gate shout at you apparently if you attempt to use it! I’d say the base also probably has a fairly large albeit transient population of servicemen and other resident employees at any given time.
Anyone have background on the fare zoning? Moving Battersea to Z1 is a stretch and will reduce TfL fares, requiring Kennington to receive Z1 status. Was this a developer initiative for more marketable ‘central’ flats?
Aleks,
Not sure how much was developer led and how much was Mayor led (Boris) to make Battersea appear to be more central. ‘Located in Zone 1’ definitely makes the area seem more attractive. Battersea is not unique. A similar thing was done to Stratford moving it from zone 3 to becoming a Zone 2/3 border to encourage businesses and other enterprises to move there.
Unfortunately the above rezonings prompted a rash of local campaigns to move station X (currently in zone n) into zone n – 1. None of the subsequent campaigns seemed to have any underlying purpose other than reduce fares for local people so rather missed the point of what was trying to be achieved in the case of Battersea and Stratford.
I wouldn’t be so sure on the ‘will reduce TfL fares’ bit. One of the Battersea criticisms was that a lot of people are expected to work in the Battersea/Nine Elms redevelopment area and most will come from outside the area. It has been suggested the will be more people commuting into the area in the morning that commuting from it. So the concern expressed at the time was that bankers would pay less to travel to the city but the poorer-paid workers such as cleaners will experience a fares hike
I doubt many people living outside Zone 1 would be using the extension to travel to work at Nine Elms or Battersea Power Station, at least not unless (and until) it is extended to Clapham Junction. Most would take the train to Battersea Park or Queenstown Road, or the Overground to Wandsworth Road. Even if they use the Northern Line, they would save time and money by getting off at Clapham Common and taking the 345 or 137, rayer than changing at Kennington.
It will be interesting to see how the Z1/2 boundary will be represented in that area, if Kennington and the two new stations are in Zone 1, because Vauxhall, which lies north of the extension, is a Z1/2 boundary station.
Note that there would be VERY noisy protests from SWR commuterland, not least from DfT staff working in its HQ in Horseferry Road, were Vauxhall to be rezoned to Zone 1 (only), as a large number of commuters make use of its boundary status to avoid paying the TOC rate for Zone 1. (The current Transport Secretary’s Epsom constituents might also bend his ear about any such rezoning, although if he is still in post when the NLE opens in 2021 he will be the longest-serving Transport Minister since Alfred Barnes, in Attlee’s government.
Interesting to note that two of his three most recent predecessors – Philip Hammond (Runnymede) and Justine Greening, (Putney – and one recent Under-Secretary (Stephen Hammond, Wimbledon) also have constituencies in SWT-land)
This was the ‘working’ diagram
https://nineelmslondon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Updated-tube-map1.jpg
Can’t have two successive boundaries at Elephant and the following Kennington so will have a Stratford type dual zone ?
@Timbeau
Interesting drafting if the NLX is rerouted ‘north’ of Vauxhall.
@PoP Appreciate that many initial owners of the prestige views etc will not be working commuters but there are a lot more massing development flats that will have ‘town’ flats for regional/international dual home commuters plus investment airbnb occupants.
Walking distance is 750m from Vauxhall to US soil, and from Queenstown Road to Apple HQ.
Nine Elms regeneration is a combination of 20 separate projects covering 560 acres of south London riverside adding about 30,000 homes to Battersea’s housing stock. Surely there would be more than 5,000 daily commuters from that.
@Aleks
Interesting though plausible if future Z1/2 boundary status for Nine Elms and Battersea tube. What does this do to Battersea Park, shown in the linked diagram as 250m away and by implication an interchange? And Queenstown Road Battersea?
MC
Even more illuminating is looking at the actual geographical locations on a “proper” map.
http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=529339&Y=177379&A=Y&Z=115
– link to map.
Grayling “the longest-serving Transport Minister since Alfred Barnes”
God help us all.
“What does this do to Battersea Park? And Queenstown Road Battersea?”
Their combined service frequency is 16tph – the same as planned for the Northern Line Extension. If only politics hadn’t got in the way, TfL could have saved itself 1 billion pounds (and several years) simply by putting those two stations on the Tube map and rezoning them.
@Timbeau
And an early Battersea Power Station re-incarnation merely wanted a £30m 1-track frequent shuttle from Victoria Main Line platforms 1/2, over the Grosvenor railway bridge.
But Battersea Park and Queenstown Road aren’t on THE tube map.
? Marketing inadequacy leading wilfully or accidentally to other wasteful spend.
I promise not to mention Thameslink or Moorgate-Finsbury Park.
In the same phrase as THE tube map.
@Stewart – Next week, Grayling will have been in post for two and a half years. There have been 38 Ministers of Transport since August 1945, so an average tenure of just under two years.
Only eight have had longer in post: Alfred Barnes (1945-1951), Harold Watkinson (1955-1959) , Ernest Marples (1959-1964), Bill Rogers (1976-1979), Nicholas Ridley (1983-1986) John Prescott (1997-2001), Alastair Darling (2002-2006) and Patrick McLoughlin (2012-2016). The shortest was Tom King, who was promoted in 1983, after only four months in the job.
Putting Battersea in Z1 doesn’t really benefit anybody other than the developer. Anybody who can afford to buy a flat there, can afford a Zone 1-2 fare.
More interesting is the case for people travelling in from the outside. If you’re approaching from the south (central, east or west), then life becomes more expensive as you end up in Zone 1, wacking £50 or so on to your monthly travel costs. If you live on the opposite side of London it makes no difference as you need to travel across Zone 1 anyway.
According to web-site, the development has a free bus to Sloane Square and Victoria Station for residents as well so they can avoid paying the zone 2 supplement if the station wasn’t rezoned.
Hence my cynical view that this is only of any benefit to the developer, who can put this on their marketing brochure…
@SHLR
But if you’re coming from the south, easy or west, you won’t be using the new extension but travelling to a Zone 2 station (Battersea Park, Queenstown Road, Wandsworth Road, or Clapham Common – possibly using a bus from the latter, but still not paying Zone 1 fares.
On a tangential point the TfL Budget review meeting at City Hall today (7/1) eeked out a couple of interesting issues re the Northern Line Extension.
– part of the reason for the delayed opening is at the request of the developer. They do not expect to have sufficient tenants at the Power Station site in line with the original planned opening date. Therefore they’ve asked for a delay. The closures at Bank are the other factor.
– seems the commercial dispute with the developer is not fully settled but “relationships are better than they have been”.
On the fare zone issue Kennington becomes a Z12 station with the new stations in Zone 1. A mayor’s answer in 2017 confirms this position. A quick google search brings up the relevant answer.
WW
That’s going to mean an interesting re-drawing of the tube & “London Rail” maps, then, isn’t it?
@ Greg – not sure it will. The Tube Map can be tweaked with relative ease as there is obvious space already allocated to add the NLE. Similarly the Z12 boundary can be adjusted to cover Kennington as well as Vauxhall and E&C.
The TOC and TfL map also doesn’t look that hard to change either. It looks like it has been tweaked in such a way as to allocate a lot of space to add the extension, move Kennington station north and tweak the zone boundary. The relative geography of the stations in Battersea may not be entirely realistic but then it’s a diagrammatic representation not a pure map.
@Greg/WW
If the extension stations are in Zone 1 (rather than Z1/2 boundary stations like Vauxhall is and Kennington is proposed to be) the extension will have to be depicted in Zone 1, but it crosses the Victoria Line south of Vauxhall, and that stretch of the Victoria Line is in Zone 2. The simplest solution would be to distort reality and depict the NLE crossing the Victoria Line north of Vauxhall.
If Battersea Park/ Battersea Tube is to be an OSI, this would create the, I think, unique anomaly of an OSI between stations in different zones (other than where one or both is a boundary station).
@WW moving Kennington north is to preserve the 45 degree lines? The Northern line would then be horizontal to Elephant.
@Timbeau the Vic line xing was the complication I highlighted.
Tube map conventions are that zones travelled through are chargeable, and attempted representation – some positions are stretched but not swapped to this extent.
Moving the NLX north of Vauxhall is the neatest ‘assistant’.
Given the OSI and close proximity (750m) of neighbouring stations the creation of a Z1/2 boundary area from Battersea to Elephant can be justified.
OOC developers will probably want similar treatment to Stratford. If zones keep growing and merging it could eventually simplify the fares structure.
@ Timbeau – I’m not at all sure whether an OSI can work where each station is in a different fare zone. Like you I can’t think of a precedent where this situation exists. Seems bizarre to pay more for walking down the road! I suppose there may be some journeys where people would interchange from B’sea Park to BPS to take the Northern Line but it’s not exactly easy given other interchanges you might need to make. Also travelling via Vauxhall to reach the Vic Line and Northern (to head south) would actually be cheaper as you avoid Zone 1 whereas you wouldn’t if you used the NLE.
@ Aleks – I’m not a map designer but I think the NLE turning north of the Vic Line is the plausible design solution even if it completely ignores actual geography.
@WW another precedent would be running the zonal overlay alongside an actual railway between two stations, they were introduced deliberately inbetween for clarity. The existing map has a boundary alongside the Overground from Crystal Palace but turns away before another stop.
To fit with a map design bible the Z1/2 area option avoids creating anomalies/precedents.
@ Timbeau and Milton Clevedon, 7 Jan above.
The importance of underground vs overground connections? From an article by writer Emma Healey in last Saturday’s Guardian “Review” section, who, “grew up five minutes from Clapham Junction”.
“Clapham Junction is famously busy, but it isn’t on the tube, and feels separate from the rest of London, as if its purpose is to carry people away from the capital. I felt that I stood on the edge of the city and looked in.”
The Battersea branch opens on 20 September.