Bakerloo line extension#1931 and 1947 extension proposals

File:Elephant & Castle stn Bakerloo east look north.JPG, the southern terminus of the Bakerloo line]]

Most of the London Underground network lies north of the River Thames, public transport in South London generally being provided by lower-frequency National Rail suburban services and London Buses.{{cite map |url= http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-connections-map.pdf |title=London Connections Map |publisher=Transport for London |url-status=live |access-date=22 October 2018 |date=May 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181022121327/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-connections-map.pdf |archive-date=22 October 2018}}{{cite map |url= http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-rail-and-tube-services-map.pdf |title=London Rail and Tube Services Map |date=May 2018 |access-date=22 October 2018 |archive-date=22 October 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181022121446/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-rail-and-tube-services-map.pdf |url-status=live}}

A large area of South-east London has no rail or tube links, and low public transport accessibility levels.{{cite web |title=Blackfriars – Loughborough Junction |url= http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/Blackfriars_Loughborough.html |access-date=2 October 2009 |website= abandonedstations.org.uk}}{{Cite web |author= Diamond Geezer |date=15 July 2015 |title=Where in London is over one mile from a station? |url=https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1Qc0XsLq_t_gNu4hkv-b2Dyw8z_o |access-date=28 March 2021 |website= Google My Maps}}{{Cite web |last=Aron |first=Isabelle |title=This map shows all the places in London that are more than a mile away from a station |url= https://www.timeout.com/london/blog/this-map-shows-all-the-places-in-london-that-are-more-than-a-mile-away-from-a-station |access-date=28 March 2021 |website=Time Out London |date=21 July 2015}} This includes places such as Camberwell, Walworth, Burgess Park and the Old Kent Road. Existing railway lines through the area – the South Eastern Main Line and the Holborn Viaduct–Herne Hill line – are already very crowded and at full capacity. There are also no intermediate stations on main lines through this area. Furthermore, TfL states that the bus network along the Old Kent Road operates at "close to capacity" with over 60 buses an hour in some sections.

Unlike most Underground lines, the Bakerloo line terminates in Zone 1 of London.{{Cite web |title=Tube and Rail Maps |url= https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track?intcmp=40400 |url-status=live |access-date=2 April 2021 |publisher=Transport for London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170315200714/https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track?intcmp=40400 |archive-date=15 March 2017 }} The line is underused compared to other Underground lines. In 2017, around 110 million journeys were made on it, less than half of those on the Central, Northern, Jubilee or Victoria lines, and passenger growth levels have been lower than on other lines. TfL believes that the low level of demand on the line is due to its limited connectivity at the southern end, a lower frequency of service compared to other lines (20 trains per hour versus 30+ trains per hour on the Victoria line), and the oldest trains on the Underground network.

Before the Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (now the Bakerloo line) opened between Baker Street and Elephant & Castle in 1906, several alternative schemes were proposed for extending the line at both ends. One failed scheme, the New Cross & Waterloo Railway Bill of 1898, had proposed the construction of a line as far south as {{rws|Old Kent Road}}, but it was not considered by parliament before it was dropped.{{sfn|Badsey-Ellis|2005|pp=77–78}}

The possibility of building a line through Camberwell first emerged in 1913, when the Lord Mayor of London announced a proposal for the Bakerloo Tube to be extended to the Crystal Palace via Camberwell Green, Dulwich and Sydenham Hill.{{sfn|Badsey-Ellis|2005|p=268}} In 1921, the Underground Electric Railways Company of London costed an extension to Camberwell, Dulwich and Sydenham, and in 1922, plans for an extension to Orpington via Loughborough Junction and Catford were considered. No action was taken to move any of these proposals forward. In 1928, a route to Rushey Green via Dulwich was suggested. Again, no action was taken, although the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee supported the idea of an extension to Camberwell in 1926.{{sfn|Horne|2001|pp=40–41}}

{{Bakerloo line extension New Works Plan RDT}}

In 1931, an extension to Camberwell was approved as part of the London Electric Metropolitan District and Central London Railway Companies (Works) Act, 1931.{{London Gazette

| issue = 33699

| date = 17 March 1931

| pages = 1809–1811

}}{{London Gazette

| issue = 33761

| date = 9 October 1931

| page = 6462

}} The route was to follow Walworth Road and Camberwell Road south from Elephant & Castle, with stations at Albany Road and under {{rws|Denmark Hill}} at Camberwell. Elephant & Castle was also to be reconstructed with a third platform to provide the additional turn-round capacity, a new ticket hall and escalators. The need to prioritise the extension from {{lus|Baker Street}} to {{lus|Finchley Road}} to provide relief for the Metropolitan line, financial constraints and the outbreak of the Second World War prevented any work from starting.{{sfn|Horne|2001|pp=40–41}}

The 1931 enabling powers were renewed by the Government in 1947 under the Special Enactments (Extension of Time) Act, 1940,{{London Gazette

| issue = 38145

| date = 12 December 1947

| page = 5876

}} and the projected extension as far as Camberwell even appeared on a 1949 edition of the Underground map, but no further work was done.{{cite web|date=June 1949|title=History of the London Tube Map, 1949 tube map|url=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080125074800/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clive.billson/tubemaps/1949.html|archive-date=25 January 2008|access-date=13 January 2008|publisher=London Transport}} Train indication signs showing Camberwell as a destination were created in anticipation of the southern extension and erected in some Tube stations; these signs were still visible at {{lus|Warwick Avenue}} until the 1990s.{{cite book|last=Garland|first=Ken|title=Mr Beck's Underground Map|publisher=Capital Transport|year=1994|isbn=1-85414-168-6|page=41}} Also, the order for 1949 Stock – built to augment the 1938 stock fleet – included sufficient cars to provide extra trains for the Camberwell extension.

Eventually the proposal faded away. Extensions and new stations were not in favour post-war, as road use increased massively. However, the problem of inadequate turn-round capacity at Elephant & Castle remained. The plan was briefly revived in the 1950s with the intermediate station now to be at Walworth and the terminus under Camberwell Green. Elephant & Castle would not be altered and the additional turn-round capacity would be provided by making Camberwell a three-platform terminus.

The original intention to extend to Camberwell was driven by the wish to serve the area, but in the later scheme operational issues were a major consideration. By the time the Bakerloo line branches to {{rws|Watford Junction}} and {{lus|Stanmore}} had opened, the line was running at full capacity, limited by the need to terminate trains at Elephant & Castle. By extending to Camberwell, where there would be three platforms, the whole line would have benefited from an improved frequency. However, "stepping back"{{cite web|title=Explanation of Stepping Back|url=http://husk.org/www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/7069/freqs.html|access-date=10 March 2012}} made the best use of the terminal capacity at Elephant & Castle, and this weakened the case for an extension from Elephant & Castle.

By 1950, post-war austerity, the levelling-off of demand, and above all the disproportionately high cost of the project with a three-platform deep-level terminus and the need to purchase 14 further trains and build a new depot for them, meant that the project became unaffordable and it was cancelled.{{sfn|Horne|2001|p=51}}{{Cite news|last=Roberts|first=Jonathan|date=December 2011|title=Extending the Bakerloo – Tube line could reach Hayes|pages=56–59|work=Modern Railways}} Demand on the Bakerloo line was relieved following construction of the Jubilee line in the 1970s, as the Stanmore branch now solely served the new Jubilee line.

In the 1970s, the Greater London Council considered extending the line to Peckham Rye, however this proposal was not taken forward due to high costs, low ridership projections and subsequent poor value for money.{{Cite web|title=Bakerloo Line extension to Camberwell|url=http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/104|access-date=25 September 2018|website=www.alwaystouchout.com|archive-date=28 October 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071028095714/http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/104|url-status=dead}}{{Cite web|last=Roberts|first=Jonathan|date=13 September 2011|title=Reports of Society Meetings – Beyond the Elephant|url=https://www.lurs.org.uk/articles12_htm_files/2012%2003%20reports%20of%20society%20meetings.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=28 March 2021|website=London Underground Railway Society|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130709021735/http://lurs.org.uk/articles12_htm_files/2012%2003%20reports%20of%20society%20meetings.pdf |archive-date=9 July 2013 }}

In the late 1980s, following overcrowding in Central London and proposed growth in Docklands, the Central London Rail Study (a joint report of Network SouthEast, London Underground, London Regional Transport and the Department for Transport) was commissioned.{{Cite web|date=January 1989|title=Central London Rail Study|url=https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_CentralLondonRailStudy1989.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=28 March 2021|website=Railways Archive|publisher=Network SouthEast, London Underground, London Regional Transport and the Department for Transport|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130629152424/http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_CentralLondonRailStudy1989.pdf |archive-date=29 June 2013 }} Within the report, two extensions of the Bakerloo line were considered – an extension to Lewisham along the Old Kent Road, and an extension to Canary Wharf and Docklands. Neither proposal was taken forward.{{Cite web|date=1997|title=Monograph – "Starting from Scratch" – the development of transport in London Docklands – The Detailed Story|url=http://www.lddc-history.org.uk/transport/tranmon3.html|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=London Docklands Development Corporation History|publisher=London Docklands Development Corporation|quote=The first response to this was a proposal in early 1988 to extend the Bakerloo Line from Waterloo to Canary Wharf via either London Bridge or Bricklayers Arms. This could then be extended with two branches; one to Stratford and possibly Tottenham Hale and the second via East India/Brunswick to the Royals.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050215160439/http://www.lddc-history.org.uk:80/transport/tranmon3.html |archive-date=15 February 2005 }} Subsequently, the Jubilee line was extended to serve Canary Wharf and the Docklands as part of the Jubilee Line Extension, which opened in 1999.

In the early 2000s, Transport for London (TfL) under Mayor Ken Livingstone proposed the Cross River Tram, a new light rail system running south from Kings Cross, Camden and Euston through Central London to Waterloo, with two branches serving Brixton and Peckham.{{Cite news|date=17 August 2001|title=Tram planned for central London|language=en-GB|work=BBC News|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1496073.stm|access-date=29 March 2021}}{{Cite web|date=14 May 2007|title=Cross River Tram {{!}} Transport for London|url=http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/2043.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070514003531/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/2043.aspx|archive-date=14 May 2007|access-date=29 March 2021|website=Transport for London}} The line would serve areas such as Walworth or Peckham not served by Underground or National Rail stations, provide fully accessible journeys thanks to low floor trams, and provide faster journeys than existing bus services.{{Cite web|date=17 May 2007|title=Cross River Tram {{!}} Benefits {{!}} Transport for London|url=http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/crossrivertram/2045.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070517122809/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/networkandservices/crossrivertram/2045.aspx|archive-date=17 May 2007|access-date=29 March 2021|website=Transport for London}}{{Cite web|date=12 November 2006|title=alwaystouchout.com – Cross River Tram|url=http://www.alwaystouchout.com/project/2|url-status=live|access-date=29 March 2021|website=www.alwaystouchout.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040407012350/http://www.alwaystouchout.com:80/project/2 |archive-date=7 April 2004 }} Consultation on the proposed tram took place in 2006–7, with the tram line proposed to open in 2016 at a cost of around £1.3bn.{{Cite web|date=22 October 2008|title=Cross River Tram: City Hall committee divided on prospects for £1.3 billion scheme [22 October 2008]|url=http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3568|url-status=live|access-date=29 March 2021|website=London SE1|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081030083159/http://www.london-se1.co.uk:80/news/view/3568 |archive-date=30 October 2008 }}{{Cite web|date=20 November 2006|title=Cross River Tram Consultation Launched|url=https://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/cross-river-tram-consultation-launched/|access-date=29 March 2021|website=MayorWatch|language=en-GB}}

Throughout the early 2000s, no Bakerloo line extensions were being considered by TfL, as the Public Private Partnership (PPP) to upgrade the Underground did not include provision for line extensions within the PPP contracts.{{Cite web|last1=Biggs|first1=John|last2=Livingstone|first2=Ken|date=9 June 2003|title=Victoria and Bakerloo line Extensions|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2003/1142|access-date=29 March 2021|website=Mayor's Question Time}}{{Cite web|last1=Shawcross|first1=Valerie|last2=Livingstone|first2=Ken|date=7 March 2005|title=Transport Plan – Southward Extensions|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2005/0820|url-status=live|access-date=29 March 2021|website=Mayor's Question Time|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210909142647/https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2005/0820 |archive-date=9 September 2021 }} However, it was noted that there could be demand for a Bakerloo line extension in future decades.{{cite news|last=Rhys|first=Paul|date=10 February 2006|title=Tube line 'may extend south within 20 years'|work=ICSouthLondon|url=http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0300southwark/tm_objectid=16685898&method=full&siteid=50100&headline=tube-line--may-extend-south-within-20-years--name_page.html|url-status=dead|access-date=1 October 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060411184429/http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0300southwark/tm_objectid%3D16685898%26method%3Dfull%26siteid%3D50100%26headline%3Dtube-line--may-extend-south-within-20-years--name_page.html|archive-date=11 April 2006}}{{cite web|author=Peter|date=11 February 2006|title=Camberwell Tube Station in 2026?|url=http://www.camberwellonline.co.uk/2006/02/camberwell-tube-station-in-2026/|website=CamberwellOnline Blog}} Following the election of Mayor Boris Johnson, the Cross River Tram was cancelled in 2008 due to lack of funding.{{Cite web|date=6 November 2008|title=Boris Johnson axes Cross River Tram|url=http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/3589|url-status=live|access-date=29 March 2021|website=London SE1|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081212002913/http://www.london-se1.co.uk:80/news/view/3589 |archive-date=12 December 2008 }}

In November 2006, TfL published a transport strategic report for London, Transport 2025: transport challenges for a growing city.{{Cite document |date=November 2006 |title=Transport 2025: Transport vision for a growing world city |publisher=Transport for London}} The report considered a variety of long-term transport improvements in London, with a Bakerloo extension considered as the most beneficial option for extending the Tube in South London. It considered three route options for the Bakerloo line; from Elephant & Castle, the proposed routes were either south to Camberwell and Streatham, or east to Beckenham and Hayes:

{{cite web|url=http://londonreconnections.blogspot.com/2009/08/extending-bakerloo-investigations-and.html|title=Extending the Bakerloo: Investigations and Options|date=27 August 2009|publisher=LondonReconnections (blog)|access-date=1 October 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120823175452/http://www.londonreconnections.com/2009/extending-the-bakerloo-investigations-and-options/|archive-date=23 August 2012|url-status=dead}}

Option 1: via Burgess Park, east to {{rws|Peckham Rye}} and {{rws|Catford Bridge}}, with the option of taking over the Hayes Line to terminate at {{rws|Hayes}}

Option 2: south to Camberwell Green, and then on to {{rws|Herne Hill}} and {{rws|Streatham Hill}}, with a branch at {{rws|Tulse Hill}} which would take over the National Rail line to {{rws|Beckenham Junction}}

Option 3: a similar route to option 1, but after Burgess Park running via the Old Kent Road and {{rws|New Cross}} before joining the Hayes line at {{rws|Lewisham}} and terminating at Hayes.

A subsequent feasibility report into an extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle was commissioned by TfL in 2007, with potential routes south to Camberwell and Streatham, or east to Beckenham and Hayes.{{Cite web|title=Tony Meadows Associates|url=http://www.tma.uk.com/tma-cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/TMA-Capability-Statement-April-2017-Design-website.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=28 March 2021|website=Tony Meadows Associates|quote=In 2007 Mott MacDonald and Tony Meadows Associates were commissioned to examine the proposals once again. The commission considered an extension from Elephant and Castle with branches to two termini at Beckenham Junction and Hayes (Kent).|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817104501/http://www.tma.uk.com/tma-cms/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/TMA-Capability-Statement-April-2017-Design-website.pdf |archive-date=17 August 2021 }} However, the Mayor stated that the immediate focus of TfL was on renewing and upgrading existing lines, and that further work on an extension of the line would not begin until the mid 2010s in the subsequent Business Plan.{{Cite web|last1=Shawcross|first1=Valerie|last2=Johnson|first2=Boris|date=25 March 2009|title=Bakerloo line extension|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2009/0815|access-date=29 March 2021|website=Mayor's Question Time}}

In May 2010, Mayor Boris Johnson published the Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS), which outlined the Mayor's plans for public transport in the capital.{{Cite web|date=19 January 2015|title=Mayor's Transport Strategy 2010|url=https://www.london.gov.uk//what-we-do/transport/transport-publications/mayors-transport-strategy|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=Greater London Authority|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306112001/http://www.london.gov.uk:80/what-we-do/transport/transport-publications/mayors-transport-strategy |archive-date=6 March 2016 }} The MTS specifically supported a southern extension of the Bakerloo line, noting that it would utilise spare Bakerloo line capacity, serve areas with low transport connectivity, and relieve congested National Rail lines into central London. The proposal was noted, however, to be a long-term project, requiring further study by TfL.{{Cite web|date=May 2010|title=Mayor's Transport Strategy – Chapter five – Transport proposals|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mts_chapter_5_pt1_0.pdf|url-status=live|website=Greater London Authority|page=139|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121012222720/http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/MTS_Chapter_5_pt1_0.pdf |archive-date=12 October 2012 }}

A consultant's report for Lewisham Council in 2010 analysed the costs and benefits of a variety of different routes for a Bakerloo extension, with costs between £1.6bn and £3.6bn, depending on the destination and the route option chosen.{{cite web|author=JRC Jonathan Roberts Consulting|date=September 2010|title=Potential options for Bakerloo Line extension towards SE London|url=http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/Data/Sustainable%20Development%20Select%20Committee/20100914/Agenda/04%20-%20%20Appendix%20B%20Bakerloo%20Line%20SE%20London%20extensions%20review%20-%20PDF.pdf|access-date=6 August 2013|publisher=Lewisham Council Sustainable Development Select Committee}} The report also stated that the Northern line extension to Battersea and the Piccadilly line upgrade were "ahead in the investment queue", and therefore work was unlikely to begin until the 2020s. TfL's view was that "A key advantage of the Hayes option is that [it] releases train paths into London Bridge".{{cite web|author=London Borough of Lewisham|date=9 February 2011|title=Bakerloo Line extension: Referral from the Sustainable Development Select Committee|url=http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/overview-scrutiny/Overview-and-Scrutiny-Reports/Documents/Bakerloo%20line%20extension%20response.pdf|access-date=6 August 2013|at=para 6.5|archive-date=10 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610225807/http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/overview-scrutiny/Overview-and-Scrutiny-Reports/Documents/Bakerloo%20line%20extension%20response.pdf|url-status=dead}}

In July 2011, Network Rail published a long-term planning document for London and the South East – the Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS). This recommended an extension of the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham, where it would take over the line to Hayes and thus release capacity on National Rail lines into Charing Cross.{{cite web|date=July 2011|title=London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy|url=http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131213164156/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdf|archive-date=13 December 2013|access-date=10 March 2013|publisher=Network Rail|page=}}{{cite news |title=London RUS suggests fifth track on South West line |author=Broadbent, Steve |work=Rail |location =Peterborough |date=10 August 2011 |page=8}} In January 2012, Network Rail published a summary of its London & South East RUS recommendations, which stated that further feasibility work on an extension was required.{{cite web|url=http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20rus%20-%20summary%20list%20of%20recommendations%20january%202012.pdf|title=London & South East RUS Summary of RUS recommendations and supporting information|date=January 2012|access-date=9 March 2012}} In March 2012, Lewisham Council's consultant on the Bakerloo extension advised: "There is a good to strong, but not overwhelming case for a Bakerloo extension", explaining many other rail projects in the London area were competing for funding – including Crossrail 2 and Tube upgrades.{{cite web|url=http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/overview-scrutiny/Overview-and-Scrutiny-Reports/Documents/Bakerloo%20extension%20report.pdf|title=Integrated Transport – Bakerloo Line Extension|publisher=London Borough of Lewisham|at=para 4.14|date=25 April 2012|access-date=6 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160305013209/http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/mayorandcouncil/overview-scrutiny/Overview-and-Scrutiny-Reports/Documents/Bakerloo%20extension%20report.pdf|archive-date=5 March 2016|url-status=dead}}

In early 2013, Mayor Johnson confirmed that detailed feasibility work into the extension by TfL was underway, and that Southwark Council was working out the level of development required to justify the economic case for the extension.{{Cite web|last1=Johnson|first1=Darren|last2=Johnson|first2=Boris|date=11 March 2013|title=Bakerloo line extension|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2013/0814|access-date=31 March 2021|website=Mayor's Question Time}}{{Cite web|date=1 April 2013|title=Bakerloo line extension "closer than ever" says council leader|url=http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6734|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=London SE1|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130401174758/http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/6734 |archive-date=1 April 2013 }} In early 2014, Mayor Johnson stated that the Old Kent Road would be designated as an Opportunity Area,{{cite press release|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/01/tens-of-thousands-of-new-homes-and-jobs-to-be-created-through|title=Tens of thousands of new homes and jobs to be created through updated London Plan|publisher=Greater London Authority|date=January 2014|access-date=30 December 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141230180138/https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/01/tens-of-thousands-of-new-homes-and-jobs-to-be-created-through|archive-date=30 December 2014}} causing concern that this could cause TfL to prefer a route via Old Kent Road rather than Camberwell.{{Cite web|last=Murphy|first=Joe|date=18 September 2014|title=Boris Johnson attacked over plans to push Bakerloo line further to south-east London|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/boris-johnson-attacked-over-plans-to-push-bakerloo-line-further-to-southeast-london-9740325.html|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=Evening Standard|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921020102/http://www.standard.co.uk:80/news/london/boris-johnson-attacked-over-plans-to-push-bakerloo-line-further-to-southeast-london-9740325.html |archive-date=21 September 2014 }} In July 2014, the London Infrastructure Plan 2050 further supported the Bakerloo line extension as a long term transport project for London.{{Cite web|date=4 November 2015|title=London Infrastructure Plan 2050|url=https://www.london.gov.uk//what-we-do/business-and-economy/better-infrastructure/london-infrastructure-plan-2050|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=Greater London Authority|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114202253/https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/better-infrastructure/london-infrastructure-plan-2050 |archive-date=14 January 2016 }}

{{Bakerloo line extension 2014 plan RDT}}

In September 2014, TfL launched an initial public consultation into the Bakerloo line extension.{{Cite web|date=30 September 2014|title=Bakerloo line extension 'vital' for South London|url=https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/september/bakerloo-line-extension-vital-for-south-london|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=Transport for London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108041109/http://www.tfl.gov.uk:80/info-for/media/press-releases/2014/september/bakerloo-line-extension-vital-for-south-london |archive-date=8 November 2014 }}{{Cite news |date=30 September 2014 |title=Bakerloo Line extension consultation begins |work=BBC News |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-29422425 |access-date=31 March 2021}} The proposal included a new tunnel from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham, before a further extension using existing rail lines south of Lewisham to Beckenham Junction and Hayes.{{cite web |url= https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension |title= Bakerloo Line Extension |publisher= Transport for London |date= September 2014 |access-date= 30 December 2014 |archive-date= 23 September 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210923125632/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/ |url-status= dead }} The cost of the extension would be in the region of £2–3 billion and construction was proposed to start in the mid 2020s, with a completion date of the early to mid 2030s.{{cite web |date=September 2014 |title=Bakerloo Line Extension – Frequently Asked Questions |url=https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/bakerloo-line-extension-faqs--2-.pdf |access-date=30 December 2014 |publisher=Transport for London |page=2 |archive-date=9 October 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009031850/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/bakerloo-line-extension-faqs--2-.pdf |url-status=dead }} As part of the consultation, feedback was sought on various route options:

• Option 1a: a direct south-east route via the Old Kent Road, with 2 stations or
• Option 1b: a southern route, via Camberwell and Peckham Rye stations
• Option 2: Extending the line further east from Beckenham Junction to Bromley.

The consultation was met with wide support from the public,{{cite press release|publisher=Transport for London|title=Bakerloo line extension to improve transport links in south London by 2030|date=17 December 2015|url=https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2015/december/bakerloo-line-extension-to-improve-transport-links-in-south-london-by-2030}} London Assembly members,{{Cite web |date=2 December 2014 |title=Transport Committee response – Bakerloo extension |url= https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Transport%20Committee%20response%20-%20Bakerloo%20extension.pdf |access-date=31 March 2021 |publisher= Greater London Authority}} local MPs, and local boroughs such as Southwark,{{Cite news |date=25 February 2015 |title=Southwark residents urged to keep wheels turning in Bakerloo Line extension campaign |url= https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/southwark-residents-urged-to-keep-wheels-turning-in-bakerloo-line-extension-campaign/ |access-date=31 March 2021 |work=Southwark News }} Lewisham{{cite news |url= http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11636680.Lewisham_Council_backs_Bakerloo_Line_extension_to_borough/ |title=Lewisham Council backs Bakerloo Line extension to borough |work=News Shopper |date=December 2014 |access-date=30 December 2014}} and Greenwich{{Cite news |last=Chamberlain |first=Darryl |date=15 January 2015 |title=Greenwich Council backing Bakerloo Line to Lewisham |url= https://853.london/2015/01/15/greenwich-council-backing-bakerloo-line-to-lewisham/ |access-date=31 March 2021 |website=853 }} publicly supporting the proposal. However, Bromley Council called the extension "unacceptable", due to the potential loss of fast trains to London Bridge.{{Cite news |last=Chandler |first=Mark |date=22 January 2015 |title=Bromley Council says Bakerloo Line extension to Hayes is 'unacceptable' |url= https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11742497.bromley-council-says-bakerloo-line-extension-to-hayes-is-unacceptable/ |access-date=31 March 2021 |website=News Shopper}} Subsequently, some Lewisham councillors accused their counterparts in Bromley of being against the extension.{{cite news |url= http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/11520940.Lewisham_councillor_brands_Bromley_Council__bonkers__for_allegedly_opposing_Bakerloo_extension/?ref=mr |title=Lewisham councillor brands Bromley Council 'bonkers' for allegedly opposing Bakerloo extension |work=News Shopper |last=Collier |first=Hattie |date=8 October 2014 |access-date=15 March 2019}} Other boroughs lobbied for alternative routes: Croydon Council suggested in July 2015 that the extension should go to Croydon instead of Bromley.{{Cite news |last=Alwakeel |first=Ramzy |date=23 July 2015 |title=Could the Bakerloo Line be extended to Croydon? |url= https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/bakerloo-line-extension-boris-johnson-urged-to-redirect-tube-services-to-croydon-10407195.html |access-date=31 March 2021 |work= Evening Standard |location= London}}{{Cite news |title=Is the Tube coming to Croydon? Council preparing ambitious bid for Bakerloo line extension |url= https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/13489065.tube-coming-croydon-council-preparing-ambitious-bid-bakerloo-line-extension/|access-date=31 March 2021 |work= Sutton and Croydon Guardian |location= London |date=22 July 2015 |first=Chris |last=Baynes}}

Following the consultation, TfL analysed the various responses received, and assessed various routes options suggested. Destinations of routes assessed included Streatham, Crystal Palace, Croydon, Orpington & Bromley, Woolwich Arsenal via Deptford, as well as the original proposed route to Hayes & Beckenham Junction.{{Cite web|date=December 2015|title=Bakerloo line extension – Options assessment report|url=https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2014/user_uploads/options-assessment-report_final.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=6 November 2021|website=Transport for London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817082255/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2014/user_uploads/options-assessment-report_final.pdf|archive-date=17 August 2021}}

In December 2015, TfL published the results of the consultation, noting that it had received over 15,000 responses, of which 96 per cent were in favour of an extension. It concluded that an extension towards Lewisham via the Old Kent Road was favoured, as it had the potential of 25,000 new homes along the route – as well as a construction cost £480m less than Option 1b (via Camberwell and Peckham Rye).{{Cite news |date=10 December 2015 |title=Bakerloo line extension: TfL favours Lewisham via Old Kent Road |url= http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8569|access-date=31 March 2021 |website=London SE1 }} An extension to Lewisham would be built as a first phase, as it would be easier, cheaper and less disruptive to build. A further extension to Hayes and Beckenham or Bromley would now be considered in a separate phase in the more distant future. Campaigners in Camberwell were "very disappointed" by the preferred route announcement, noting that they would push for the construction of a Camberwell railway station instead.{{Cite news|date=17 September 2015|title=Camberwell campaigners "very disappointed" with Bakerloo line extension report|website=Southwark News|url=https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/camberwell-campaigners-go-off-the-rail-over-bakerloo-line-extension-report/|access-date=31 March 2021}} In Southwark, campaigners welcomed the news, suggesting they would push for both the Camberwell and Old Kent Road branches to be built.{{Cite web|date=31 March 2015|title=Overwhelming support in Southwark for Bakerloo line extension|url=http://www.southwarklabour.co.uk/latest-news/southwark/news.aspx?p=102341|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=Southwark Labour Party|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210120170043/http://www.southwarklabour.co.uk/latest-news/southwark/news.aspx?p=102341 |archive-date=20 January 2021 }} TfL stated that it would now begin detailed technical work on the extension, with a further consultation to follow in 2016.

Following the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London in 2016, detailed technical and feasibility work on the extension continued, with the TfL Business Plan noting the completion date of the extension could be brought forward to 2028/9.{{Cite web|date=8 December 2016|title=Sadiq Khan takes Transport for London into new business territory|url=http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2016/dec/08/sadiq-khan-takes-transport-for-london-into-new-business-territory|access-date=2 April 2021|website=The Guardian|language=en}}{{Cite web|date=9 March 2016|title=Sadiq Khan makes manifesto pledge to back Bakerloo line extension|url=http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8696|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=London SE1|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310103324/http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/8696 |archive-date=10 March 2016 }}

File:Bricklayers Arms flyover (2) - geograph.org.uk - 1766302.jpg]]

In February 2017, TfL opened a detailed consultation to examine potential sites for stations and ventilation shafts along the proposed route to Lewisham.{{cite press release |publisher= Transport for London | url=https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/february/bakerloo-line-extension-to-support-new-housing-and-jo |title= Bakerloo line extension to support new housing and jobs |date=9 February 2017 |access-date=10 February 2017}}{{Cite news |last=Crerar |first=Pippa |date=10 February 2017 |title=TfL reveals plans for major Bakerloo line extension |url= https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/bakerloo-line-extension-tfl-sets-out-plans-for-new-tube-route-to-lewisham-a3462331.html |access-date=2 April 2021 |work=Evening Standard |location= London}} The consultation proposed two new stations on the Old Kent Road (each with two location options), and interchange stations at New Cross Gate and Lewisham. The consultation also stated that expansion and improvement work would be required at the existing Elephant & Castle station, to provide better connections to the Northern line and National Rail services.{{Cite web|date=February 2017|title=Bakerloo line extension – Have your say – Transport for London – Citizen Space|url=https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2017/|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=consultations.tfl.gov.uk|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200929214858/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2017/ |archive-date=29 September 2020 }} Local campaigners broadly welcomed the consultation, with criticism of the proposed ventilation shafts at Faraday Gardens (a local park) and Bricklayers Arms, where an additional station was requested.{{Cite news |last=Powell |first=Tom |date=19 March 2017 |title=Row over plans to build Bakerloo line extension shaft on public park |url= https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/row-over-plans-to-build-bakerloo-line-extension-shaft-in-historic-southwark-park-a3492751.html |access-date=2 April 2021|work=Evening Standard |location= London}}{{Cite news |date=19 April 2017 |title='Bricklayers Arms needs tube station' says Tower Bridge Road businessman, as TfL consultation draws to a close |url= https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/bricklayers-arms-needs-tube-station-says-tower-bridge-road-businessman-tfl-consultation-draws-close/ |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=Southwark News}}{{Cite news |date=14 March 2017 |title=Clamour grows for Bakerloo line station at Bricklayers Arms |url= http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9122 |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=London SE1}} Sainsbury's criticised the proposed location of the New Cross Gate station, stating it preferred another location for the station, so that it could build 1,500 homes and a new supermarket on the New Cross Gate Retail Park instead.{{Cite web|date=15 December 2017|title=Sainsbury's plan 1500 homes by future New Cross Gate Bakerloo line station|url=https://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2017/12/15/sainsburys-plan-1500-homes-by-future-new-cross-gate-bakerloo-line-station/|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Murky Depths}}{{Cite web|date=4 December 2017 |title=Consultation on the Re-Development of New Cross Sainsbury's |url= https://www.nxgtrust.org.uk/consultation-on-the-re-development-of-new-cross-sainsburys/|access-date=2 April 2021|website=New Cross Gate Trust}}

In July 2017, the initial response to the consultation was published by TfL, noting that over 4,800 responses had been received. Further work to analyse the responses, and detailed technical & feasibility work would continue.{{Cite web|date=July 2017|title=Bakerloo line extension – consultation report – July 2017|url=https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2017/user_uploads/ble-consultation-report-final-1.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Transport for London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510223456/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2017/user_uploads/ble-consultation-report-final-1.pdf |archive-date=10 May 2021 }}{{Cite web|last=Crerar|first=Pippa|date=31 July 2017|title=Residents give their backing to Bakerloo line extension|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/residents-support-bakerloo-line-extension-from-elephant-castle-to-lewisham-a3600186.html|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Evening Standard|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109014546/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/residents-support-bakerloo-line-extension-from-elephant-castle-to-lewisham-a3600186.html |archive-date=9 November 2020 }}

In March 2018, the Royal Borough of Greenwich and the Canary Wharf Group announced that they had an alternative extension proposal via Surrey Quays, Canary Wharf, North Greenwich and Charlton Riverside, crossing the River Thames twice. This extension would serve development sites along the route, as well as relieving the overcrowded Jubilee line between Canary Wharf and Canada Water.{{Cite web|last=Chamberlain|first=Darryl|date=15 March 2018|title=Greenwich Council plots to hijack Lewisham's Bakerloo Line extension |url= https://853.london/2018/03/15/greenwich-council-plots-to-hijack-lewishams-bakerloo-line-extension/|access-date=31 March 2021 |website=853 }}{{Cite news |date=29 August 2018 |title=Canary Wharf owners object to Canada Water plans |url= https://www.se16.com/5453-canary-wharf-owners-object-to-canada-water-plans |access-date=31 March 2021 |website=SE16.com |quote="In considering the Canada Water Masterplan proposals we would like to remind you of our previous proposal to extend the Bakerloo line from Elephant & Castle to Charlton via Surrey Quays and Canary Wharf," wrote Canary Wharf Group's Jason Larkin in his letter to Southwark Council planners}} The alternative proposal was criticised by Back the Bakerloo – a cross-party campaign group of businesses, developers and local councils set up by Southwark and Lewisham Council to push for the extension.{{Cite news |last=Porter |first=Toby |date=7 September 2018 |title=Southwark and Lewisham council join together to launch 'Back the Bakerloo' campaign to extend tubeline |url= https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/southwark-and-lewisham-council-join-together-to-launch-back-the-bakerloo-campaign-to-extend-tubeline/ |access-date=1 April 2021 |website=South London News}}{{Cite web |date=2021 |title=Back the Bakerloo Line Extension – Help bring the Bakerloo line to south east London |url= http://www.backthebakerloo.org.uk/ |url-status=live |access-date=1 April 2021 |website=Back the Bakerloo|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181204091656/https://www.backthebakerloo.org.uk/ |archive-date=4 December 2018 }}

In September 2018, TfL published its detailed responses to issues raised in the 2017 consultation.{{Cite web |date=September 2018 |title=Bakerloo Line Extension – Response to issues raised from the Spring 2017 consultation |url= https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2017/user_uploads/ble-updated-response-to-issues-raised.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=2 April 2021 |publisher= Transport for London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210510221412/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension-2017/user_uploads/ble-updated-response-to-issues-raised.pdf |archive-date=10 May 2021 }}{{Cite press release |date=2 September 2018 |title= Further plans for Bakerloo line extension revealed following public consultation |url= https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2018/september/further-plans-for-bakerloo-line-extension-revealed-following-public-consultation |access-date=2 April 2021 |publisher= Transport for London}} As well as confirming proposed locations at the two Old Kent Road stations, the report proposed a new integrated ticket hall at Elephant & Castle underneath the new shopping centre, and a more direct route reducing the need for ventilation shafts. This would rule out a station at Bricklayers Arms.{{cite news |last=Salisbury |first=Josh |title=TfL rules out Bricklayers Arms tube station in Bakerloo line extension plans |url= https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/tfl-rules-out-bricklayers-arms-tube-station-in-bakerloo-line-extension-plans/ |work=Southwark News |date=12 September 2018 |access-date=25 July 2019}} An additional station was also estimated to cost around £200m, whereas the more direct route reduced the costs by around £100m – as well as reducing journey times.{{Cite web |last1=Pidgeon |first1=Caroline |last2=Khan |first2=Sadiq |date=9 October 2018 |title=Bakerloo Line extension (1) |url= https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/2617 |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=Mayor's Question Time}}{{Cite web |last1=Pidgeon |first1=Caroline |last2=Khan|first2=Sadiq|date=9 October 2018 |title=Bakerloo Line extension (2) |url= https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2018/2618 |access-date=2 April 2021|website=Mayor's Question Time}}{{Cite news |date=12 September 2018 |title=TfL says 'no' to Bakerloo line station at Bricklayers Arms |url= http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9706 |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=London SE1}} Further technical work would take place before a final detailed consultation in 2019, prior to permission to build the extension being sought. The confirmation of the extension was welcomed by local councils and campaigners, but some residents were disappointed by the lack of a proposed station at Bricklayers Arms.{{Cite news |last=Williams |first=Sophie |date=12 September 2018 |title=Bakerloo line extension to Lewisham could be completed by 2029 |url= https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/bakerloo-line-extension-to-lewisham-could-be-completed-by-2029-a3933951.html |access-date=31 March 2021 |work=Evening Standard |location= London}}

{{Bakerloo line extension 2019 plan RDT}}

In October 2019, TfL announced a further consultation, seeking views on the finalised extension proposal.{{Cite press release |date=14 October 2019 |title=New consultation on Bakerloo line extension opens today |url= https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2020/october/new-consultation-on-bakerloo-line-extension-opens-today |access-date=2 April 2021 |publisher= Transport for London}} As well as seeking name suggestions for the two Old Kent Road stations,{{cite web |date=14 October 2019|title=Bakerloo line extension consultation |url= https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension |url-status=live |access-date=26 November 2019 |publisher= Transport for London |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141006122138/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension |archive-date=6 October 2014 }} the consultation included:

• details on new Bakerloo line platforms and an integrated station entrance at Elephant & Castle tube station, to be built as part of the new shopping centre development.{{Cite web |date=October 2019 |title=Bakerloo line extension – Elephant & Castle Station Summary Report |url= https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/elephant-castle-station-summary-report.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=2 April 2021 |publisher= Transport for London |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210817081118/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/elephant-castle-station-summary-report.pdf |archive-date=17 August 2021 }}
• proposed alignment of the tunnels from Lambeth North to Lewisham.
• location of tunnelling worksites to build the extension – with a primary work site proposed at New Cross Gate.{{Cite web |date=October 2019 |title=Bakerloo line extension – Tunnelling Worksite Summary Report |url= https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/tunnelling-worksite-summary-report.pdf |url-status=live |access-date=2 April 2021 |publisher= Transport for London |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210817092416/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/tunnelling-worksite-summary-report.pdf |archive-date=17 August 2021 }}
• details regarding a further extension beyond Lewisham in future to Hayes and Beckenham Junction.{{Cite web|date=October 2019|title=Bakerloo line extension – Further Extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction – Summary Report|url=https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/summary-report-further-extension-hayes-beckenham.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021 |publisher= Transport for London |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210817080857/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/summary-report-further-extension-hayes-beckenham.pdf |archive-date=17 August 2021 }}

As with previous consultations, local campaign groups, developers and several local councils supported the extension,{{Cite news |last=Wadham |first=Caroline |date=16 September 2019 |title=Bakerloo line extension: Council leaders call for decision |url= https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/news/bakerloo-line-extension-council-leaders-call-government-decision-16-09-2019/ |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=Construction News}} with Back the Bakerloo urging Prime Minister Boris Johnson to support the extension and contribute to its construction cost.{{Cite news |last=Lydall |first=Ross |date=14 October 2019 |title=Boris Johnson urged to provide money to pay for Bakerloo line upgrade |url= https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/boris-johnson-urged-to-provide-money-to-pay-for-ps3bn-bakerloo-line-upgrade-a4260746.html |access-date=31 March 2021 |work=Evening Standard |location= London }} TfL had warned that only 9,000 of 25,000 homes could be built on the Old Kent Road if the extension was not built.{{Cite news |last=Hatts |first=James |date=21 March 2019 |title=TfL: we'll have to curb OKR development without Bakerloo line |url= http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9916 |url-status=live |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=London SE1 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200606095630/https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/9916 |archive-date=6 June 2020 }}

Bromley Council welcomed the confirmation of the extension to Lewisham, but claimed that an extension to Hayes had been "resoundingly rejected" in 2014, and that it would challenge the proposed extension in its response.{{Cite press release |date=18 October 2019 |title=Bakerloo extension to Hayes will be challenged |url= https://www.bromley.gov.uk/news/article/228/bakerloo-extension-to-hayes-will-be-challenged |access-date=18 April 2024 |publisher=Bromley Council}} It added that it would prefer investment to serve Bromley town centre and that Bromley residents preferred fast trains to London Bridge rather than the Underground.{{Cite news |title=Bakerloo Line extension not what Bromley residents want, council leader says |url= https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18262475.bromley-council-doubles-down-bakerloo-line-extension-position/ |access-date=2 April 2021 |work=News Shopper}} Opposition councillors criticised this as ignoring the opinions of local residents, stating that 68% of Bromley residents supported the extension to Hayes in the 2014 TfL consultation.{{Cite web |last=Leeming |first=Lachlan |date=26 February 2020 |title=We still don't want Bakerloo Line extension to Hayes, Bromley Council leader insists |url= https://853.london/2020/02/26/we-still-dont-want-bakerloo-line-extension-to-hayes-bromley-council-leader-insists/ |url-status=live |access-date=1 April 2021 |website=853 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200921191115/https://853.london/2020/02/26/we-still-dont-want-bakerloo-line-extension-to-hayes-bromley-council-leader-insists/ |archive-date=21 September 2020 }}

In September 2019, Sainsbury's and Mount Anvil had submitted a planning application to build 1,161 homes and a new supermarket on the site of the current New Cross Gate Retail Park.{{Cite web |date=19 September 2019|title=Sainsbury's bids to build high-rise flats on New Cross Gate store car park |url= https://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2019/09/sainsburys-bids-to-build-high-rise-flats-on-new-cross-gate-store-car-park/ |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=Eastlondonlines}} The October 2019 TfL consultation explained that the site was required for construction of the extension, and that other suggested worksite locations were too small or would damage the environment. After negative feedback from the local community, campaign groups and TfL,{{Cite web |last1=Pidgeon |first1=Caroline |last2=Khan |first2=Sadiq |date=7 October 2019 |title=Bakerloo Line extension at New Cross Gate|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/19631|access-date=2 April 2021 |website=Mayor's Question Time}}{{Cite news |last=Manning |first=Danielle |date=28 February 2020 |title=Sainsbury's 'sees sense' and scraps plans for flats on Bakerloo extension site |url= https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/sainsburys-sees-sense-withdraws-plans-17835322 |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=MyLondon}} Sainsbury's and Mount Anvil subsequently withdrew their application in February 2020, stating that the extension had "blighted the site", making their development unfeasible.{{Cite news |last=Twomey |first=James |date=28 February 2020 |title=Plans for more than 1,000 flats and Sainsbury's superstore next to New Cross Gate railway station are scrapped due to Bakerloo line extension |url= https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/plans-for-more-than-1000-flats-and-sainsburys-superstore-next-to-new-cross-gate-railway-station-are-scrapped-due-to-bakerloo-line-extension/ |access-date=2 April 2021 |website=South London News}}

{{Bakerloo line extension 2021 plan RDT}}

In January 2020, Southwark Council and TfL both agreed to contribute £7.5m each towards the construction of a new ticket hall at Elephant & Castle, as part of the redevelopment of the shopping centre.{{Cite web|date=31 January 2020|title=Council agrees additional funding for the first piece of infrastructure to deliver the Bakerloo Line Extension at Elephant and Castle|url=https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2020/jan/council-agrees-additional-funding-for-the-first-piece-of-infrastructure-to-deliver-the-bakerloo-line-extension-at-elephant-and-castle|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Southwark Council}} This new ticket hall – to be built by developer Delancey – would serve both the Northern line and the future Bakerloo line platforms, bringing escalators and step-free access to the station.{{Cite web|date=9 October 2020|title=New images of Elephant & Castle's upgraded tube station|url=http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10419|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=London SE1|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201014185644/https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10419 |archive-date=14 October 2020 }} It would also reduce the need to take land to build the station, saving on future construction. The ticket hall will open in 2028/9.

It was reported that TfL was considering a land value capture tax on developers along the route to pay for the extension.{{Cite web|last=Boscia|first=Stefan|date=13 January 2020|title=Bakerloo line extension may be funded by landowner tax hike|url=https://www.cityam.com/bakerloo-line-extension-may-be-funded-by-landowner-tax-hike/|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=CityAM|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200114165058/https://www.cityam.com/bakerloo-line-extension-may-be-funded-by-landowner-tax-hike/ |archive-date=14 January 2020 }}{{Cite magazine|last=Horgan|first=Rob|date=13 January 2020|title=TfL considering Bakerloo line levy to fund £3.1bn extension|url=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/tfl-considering-bakerloo-line-levy-to-fund-3-1bn-extension-13-01-2020/|access-date=2 April 2021|magazine=New Civil Engineer|language=en}} This was previously used to fund part of the Crossrail project, raising £4.1bn.{{Cite web|last=Sherwood|first=Bob|date=29 January 2010|title=Business faces maximum Crossrail levy|url=https://www.ft.com/content/481946dc-0c3e-11df-8b81-00144feabdc0|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Financial Times|quote=introduced to finance £4.1bn of the Greater London Authority’s contribution to the £16bn Crossrail scheme.|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190917190827/https://www.ft.com/content/481946dc-0c3e-11df-8b81-00144feabdc0 |archive-date=17 September 2019 }}

In November 2020, TfL released the report of the 2019 consultation. Over 8,700 responses had been received, with 89% support. A further 20,600 identical positive responses were received via the Back the Bakerloo campaign. There was also strong support (82%) for a possible further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction. TfL also confirmed the names for the two Old Kent Road stations – Burgess Park and Old Kent Road. TfL stated that the next step was safeguarding the route, and applying for permission to build the extension via a Transport and Works Act Order, subject to funding being available.{{Cite web|date=November 2020|title=Bakerloo line extension – Consultation Report|url=https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/ble-consultation-report.pdf|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Transport for London|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201130223049/https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/ble-consultation-report.pdf |archive-date=30 November 2020 }}{{Cite magazine|last=Smith|first=Claire|date=1 December 2020|title=Councils 'delighted' by latest Bakerloo extension commitment|url=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/councils-delighted-by-latest-bakerloo-extension-commitment-01-12-2020/|access-date=2 April 2021|magazine=New Civil Engineer|language=en}}

In 2021, the route from Elephant & Castle to Lewisham was safeguarded by the Department for Transport, protecting land above and below ground for future construction of the extension.{{Cite web|date=1 March 2021|title=Statutory guidance – Bakerloo line extension: safeguarding directions|url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bakerloo-line-extension-safeguarding-guidance|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=GOV.UK|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210301113517/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bakerloo-line-extension-safeguarding-guidance |archive-date=1 March 2021 }} This was welcomed by Mayor Sadiq Khan, TfL and local councils.{{Cite web|last=Salisbury|first=Josh|date=9 December 2020|title=Bakerloo line extension one step closer after route given protected status|url=https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/bakerloo-line-extension-one-step-closer-after-route-given-protected-status/|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Southwark News|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209190525/https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/bakerloo-line-extension-one-step-closer-after-route-given-protected-status/ |archive-date=9 December 2020 }}

Due to the financial situations resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, work to implement the extension was put on hold, with TfL's Comprehensive Spending Review submission stating "we are being realistic about what is affordable over the next decade".{{Cite web|date=29 September 2020|title=Bakerloo line extension dropped from TfL's Government wish list|url=http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10413|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=London SE1|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201021055127/https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10413 |archive-date=21 October 2020 }}{{Cite web|last=Marshall|first=Jordan|date=10 March 2021|title=TfL mothballs Crossrail 2 and Bakerloo line extension because of pandemic|url=https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/tfl-mothballs-crossrail-2-and-bakerloo-line-extension-because-of-pandemic/5110836.article|url-status=live|access-date=28 March 2021|website=Building Design|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210310081228/https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/tfl-mothballs-crossrail-2-and-bakerloo-line-extension-because-of-pandemic/5110836.article |archive-date=10 March 2021 }}{{Cite web|last=Lydall|first=Ross|date=17 March 2021|title=TfL: No more 'mega projects' and not enough money to finish Crossrail|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/tfl-mega-projects-finish-crossrail-2-bakerloo-line-extension-b924630.html|url-status=live|access-date=31 March 2021|website=Evening Standard|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210317131317/https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/tfl-mega-projects-finish-crossrail-2-bakerloo-line-extension-b924630.html |archive-date=17 March 2021 }} In March 2021, TfL's finance chief stated that the extension would not be seen in the next decade.{{Cite web|date=10 March 2021|title=Bakerloo line extension? Not in next decade – TfL finance chief|url=http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10498|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=London SE1|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210310130902/https://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/10498 |archive-date=10 March 2021 }}

In April 2021, Southwark Council agreed to consider whether a tram down the Old Kent Road to serve development sites along the corridor might be an alternative if the Bakerloo Line extension did not proceed, as this could be delivered faster and cheaper than the Bakerloo line extension.{{Cite web|last=Gohil|first=Neha|date=1 April 2021|title=Southwark could get tram network before 2030 as Bakerloo line extension on hold|url=https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/southwark-could-tram-network-before-20300679|access-date=2 April 2021|website=MyLondon|language=en}} The council is limited to around 9,500 homes on the corridor if the extension is not built.{{Cite magazine|last=Smith|first=Claire|date=1 April 2021|title=Tram network tabled as alternative to Bakerloo Line Extension|url=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/tram-network-tabled-as-alternative-to-bakerloo-line-extension-01-04-2021/|access-date=2 April 2021|magazine=New Civil Engineer|language=en}}

In October 2024, contracts were awarded for feasibility studies, with the four new stations expected to open by 2040.{{Cite web|last=Mansfield|first=Ian|date=14 October 2024|access-date=15 October 2024|title=Bakerloo line extension pre-contracts awarded|website=IanVisits|language=en|url=https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/bakerloo-line-extension-pre-conracts-awarded-76205/}}

The proposed extension of the Bakerloo line comprises 7.5 km of twin tunnels, with 4 new stations (Burgess Park, Old Kent Road, New Cross Gate and Lewisham), 1 ventilation shaft and a depot at Wearside Road, Lewisham. All stations would be fully accessible. The extension is estimated to cost between £4.7bn to £7.9bn (in 2017 prices), and would take around 7 years to construct. The route was safeguarded by the Department for Transport in 2021, protecting the alignment from development.

The route of the extension would begin between Lambeth North and Elephant & Castle, as a branch off the existing Bakerloo line tunnels. The new tunnels would allow for a faster and more direct route, as the end of the existing Bakerloo line tunnels point south towards Camberwell. Consequently, new platforms would have been built at Elephant & Castle, underneath the Shopping Centre. The tunnels would then continue south east, generally following the Old Kent Road. Burgess Park station would be located on the site of the Old Kent Road Tesco, adjacent to Burgess Park. During construction, the site would be used to launch tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to dig the running tunnels towards Lambeth North. The line would then continue south-east underneath the Old Kent Road. Old Kent Road station would be located on the site of an existing Lidl supermarket, adjacent to Asylum Road. The line would continue south-east, along the Old Kent Road and New Cross Road. New Cross Gate station would be located on the New Cross Gate Retail Park (Sainsbury's), just west of the existing station. This site would be the main construction work site of the extension, launching TBMs east and west as well as taking away the tunnelling spoil by rail, reducing the need for lorry journeys. The tunnels would continue south-east, passing beneath Goldsmiths' College. A ventilation shaft would be located between New Cross Gate and Lewisham at Alexandra Cottages. The shaft would provide ventilation for the tunnels, as well as emergency access in the unlikely event of fire/other incidents. Lewisham station would be located south-west of the existing railway and DLR station, on the site of the current bus station. The route would then turn south towards Wearside Road, the site of a Lewisham Council maintenance depot. Wearside Road would be used to help build the extension, as well as store and turn around trains when the extension is operational. It would also permit access to the Hayes line for a future extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction.

Following completion of the Lewisham extension, TfL proposes extending the service over the existing National Rail line to Hayes and Beckenham Junction, adding an additional 10 stations to the line. The line would have to be converted for the Bakerloo line, with TfL stating that all stations along the line would be made step-free from street to train.{{Cite web|last1=Pidgeon|first1=Caroline|last2=Khan|first2=Sadiq|date=4 November 2019|title=Bakerloo Line extension (2)|url=https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2019/20150|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Mayor's Question Time}}

TfL, local councils and campaign groups have outlined a wide range of benefits of the extension including:

• Providing access to high quality rapid transit to areas of south east London with poor transport accessibility
• Support the regeneration of the area, with Southwark and Lewisham Council estimating that around 25,000 new homes could be built along the corridor
• Relieving congestion and reducing poor air quality on main roads such as the A2 (Old Kent Road) and A20 (Lewisham Way)
• Reducing journey times from Lewisham to Central London by 9 minutes
• More frequent trains than existing London Overground or National Rail services
• Reducing overcrowding on local bus services, as well as on the Jubilee line, DLR, London Overground East London line and National Rail services into London Bridge
• Increase the number of step-free Underground stations, making it easier for all to travel

TfL is also planning to replace the current 1970s rolling stock on the line with the New Tube for London in the late 2020s, and install new signalling allowing for a faster and more frequent service.{{cite press release|date=15 June 2018|title=Siemens Mobility Limited to be awarded TfL contract to design and manufacture a new generation of Tube trains|url=https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2018/june/siemens-mobility-limited-to-be-awarded-tfl-contract-to-design-and-manufacture-a-new-generation-of-tube-trains|access-date=16 June 2018|publisher=Transport for London}} This would increase capacity on the line by over 25%, as well as speeding up journey times on the existing line.

As with the Northern line extension to Battersea, TfL proposes to use their property development arm to build on top of station sites when construction of the extension is completed.{{Cite web|last=Pedantic of Purley|date=7 January 2016|title=Extending the Bakerloo: It's not about Transport|url=https://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/extending-bakerloo-not-transport/|url-status=live|access-date=2 April 2021|website=London Reconnections|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110100159/http://www.londonreconnections.com:80/2016/extending-bakerloo-not-transport/ |archive-date=10 January 2016 }} This would recoup some of the costs of building the extension, as well as providing long term income for TfL.{{Cite web |title=Property|url=https://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/business-and-commercial/property-development|access-date=2 April 2021|website=Transport for London }}

The line is supported by major political parties, local councils and property developers along the route. Bromley Council are supportive of the extension to Lewisham, but do not support a further extension to Hayes and Beckenham Junction.

Several businesses that would have to relocate if the extension was built do not support the extension. Tesco and Sainsbury's – both of which have supermarkets currently located on proposed station sites – have stated that they support the extension, but do not support the loss of their stores due to construction.

{{Portal|London transport}}

• Baker Street and Waterloo Railway – history of the line extension plans
• Edgware Road Tube schemes – abandoned projects in North London, including a Bakerloo extension to Cricklewood

{{clear}}

{{Reflist|20em}}

{{Refbegin}}

• {{cite book |last=Badsey-Ellis |first=Antony |title=London's Lost Tube Schemes |publisher=Capital Transport |isbn=1-85414-293-3 |year=2005}}
• {{cite book |last=Horne |first=Mike |year=2001 |title=The Bakerloo Line: An Illustrated History |publisher=Capital Transport |isbn=1-85414-248-8}}

{{Refend}}

{{Closed london underground stations}}

{{Rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom|selected=proposed}}

{{Bakerloo line navbox}}

{{Coord|51.496|-0.101|display=title|region:GB_scale:5000}}

Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground

Category:Proposed rail infrastructure in London

Category:Transport in the London Borough of Southwark

Category:Transport in the London Borough of Lewisham

Category:Transport in the London Borough of Bromley