TfL wants to bring construction forward – but where will the Bakerloo line extension actually go?

All stops to Lewisham: a Bakerloo line train. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Transport for London just released its new business plan. It promises various dull-but-worthy administrative reorganisations in search of financial savings, shuffles various station upgrade plans around the schedule (Camden Town, Holborn), and includes £20m set aside to develop a plan for rail devolution just in case Chris Grayling has an unexpected change of heart.

The most exciting bit, though, is that it confirms plans to extend the Bakerloo line to the south east through a newly bored tunnel. That’s actually been the plan since last December – but TfL have brought it forward, and now reckon that, instead of getting it done by 2030, it might be finished for 2028-9.

What with one thing and another, all this remains a bit theoretical, but nonetheless, here’s the map:

It’s hard to imagine the station names “Old Kent Road 1” and “Old Kent Road 2” surviving contact with the enemy, though. So what else might they be called?

One possibility – the boring possibility – would be simply “Old Kent Road North” and “Old Kent Road South”. This would have the virtue of clarity, I suppose, but I can’t bear stations named after roads, and it would in any case also be unbelievably dull.

So what else might they be called? Let’s assume for a moment – perhaps optimistically – that this map is intended as literal, and that the points marked on it represent actual proposed station locations, rather than simply a vague aspiration to have two stations somewhere on the Old Kent Road. Do that and, best I can tell – comparing the station to the position of the Thames, borough boundaries, and so forth – the two new stations are roughly where I’ve placed the two black stars on this map:

The northern stop looks to be somewhere in the vicinity of the big Tescos by the junction with Albany Road. Buses terminating around there used to refer to that junction as “Old Kent Road / Dun Cow” after a long dead pub. (It’s now a doctor’s surgery.) But they don’t often do that any more, instead defaulting to “Old Kent Road / Tesco”, and no way are Tesco getting their name on a tube stop on my watch.

So a more sensible name would probably be “Burgess Park”, after, well, guess. It’s not ideal – the park in question is nearly a mile wide, its western edge lying all the way over on the Walworth Road – but it’s a nice park more people should know about, and Dun Cow is a stupid name for a tube stop.

A map of Burgess Park. Image: Open Street Map/Dan Karran.

The southern one is easier, albeit sillier: the junction with Peckham Park Road still revels in the name “Canal Bridge”, as this was once the point where the Old Kent Road crossed the Grand Surrey Canal.

The canal in question is long gone: its route through Burgess Park is now a cycle path, its previous role visible only in the occasional, slightly vexing iron bridge. But the junction still goes by that name, and there is something wonderfully London-appropriate about naming a new tube stop after a canal that’s not there any more.

So, if I had my way, here’s how the bottom of the Bakerloo line will look, c2030:

It won’t, of course. I’m almost certainly reading more detail into that map than it actually contains. And there’s already a campaign to add a third Old Kent Road stop at the very top of the road: Bricklayers Arms, another long dead pub, which gave its name to a long dead freight terminal and latterly a big roundabout with a flyover.

So, no, for those and no doubt other reasons, my map is almost certainly wrong. But I got to draw a map, that’s the important thing. I like maps.

Maps.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @jonnelledge.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.


 

 
 
 
 

Seven climate change myths put about by big oil companies

Oil is good for you! Image: Getty.

Since the start of this year, major players within the fossil fuel industry – “big oil” – have made some big announcements regarding climate change. BP revealed plans to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell defended its $1-$2bn green energy annual budget. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively dismissive of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly outlook for energy report.

But this idea of a “green” oil company producing “clean” fossil fuels is one that I would call a dangerous myth. Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels and environmental protection – yet they continue to be perpetuated to the detriment of our planet.

Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it

Measures put in place now to address climate change must be sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice.

Yet this is precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address climate change, major oil and gas companies are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at – more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.

But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down during a losing streak, the industry’s bet on more, more, more only means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil fuel production becomes, that the industry’s core product can be 100 per cent environmentally sustainable is an illusion.

A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground. But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even CCS advocates suggest that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.

Myth 2: Climate change won’t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry

According to a recent report, climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end of big oil’s golden years – a time when oil was plenty, money quick, and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.

Now, to ensure we do not surpass the dangerous 2°C threshold, we must realise that there is simply no place for “producers” of fossil fuels. After all, as scientists, financial experts, and activists have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven reserves of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be consumed.

Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change

Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables’ investment is a miniscule drop in the barrel. Even then, as companies such as BP have demonstrated before, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.

Big oil companies’ green investments only produce tiny reductions in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects “real sustainable reductions” – but they accounted for only 0.3 per cent of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1 per cent in 2015, 0.1 per cent in 2014, and so on.


Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option

One of the oil industry’s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP recently hinted at big oil’s exodus from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let’s be clear, we are talking about “command-and-control” regulation here, such as pollution limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or market-based quota systems.

There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred costs. But climate regulation is – in combination with market-based mechanisms – required to address climate change. This is a widely accepted proposition advocated by mainstream economists, NGOs and most governments.

Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop

Total’s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie, once remarked: “Without access to energy, there is no development.” Although this is probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not. Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year Costa Rica relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world’s biggest polluter, is simultaneously the biggest investor in domestic renewables projects.

As the World Bank has highlighted, in contrast to big oil’s claims about producing more fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of people back into poverty. The UN concurs, signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in developing parts of the world.

Myth 6: Big oil must be involved in climate policy-making

Fossil fuel companies insist that their involvement in climate policy-making is necessary, so much so that they have become part of the wallpaper at international environmental conferences. This neglects that fossil fuels are, in fact, a pretty large part of the problem. Big oil attends international environmental conferences for two reasons: lobbying and self-promotion.

Some UN organisations already recognise the risk of corporations hijacking the policy-making process. The World Health Organisation, for instance, forbids the tobacco industry from attending its conferences. The UN’s climate change arm, the UNFCCC, should take note.

Myth 7: Nature can and must be “tamed” to address climate change

If you mess with mother nature, she bites back. As scientists reiterate, natural systems are complex, unpredictable, and even hostile when disrupted.

Climate change is a prime example. Small changes in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere may have drastic implications for Earth’s inhabitants.

The ConversationFossil fuel companies reject that natural systems are fragile – as evidenced by their expansive operations in ecologically vulnerable areas such as the Arctic. The “wild” aspect of nature is considered something to be controlled and dominated. This myth merely serves as a way to boost egos. As independent scientist James Lovelock wrote, “The idea that humans are yet intelligent enough to serve as stewards of the Earth is among the most hubristic ever.”

George Ferns, Lecturer in Management, Employment and Organisation, Cardiff University.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.