Integrated Impact Assessment of the Mayor's Transport Strategy 3 Transport for London

IIA Scoping Report

Final Report

16 February 2017

IIA Scoping Report Transport for London

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

Integrated Impact Assessment of the Mayor's Transport Strategy 3

Project No: B2228400 Document Title: IIA Scoping Report Revision: Final Date: 16 February 2017 Client Name: Transport for London Project Manager: Irina Davis Author: Irina Davis, Michelle Cottrell

Jacobs U.K. Limited

New City Court 20 St Thomas Street London SE1 9RS United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 7939 6100 F +44 (0)20 7939 6103 www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2016 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This report has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ Client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the Client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this report by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Reviewer Approved Draft A 25.05.2016 Draft for internal check and review (CR) M. Cottrell J. Pounder P. Marsden Draft B 27.05.2016 Draft for client review M. Cottrell L. Hayward- Speight Draft C 22.06.2016 Draft for client review I Davis J. Pounder P. Marsden Draft D 24.08.2016 Final Draft for client review I Davis E. Bergin J. Pounder Consultation 03.010.2016 Consultation Draft I Davis E. Bergin J. Pounder Draft Final Report 16.02.2017 Final report for client review I Davis E. Bergin J. Pounder

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

Contents

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..iv 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Overview ...... 1 1.2 Purpose of this IIA Scoping Report ...... 1 1.3 Engagement and Consultation ...... 4 2. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy ...... 5 2.1 About the strategy ...... 5 2.2 The need to revise the strategy ...... 5 2.3 Proposed approach to a revised strategy ...... 5 3. Integrated Impact Assessment purpose, process and approach ...... 7 3.1 Purpose of the IIA ...... 7 3.2 What is IIA? ...... 7 3.3 Our Approach to IIA ...... 8 3.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment ...... 9 3.5 Habitats Regulation Assessment ...... 9 3.6 Equality Impact Assessment ...... 10 3.7 Health Impact Assessment ...... 11 3.8 Assessment of Economic Impacts ...... 12 3.9 Community Safety Assessment ...... 12 3.10 IIA Process ...... 12 3.11 Spatial and Temporal Scope of the IIA ...... 15 3.12 Uncertainties and Assumptions………………………………………………………………………………....16 4. Identifying other plans, programmes and sustainability objectives (Task A1) ...... 17 4.1 Overview ...... 17 4.2 Implications of the Policy Review ...... 17 5. Baseline Information and Key Sustainability Issues in London (Tasks A2 & A3) ...... 19 5.1 Overview ...... 19 5.2 Identifying significance of issues for the MTS………………………………………………………………….23 6. Key issues ...... 49 7. Integrated Impact Assessment Framework (Task A4)...... 54 7.1 Objectives, questions and indicators ...... 54 7.2 Compatibility testing………………………………………………………………………………………………63 7.3 Assessment methodology of likely significant impacts ...... 63 7.4 Predicting the effects of the MTS against the IIA Objectives…………………………………………………64 7.5 Monitoring and difficulties encountered………………………………………………………………………...65 8. Next steps ...... 66 8.1 Remaining Stages of the IIA ...... 66 8.2 Ongoing stakeholder engagement ...... 68 ii

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

9. References ...... 69 Appendix A: Summary of the most relevant plans and programmes………………………………………….……..74 Appendix B: Natura 2000 Sites within 15km of the MTS Area…………………….……………………….…………97 Appendix C: Crowding Maps for AM peak, 2014...... 106 Appendix D: Existing and proposed cycle routes in Central London………………………………………...……..110 Appendix E: Existing and proposed cycle superhighways and quietways in London…………………………….111 Appendix F: Supporting Data for Baseline ……………………………………………………………………………112 • Population……………………………………………………………………………………………………. …112 • Economic competitiveness…………………………………………………………………………………….115 • Employment……………………………………………………………………………………………………..120 • Housing Supply, Quality and Choice………………………………………………………………………….122 • Connectivity……………………………………………………………………………………………………...126 • Education and skills…………………………………………………………………………………………….133 • Accessibility……………………………………………………………………………………………………...134 • Equality and Inclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………..136 • Physical activity………………………………………………………………………………………………….139 • Crime, Safety and Security…………………………………………………………………………………….141 • Air quality………………………………………………………………………………………………………...145 • Natural Capital and Natural Environment…………………………………………………………………….153 • Climate Change Adaptaion and Mitigation…………………………………………………………………...158 • Energy use and generation…………………………………………………………………………………….161 • Flood risk…………………………………………………………………………………………………………163 • Geology and soils……………………………………………………………………………………………….165 • Historic Environment……………………………………………………………………………………………168 • Water resources and quality…………………………………………………………………………………...170 • Design……………………………………………………………………………………………………………172 • Materials and waste ……………………………………………………………………………………………175 • Noise and vibration……………………………………………………………………………………………..176 • Equality…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..177 • Health and health inequalities…………………………………………………………………………………180 Appendix G: IIA objectives and proposed indicators…………………………………………………………………185 Appendix H: Testing compatibility of the IIA objectives………………………………………………………………190 Appendix I: Additional data sources used to inform baseline………………………………………………………..192 Appendix J: IIA Objectives Workshop, 14 June 2016, GLA………………………………………………………….194 Appendix K: Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………………………………...….195 Appendix L: Quality Assurance Checklist……………………………………………………………………………...197

iii

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

Executive Summary

Transport for London (TfL) is preparing for a revision to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) (2010) on behalf of the Greater London Authority (GLA), which is also preparing a revised London Plan and other Mayoral strategies.

As a part of preparing for a revision to the MTS, TfL has commissioned Jacobs to undertake an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA). The transport policies and proposals within the revised MTS will be subject to the following assessments, of which the findings will be collated into the overall IIA Report: Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA); Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA); Health Impact Assessment (HIA); Assessment of Economic Impacts (AEI); and Community Safety Impact Assessment (CSIA).

The IIA is a systematic process for assessing the likely sustainability effects of the MTS in order to ensure they are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision making. The IIA meets Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) requirements as well as looking in more depth into the issues of health, equality, economic impact and community safety. By adopting this approach, the IIA provides for a thorough and integrated assessment of the respective aspects of sustainability.

About the strategy

The MTS is a statutory document that sets out the Mayor’s transport vision for London. It is a key part of the strategic policy framework which supports and shapes London’s social and economic development, and is the principal policy tool through which the Mayor and TfL exercise their responsibilities for the planning, management and development of transport in London.

There is a need to review the current MTS due to considerable policy development which has taken place since 2010, as well as significant changes to London’s population and employment forecasts which bring new challenges for the Capital.

The IIA Process

The purpose of IIA is to promote sustainable development through better integration of sustainability considerations into plan preparation and adoption. This IIA Scoping Report for the proposed review of the MTS is the first stage of the IIA process (Stage A) incorporating the requirements of the SEA Directive. The stages of the IIA process are described in detail below:

• Stage A (Scoping) sets out the context and objectives, establishes the baseline and decides on the scope. The findings of Stage A are presented in this Scoping Report.

• Stage B (Assessment) focuses on developing and refining alternatives and assessing impacts will commence following consultation on this report, taking into account the responses of those consulted.

• Stage C (Reporting) involves preparation of the IIA report.

• Stage D (Consultation) involves the publication for wider public and stakeholder consultation of the draft revised MTS and associated IIA report. This consultation is anticipated to take place in spring 2017.

• Stage E (Monitoring) the MTS policies and objectives that have been devised, assessed and refined as a result of assessments and consultation representations will be monitored throughout the life of the MTS following its adoption.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

Purpose of this IIA Scoping Report

This IIA Scoping Report identifies, for the purposes of consultation, key transport related issues facing London and provides a framework for assessing the likely impacts of the revised MTS in terms of how it will contribute to resolving such issues and ultimately how it will contribute to sustainability. The document outlines the baseline information and evidence which is needed to inform the IIA of the potential priorities of the revised MTS. This is based on a review of plans and programmes which are relevant to the study area; an analysis of environmental, economic, and social baseline information; and the identification of environmental issues and problems.

This information has been used to determine the likely significance of sustainability issues for the MTS. Priority objectives have been identified in order to help focus the later stages of the IIA. A total of 25 IIA objectives have been derived for the assessment of the MTS (see Table 1). The likely impacts of the revised MTS and other Mayoral strategies will be assessed against the objectives.

For the IIA of the MTS four priority objectives have been identified on the basis that of current conditions and trends in order to help focus the later stages of the IIA. The four priority objectives are: • To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants, particularly in areas of poorest air quality and reduce exposure • To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events such as flood, drought and heat risks • To reduce the threat of climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a zero carbon London by 2050 • To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the City and between communities

For each IIA objective a set of guide questions have been developed. These will be used to assess whether the revised MTS will help to achieve or conflict with the objective. These questions have been developed to address economic, social, environmental, health, equality and community safety considerations.

Engagement and Consultation

TfL has been working closely with the GLA to develop a consistent IIA framework for all Mayoral strategies that together form the integrated ‘Strategy for London’. TfL and the GLA held a workshop with stakeholders on 14 June 2016 to identify key issues and consider a consistent set of IIA objectives which could apply to all relevant Mayoral strategies. This has directly informed the IIA objectives identified in this report.

This IIA Scoping Report has been provided to the statutory consultees as well as well as other stakeholders for a period of five weeks. The consultation ran from 3 October to 7 November 2016.

Scoping Results

The baseline data has been aggregated into themes representing three dimensions of sustainable development and presented in the context of transport system’s role in facilitating sustainable development across different sustainability topics by identifying transport related issues and opportunities.

The baseline conditions reflect the significant challenges created by projected increases in London’s population and employment. Accessibility to employment, education, training, healthcare and other services is predicted to be uneven, with poor accessibility experienced by some of those who are disadvantaged through disability and poverty. This is likely to persist in the absence of the revised MTS. A 30% increase in demand on public transport is expected by 2041, with the population over 65 will be 68% higher by 2041 bringing rising demand for accessible services. Furthermore, accessibility will be compromised by rising crowding, the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers. Not all public transport stations and stops are accessible, for those who are mobility impaired or travelling with heavy luggage or a buggy. Many people with sensory or cognitive impairments experience non-physical barriers to use of the transport network.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

The imperative to reduce the Mayor’s 2025 target to reduce CO2 emissions will not be met in the absence of the revised MTS. The expected gap is likely to be equivalent to the emissions from 45% of London’s traffic. In addition, London has a high concentration of vulnerable groups, which are likely to be disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, and are likely to increase existing inequalities.

Another critical issue for the MTS review is the fact that London is still and will be in breach of legal limits on nitrogen dioxide in 2020, and is likely to remain so until at least 2030. Nitrogen dioxide emissions from transportation sources can reduce lung function, affect the respiratory immune defence system and increase the risk of respiratory problems. Emissions of small particulate from motor vehicle exhausts can contribute to poor health including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancers and contributes to premature deaths. Pollutants cause around 9,400 equivalent deaths and 3,150 hospital admissions every year in London & impose an economic cost of between £1.4bn and £3.7bn. Exposure to poor air quality is unequal across London and some people particularly in the most deprived areas are more exposed to poor air quality than others. Childhood obesity in London, low levels of physical activity and increasing health inequalities across the population are big challenges for the revised MTS.

In 2015, traffic volumes for London as a whole were up 1.6% and again reached volumes higher than back in 2011. In Inner London they increased by 1.1%, while traffic in Outer London grew by 1.7%, which takes traffic levels almost up to 2009 levels. Such conditions will continue to put more pressure on the public transport system.

Flooding will continue to be a risk for London. The rising sea level will steadily reduce the level of protection that defences offer and increased heavy rainfalls will increase surface water flooding and flooding from drains. The June 2016 flooding events in London have demonstrated that highway drainage systems are not designed to cater for the high volumes of rainfall and that London network of underground tunnels is extremely vulnerable to flooding.

Following baseline data trends analysis, the significance of issues for the MTS review was determined to be around such IIA topics as air quality, health and health inequalities, climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation.

Table 1: Proposed IIA Objectives

Topic IIA objective Air quality 1. To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants, particularly in areas of poorest air quality and reduce exposure

Climate change 2. To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate adaptation and change and extreme weather events such as flood, drought and heat risks mitigation 3. To help tackle climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a zero carbon London by 2050

Energy use and 4. To manage and reduce demand for energy, achieve greater energy efficiency, supply utilise new and existing energy sources effectively, and ensure a resilient smart and affordable energy system

Flood risk 5. To manage the risk of flooding from all sources and improve the resilience of people and property to flooding

Geology and 6. To conserve London’s geodiversity and protect soils from development and over soils intensive use Historic 7. To conserve and enhance the existing historic environment, including sites, Environment features, landscapes and areas of historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural value in relation to their significance and their settings.

Materials and 8. To keep materials at their highest value and use for as long as possible. To

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective waste significantly reduce waste generated and achieve high reuse and recycling rates

Natural Capital 9. To protect, connect and enhance London’s natural capital (including important and Natural habitats, species and landscapes) and the services and benefits it provides, Environment delivering a net positive outcome for biodiversity Noise and 10. To minimise noise and vibration levels and disruption to people and communities vibration across London and reduce inequalities in exposure

Water resources 11. To protect and enhance London’s water bodies by ensuring that London has a and quality sustainable water supply, drainage and sewerage system

Connectivity 12. To enhance and improve connectivity for all to and from and within and around London and increase the proportion of journeys made by sustainable and active transport modes

Infrastructure 13. To ensure that provision of environmental, social and physical infrastructure is managed and delivered to meet population and demographic change in line with sustainable development and to support economic competitiveness Economic 14. To maintain and strengthen London’s position as a leading, connected, knowledge competitiveness based global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient economic economy and structure providing opportunities for all employment Sustainable 15. Make the best and most efficient use of land so as to support sustainable patterns Land Use and forms of development?

Housing 16. To provide a quantum, type, quality and tenure of housing (including specialist and Supply, Quality, affordable provision) to better meet demographic change and household demand Choice and Affordability Culture 17. To safeguard and enhance the Capital’s rich cultural offer, infrastructure, heritage, natural environment and talent to benefit all Londoners while delivering new activities that strengthen London’s global position

Accessibility 18. To maximise accessibility for all in and around London Crime, safety 19. To contribute to safety and security and the perceptions of safety and security Health and 20. To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to health reduce health inequalities across the City and between communities Inequalities Equality and 21. To make London a fair and inclusive city where every person is able to participate , Inclusion reducing inequality and disadvantage and addressing the diverse needs of the population

Social 22. To ensure London has socially integrated communities which are strong, resilient integration and free of prejudice

Design 23. To create attractive, mixed use neighbourhoods, ensuring new buildings and spaces are appropriately designed that promote and enhance existing a sense of place and distinctiveness, reducing the need to travel by motorized transport

vii

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

1. Introduction

This chapter sets out the background, purpose and the status of the IIA Scoping Report and provides an overview of the contents of the rest of the report.

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) (GLA Act) requires the Mayor of London to revise and update the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS), which sets out the Mayor’s transport vision for London as required to meet London’s needs.

1.1.2 Following the 2016 Mayoral election it is expected that the current MTS (May 2010) will be revised and, together with other Mayoral policies, will set out: • Short-term policy / delivery priorities • Medium-term pipeline for delivery of further investment • Longer-term direction regarding the shape and feel of the city to which the Mayor aspires

1.1.3 TfL is preparing for a revision to the MTS (2010) on behalf of the GLA, who are also preparing a new London Plan and other Mayoral strategies. The MTS will need to align with the London Plan which is the statutory spatial development strategy for Greater London.

1.1.4 As a part of preparing for a revision to the MTS, Transport for London (TfL) has commissioned Jacobs to undertake an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA). The IIA will collate and analyse, in one overall integrated report, findings from the following assessments in relation to the revised draft version of the MTS: • Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA); 1 • Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) ; • Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA); • Health Impact Assessment (HIA); • Assessment of Economic Impacts (AEI); and • Community Safety Impact Assessment (CSIA).

1.1.5 The IIA aims to provide for a high level of protection of the environment, protected groups, human health, economy and community safety and security and to contribute to the integration of such considerations into the preparation and adoption of the MTS. Achieving sustainable development is the overall aim of conducting the IIA, and the wide range of sustainability issues relevant to London will be covered by the objectives used in the assessment.

1.1.6 The IIA approach incorporates the statutory requirements of SEA and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). An SA integrates the requirements for an SEA with broader sustainability objectives. The guidance of the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, 2005, recommends a single integrated approach to satisfy the SA and SEA requirements. This IIA adopts this single integrated approach. To ensure that the requirements of the SEA Directive are adhered to, a quality assurance checklist has been completed and can be found in Appendix L at the end of the document.

1.2 Purpose of this IIA Scoping Report

1 While the findings of the HRA will be integrated into the IIA as far as possible, the findings will also be presented as a stand-alone HRA report along-side the IIA in order to fully meet the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. 1

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

1.2.1 This IIA Scoping Report sets out, for the purposes of consultation, the proposed scope of issues to be addressed in the IIA and the approach to be undertaken in assessing them. The document aims to outline the baseline information and evidence which is needed to inform the IIA of the emerging MTS objectives and policies. This is based on the identification of plans and programmes which are relevant to the study area; environmental, economic, and social baseline information; and environmental issues and problems.

1.2.2 This IIA Scoping Report identifies key transport related issues facing London and provides a framework for assessing the likely impacts of the revised MTS in terms of how it will contribute to resolving such issues and ultimately how it will contribute to sustainability. The framework consists of a number of IIA objectives, guide questions and potential monitoring indicators which will examine whether the policies set out in the MTS are sustainable.

1.2.3 The IIA Scoping Report provides consultees with an early opportunity to comment on the IIA process and in accordance with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister SEA Guidance, A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (2005) should provide: • An understanding of the context of the MTS and its likely scope (refer Chapter 2); • A reasonably clear idea of the topics that the impact assessment will need to consider and to what level of detail (refer Chapter 3); • Identification of other policies, plans, programmes and sustainability objectives. An understanding of the baseline situation and its likely evolution in the absence of the revised MTS, and other evidence likely to be available to the assessment, with any important gaps identified, identification of key sustainability issues in the study area; (Chapter 4, 5 and 6 and Appendix F); • Shows the IIA objectives and framework chosen to assess the sustainability of the MTS and alternatives; (refer Chapter 7); • An overview of the proposed approach to undertaking the assessment (refer Chapter 7); • An understanding of key stakeholders' views 2 on the scope and proposed approach to the assessment, and their aspirations for the IIA and revised MTS (refer Chapter 8).

1.2.4 Table 1.1 below, signposts the reader to where the key issues under the respective elements of the Impact Assessment can be found in the report, with specific reference and the topics which should be addressed under the SEA Directive in conformity with the DCLG guidance. Table 1.1: SEA, EqIA, HIA, CSIA and AEI topics and their coverage in the IIA Scoping Report

Sustainable Transport system’s SEA IIA Topics Issues under: Where can be found development role in facilitating Directive HIA, EqIA, AEI, in this IIA Scoping dimensions sustainable Assessment HRA, CSIA Report development of Effects Issues Economic Transport system’s Population Economic AEI, EqIA Part 3.8,4.2, table 5.2, role in supporting a competitiveness and 6.1, Appendix F strong, sustainable employment and competitive Connectivity AEI, EqIA, HIA, Part 4.2, table 5.2, economy, new homes CSIA 6.1, Appendix F and jobs by providing Material Assets Materials and waste SEA, AEI Part 4.2, table 5.2, transport 6.1, Appendix F infrastructure for all Londoners Housing and AEI, EqIA Part 4.2, table 5.2 , Sustainable land use 6.1, Appendix F

2 Key stakeholders’ views were obtained during a workshop on 14 June 2016 2

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

Social Transport system’s Human Health Health and health AEI, EqIA, HIA Part 4.2, table 5.2 , role in supporting inequalities 6.1, Appendix F strong, vibrant and Physical activity AEI, EqIA, HIA Part 4.2, table 5.2, healthy communities, 6.1, Appendix F by delivering good public transport Equality and Inclusion, EqIA, HIA, CSIA Part 4.2, table 5.2, experience; safe and Social integration 6.1, Appendix F pleasant places; and creating a high quality Accessibility SEA, AEI, EqIA, Part 4.2, table 5.2, built environment, HIA, CSIA 6.1, Appendix F with accessible local services that reflect Crime, safety and CSIA, AEI, Part 4.2, table 5.2, the community’s security EqIA, HIA 6.1, Appendix F needs and support its Noise and vibration SEA, EqIA, HIA Part 4.2, table 5.2, health, social and 6.1, Appendix F cultural well-being for all Londoners Environmental Transport system’s Fauna & Flora Natural capital and SEA, AEI, EqIA, Part 4.2, table 5.2 , role in supporting Biodiversity natural environment HRA 6.1, Appendices B,F natural environment Soil Geology and soils SEA Part 4.2, table 5.2, by contributing to 6.1, Appendix F protecting and Water Water resources and SEA, HRA, HIA Part 4.2, table 5.2, enhancing our quality 6.1, Appendix B,F natural, built and Climatic Factors Air quality SEA, AEI, EqIA, Part 4.2, table 5.2, historic environment; HIA 6.1, Appendix F and, as part of this, Climate change SEA, EqIA, HIA Part 4.2, , table 5.2, helping to improve adaptation and 6.1, Appendix F biodiversity, use mitigation natural resources Energy use and supply SEA, AEI, EqIA, Part 4.2, table 5.2, prudently, minimise HIA 6.1, Appendix F waste and pollution, and mitigate and Flood risk SEA, AEI, HIA Part 4.2, table 5.2, adapt to climate 6.1, Appendix F change including Cultural Historic Environment SEA, EqIA, HIA Part 4.2, table 5.2, moving to a low Heritage 6.1, Appendix F carbon economy. including Culture EqIA Part 4.2, table 5.2 , Architecture & 6.1, Appendix F Archaeological Design EqIA, HIA Part 4.2, table 5.2, Heritage 6.1, Appendix F Landscape Historic Environment SEA, EqIA, HIA, Part 4.2, table 5.2, CSIA 6.1, Appendix F

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

1.3 Engagement and Consultation

1.3.1 TfL has been working closely with the GLA to develop a consistent IIA framework for all Mayoral strategies that together form the integrated ‘Strategy for London’.

1.3.2 TfL and the GLA held a workshop with key stakeholders on 14 June 2016 to identify key issues and consider a consistent set of IIA objectives which could apply to all relevant Mayoral strategies. This has directly informed the IIA objectives identified in this report.

1.3.3 Regulation 4 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 defines certain organisations with environmental responsibilities as consultation bodies. In England the statutory consultation bodies are Historic England, Natural England and the Environment Agency. A full list of workshop participants can be found in Appendix J.

1.3.4 This IIA Scoping Report has been provided to the statutory consultees as well as well as other stakeholders for a period of five weeks. The consultation ran from 3 October to 7 November 2016.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

2. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy

This chapter gives an overview of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS), its current status and the need to revise the strategy. It describes the proposed approach to a revised strategy and provides an account of its scope.

2.1 About the strategy

2.1.1 The MTS is a statutory document that sets out the Mayor’s transport vision for London. The current MTS (May 2010) sets out, through 36 policies and 130 proposals, how TfL and partners will deliver the transport plan for London for the period up to 2031.

2.1.2 The MTS is a key part of the strategic policy framework which supports and shapes London’s social and economic development, and is the principal policy tool through which the Mayor and TfL exercise their responsibilities for the planning, management and development of transport in London.

2.1.3 The MTS covers TfL’s operational responsibilities including London Underground, London Buses, Dockland Light Railway (DLR), London Overground, TfL Rail, London Trams, London River Services, London Dial-a-Ride, Victoria Coach Station, Santander Cycles and the Emirate Air Line. TfL also regulates taxis and private hire vehicles, oversees the administration of the Congestion Charging Zone and London Low Emission Zone, and operates 580 km of red route network.

2.1.4 The current MTS is made up of: • The strategy itself (published in 2010) and not revised since; • Sub-regional transport plans revised annually; • Delivery through TfL’s annually revised Business Plan and borough Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) funded by TfL.

2.1.5 Outcomes of the MTS are monitored and reported via the annual Travel in London report3.

2.2 The need to revise the strategy

2.2.1 Since 2010 considerable policy development has taken place including: the publication of the Roads Task Force report; the Road Safety Action Plan; the Transport Emissions Road Map (including the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)); river crossings consultations; and consultations on the Crossrail 2 and the proposed Bakerloo line extension. None of this progress is reflected in the current MTS (May 2010), making the published strategy less and less relevant for informing priorities in the TfL Business Plan and borough Local Investment Plans (LIPs).

2.2.2 Additionally, since 2010, there have been significant changes to London’s population and employment forecasts which bring new challenges for the Capital.

2.3 Proposed approach to a revised strategy

London is growing with a forecasted population of 10 million people by 2030 and potentially 11 million by 2040, which means an extra six million trips every day on London’s already crowded and congested transport system.

3 Travel in London, Report 8 was the most up-to-date version at the time of writing this report 5

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: IIA Scoping Report

In order to accommodate this growth the purpose of the Mayor’s transport strategy is to ensure that the London’s transport system is able to accommodate this growth. To do so, the strategy will aim to:

1. Expand the overall capacity of the transport system to enable people to get about, goods and services to be delivered to businesses and customers, and new housing to be unlocked;

2. Use space more efficiently;

3. Facilitate mode shift to public transport, walking and cycling as well as reducing levels of motorised traffic; and

4. Enable London to be a more liveable, clean, safe and environmentally sustainable city.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

3. Integrated Impact Assessment purpose, process and approach

This chapter describes the purpose of the IIA, its role in the decision-making process and outlines the IIA process. The IIA is an integral part of good plan-making that identifies and reports on the likely significant effects of the MTS and the extent to which implementation of the MTS will achieve sustainable development. This chapter describes how this assists TfL to fulfil the objective of meeting the legal requirements for a Strategic Environmental Assessment and other requirements to have regard to economic, environmental and social impacts, and also demonstrates how integrating different methods of appraisal and evaluation into impact assessment methodology IIA provides for a coherent and single assessment of the strategic actions proposed by MTS.

3.1 Purpose of the IIA

3.1.1 The purpose of IIA is to promote sustainable development through better integration of sustainability considerations into plan preparation and adoption. IIA is an integral part of good plan-making and should not be seen as a separate activity. It is an iterative process that identifies and reports on the likely significant effects of a plan or strategy and the extent to which implementation of the plan or strategy will contribute towards sustainable development.

3.1.2 There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. For the purposes of this assessment these are expressed as the London Transport system’s role in supporting: • A strong, sustainable and competitive economy, new homes and jobs by providing transport infrastructure for all Londoners; • Strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by delivering good public transport experience; safe and pleasant places; and creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being for all Londoners; and • The natural environment, by contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

3.1.3 The aim of the IIA is to help to identify and assess different strategic options and help advise on the most sustainable solutions. It also aims to minimize negative impacts, optimize positive ones, and compensate for the loss of valuable features and benefits. The IIA aims to ensure that MTS proposed policies do not exceed limits beyond which irreversible damage from impacts may occur (Therivel, 2010). Therefore, IIA informs decision-makers about the environmental and sustainability consequences of the proposed MTS policies which can then be considered alongside financial technical, political and other concerns. Thus IIA adds an additional dimension to the decision-making process. The IIA process is, in many ways, a model for good plan-making. The more the plan- making and assessment processes are integrated, the more effective the assessment is likely to be (Therivel, 2010).

3.2 What is IIA?

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

3.2.1 The aim of facilitating sustainable development requires the use of different disciplinary approaches to the impact assessment of plans and programmes, which can give a balanced consideration to the multidimensional nature of sustainable development targets.

3.2.1 The IIA is an assessment tool which uses an integrated appraisal approach across a number of topics to measure the potential impacts of the revised MTS. The IIA delivers SEA and SA requirements as well as looking in more depth into the issues of health, equality, economic impacts and community safety. By adopting this approach, the IIA provides for a thorough assessment of the respective aspects of sustainability.

3.2.2 The IIA is a strategic-level qualitative assessment and is based on broad assumptions and judgements. It gives consideration of the significant environmental/sustainability effects of MTS, and of reasonable alternatives that takes into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the strategy. The IIA is a tool for improving the strategic action proposed by MTS, which may be changed as a result of the IIA, with focuses on different objectives, different means of achieving these objectives, and different forms of implementation (Therivel, 2010). It also promotes participation of other stakeholders in the decision-making process and focuses on key environmental/sustainability constraints.

3.3 Our approach to IIA

3.3.1 Our approach to the IIA evaluates the social, economic, environmental, health, community safety and equality consequences of the MTS proposed policies in order to ensure they are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision making. We will use the IIA as a tool to ensure the MTS decision-making process takes account of a broader range of perspectives, objectives and constraints as can be seen in Figure 3.1.

MTS Strategic MTS Strategic Actions Actions

Decision Makers Other Decision Makers

Set of Perspectives Set of Constraints Objectives Objectives

Objectives Proponent Proponent

Without IIA With IIA

Source: Adapted from Therivel and Brown (1999)

Figure 3.1: Decision-making process without and with IIA

3.3.2 The transport policies and proposals within the revised MTS will be subject to the following assessments, of which the findings will be collated into the overall IIA Report: • Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA);

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA); • Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA); • Health Impact Assessment (HIA); • Assessment of Economic Impacts (AEI); • Community Safety Impact Assessment (CSIA).

3.3.3 The requirement for each assessment is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

3.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment

3.4.1 Undertaking an SEA for new or revised plans became a statutory requirement following the adoption of European Directive 2001/42/EC (the SEA Directive) which was transposed into UK legislation by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (“the SEA Regulations” SI2004/1633). The objective of SEA as set out in the Directive is:

“to provide for a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development”

3.4.2 The SEA Regulations require a report to be prepared, and made available to the public, which identifies, describes and evaluates the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the strategy and the reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the strategy.

3.4.3 As per the SEA Regulations, an assessment of the likely significant effects on the environment should be undertaken through assessing issues such as: air quality; biodiversity, flora and fauna; climate change; energy use and generation; flood risk; geology and soils; heritage; health, landscape, townscape and public realm; materials and waste; noise and vibration; water resources and quality.

3.4.4 The process of undertaking IIA will assist TfL to fulfil the objective of integrating the European Directive 2001/42/EC (the ‘SEA Directive’) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. IIA is based on the principles of SEA but includes greater coverage of the social and economic aspects of sustainable development.

3.5 Habitats Regulation Assessment

3.5.1 Embedded within Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive is the requirement for the assessment of plans and projects that may have significant effects on European sites. The Habitats Directive is brought into effect in England by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), which also transpose the Directive’s requirement to undertake assessment for both projects and plans likely to have significant effect on European sites.

3.5.2 Sites protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 include Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); Special Protection Areas (SPA) and European Offshore Marine Sites (EOMS). Together these make up the Natura 2000 Network of European sites. In England, as a matter of policy, Ramsar sites (identified under the Ramsar Convention), proposed SACs and potential SPAs are subject to the same procedures as SACs and SPAs.

3.5.3 A plan or project, such as the MTS, cannot be given effect or consent unless it can be determined that it would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites or, where there are no alternative solutions, there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest for the plan or project to proceed, and compensatory measures are secured to ensure the coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

3.5.4 An HRA is undertaken to determine the likely effect on the integrity of European sites and comprises two stages: 9

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• Stage 1: Screening Assessment; and • Stage 2: Appropriate Assessment.

3.5.5 A Stage 1 assessment is necessary to identify whether the strategy would result in likely significant effects on European Sites. If screening concludes that there would be no likely significant effects, then no further assessment is required. If screening cannot discount likely significant effects (beyond reasonable scientific doubt, as required under law), a Stage 2 assessment is required.

3.5.6 The Stage 1 assessment cannot be fully carried out until further detail on the proposed strategy is known. This assessment will therefore be carried out alongside the IIA. Baseline information on the location of European Sites is included in Appendix B of this report.

3.6 Equality Impact Assessment

3.6.1 The Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act) requires public authorities to work to eliminate discrimination and promote equality in all their activities. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act a public authority has a duty to ensure that all decisions are made in such a way as to minimise unfairness, and do not have disproportionately negative impacts on people because of their protected characteristics or background.

3.6.2 The duty requires the Mayor (and TfL) to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation as well as to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This may involve, in particular, removing or minimising any disadvantage suffered by those who share a relevant protected characteristic, taking steps to meet the needs of such people; and encouraging them to participate in public life or in any other activity where their participation is disproportionately low, including tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. (The protected characteristics and groups are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, gender, religion or belief, sexual orientation and marriage/ civil partnership status – see Table 3.1 below.) Compliance with the duty may involve treating people with a protected characteristic more favourably than those without the characteristic. The Equal Life Chances for All framework (2014) further highlights the Mayor’s commitment to tackling inequality, improving life chances and removing barriers that prevent people from reaching their full potential.

3.6.3 An EqIA forms an integral part of an IIA and likely disproportionate or differential effects on equality groups listed in Table 3.1 will be identified through assessing issues such as: accessibility; air quality; climate change; crime and security; connectivity; employment; education and skills; energy use and generation; housing; inclusion; landscape, townscape and public realm; noise and vibration.

Table 3.1 : Groups with protected characteristics

Protected characteristics as Definition of group as per People within group referred to per Equality Act 2010 Equality Act 2010 within this report Age A person of a particular age or Children (0-4); Younger people persons of the same age group (aged 18-24); older people (aged 60 and over) Disability A person with physical or mental Disabled people impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on that person’s ability to carry out normal day- to-day activities Gender reassignment A person in the process of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and transitioning from one gender to Transgender (LGBT) another Marriage and civil partnership A person in a civil partnership or Not applicable to MTS IIA

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Protected characteristics as Definition of group as per People within group referred to per Equality Act 2010 Equality Act 2010 within this report marriage between same sex or opposite sex Pregnancy and maternity A person who is pregnant or Mothers or expectant mothers expecting a baby and a person who has recently given birth Race A person defined by their race, Black, Asian and minority ethnic colour and nationality (including (BAME) citizenship) ethnic or national origins Religion and belief A person with religious and Not applicable to MTS IIA philosophical beliefs including lack of belief Sex A man or a woman Women Sexual orientation A person’s sexual orientation Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and towards persons of the same Transgender (LGBT) and sex, persons of the opposite sex heterosexual or persons of either sex

3.7 Health Impact Assessment

3.7.1 HIA is a means of assessing the likely health effects of plans, programmes and projects. Section 41(4) of the GLA Act states that in preparing or revising any strategy the Mayor shall have regard to the effect which the proposed strategy or revision would have on the health of persons in Greater London.

3.7.2 The purpose of HIA is to assist decision-makers in understanding the health impacts of a plan. It seeks to inform and enhance the decision-making process, making decisions more holistic and robust by: • Highlighting practical ways to enhance the positive health, health equality and well-being effects of a plan; • Avoiding or reducing the negative health, health inequality and well-being effects.

3.7.3 There are two types of HIA – a rapid HIA and comprehensive HIA. A rapid HIA will be undertaken as part of the IIA. A rapid HIA is an interactive workshop that brings together stakeholders to identify and assess health impacts, informed by evidence.

3.7.4 The NHS Healthy Urban Design Unit (HUDU) checklist is commonly used for scoping a HIA and the HUDU tool has been used to help identify issues to be assessed.

3.7.5 We have also drawn upon TfL’s Transport Action Plan, Improving the health of Londoners (February 2014) which sets out transport’s role in health in London. The plan takes a ‘whole-street’ approach to improving health and identifies five key indicators of health including (in order of priority): physical activity, air quality, road traffic collisions, noise, and access and severance.

3.7.6 The HIA for the IIA will draw upon the HUDU checklist and TfL’s whole-street approach to create an approach which draws more widely on best practice, published guidance and proven techniques. It will identify the likely significant effects on human health through assessing issues such as: air quality; biodiversity, flora and fauna; climate change; crime and security; connectivity; employment; flood risk; physical activity; housing; inclusion; landscape, townscape and public realm; noise and vibration; water resources and quality.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

3.8 Assessment of Economic Impacts

3.8.1 One of the purposes of the GLA Act (Section 30 (2)a) is to promote economic development and wealth creation in Greater London. A revision to the MTS should therefore consider the likely effects on London’s economy through an Assessment of Economic Impacts (AEI).

3.8.2 While there is no statutory guidance on undertaking an AEI, economic development is a key element of sustainability. The AEI element will identify the likely significant effects on society and the economy through assessing issues such as: climate change; crime and security; connectivity; economic competitiveness; employment; energy use and generation.

3.8.3 The AEI will focus on the identification and description of the key economic objectives of the strategies; quantification of the impacts of key economic aggregates (productivity, employment, GDP) using the economic categories highlighted in Department for Transport (DfT'’s) appraisal guidance; and the objectives set out in the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy. The AEI will assess at how the revised MTS as a whole, and key policies in particular, will affect accessibility, capacity and generalised cost for London as a whole and on particular geographies (i.e. Central Activity Zone (CAZ), outer London) and groups in society (e.g. employed, unemployed). In doing so it will make a broad assessment of how these changes will affect commercial and residential development, access to employment and training and to local amenities and international gateways. It will do this on the basis of existing high level TfL modelling outputs, evidence from previous policies or investments and professional judgement.

3.9 Community Safety Impact Assessment

3.9.1 While there is no specific requirement for a CSIA to be carried out by the Mayor in the preparation or revision of a plan or programme, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended) and the Police and Justice Act 2006 (as amended) make provision for preventing and combatting crime and disorder. The GLA and TfL have a statutory duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act and any revision to the MTS should therefore consider the impacts of the revision on crime and disorder.

3.9.2 A CSIA will identify the likely significant effects on crime and safety through assessing issues such as: accessibility; crime and security; connectivity; economic competitiveness; inclusion; landscape, townscape and public realm; noise and vibration.

3.10 IIA Process

3.10.1 This IIA Scoping Report follows key legislation, policy and guidance including: • Directive 2001/42/EC ‘on the assessment of the effects of certain plans, and programmes on the environment’ (European Commission, 2001) i.e. the SEA Directive. • Environmental Assessment of plans and programmes Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 1633) • A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (ODPM, 2005); • Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic Environmental Assessment (4th April 2013 European Commission); • Historic England guidance (2013) on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)/ Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and the Historic Environment; • Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Good Plan Making Guide. Plan Making Principles for Practitioners (2014); • Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC; • Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010/490, as amended. • National Planning Policy Guidance (online).

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

3.10.2 The approach to IIA ensures that commonalities, inter-related issues and synergies between the above assessments are identified in a systematic manner and used to inform the development of the MTS. In doing this, the IIA will contribute to development of a better informed MTS which will be enhanced by giving greater consideration to a range of sustainability issues and will identify opportunities to maximise the contributions to sustainable development that MTS can make. Figure 3.1 presents stages of the IIA process.

Figure 3.1 : Stages of the IIA process

3.10.3 This IIA Scoping Report for the proposed review of the MTS is the first stage of the IIA process (Stage A), incorporating the requirements of the SEA Directive. It sets out the context and objectives, establishes the baseline and decides on the scope. Detailed tasks to be completed at this stage are presented in Figure 3.2.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

3.10.4 A detailed process of IIA at the Scoping stage A is illustrated in Figure 3.2 below:

Integrated Impact Assessment Scoping

Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

SEA/SA HRA HIA EqIA AEI

Task A1- Identifying Carry out literature Identify health related Review relevant plans Review of economic other relevant policies, review plans and and derive equality strategies. Derive plans, programmes programmes linked to related topics economic topics and sustainability the MTS. Identify objectives health related topics

Task A2- Collecting Identify all Natura Collect baseline data Collect baseline data Collect baseline data baseline information 2000 sites within and relating to health issue and trends in regard to on economics, stats and trends up to 20 km from in London with focus equality issues in and trends in London London boundary on Transport London area

Task A3- Identifying Contact Natural Identify health specific Identify equalities Identify key economic sustainability issues England for details of issues and health specific issues and issues and and problems conservation determinants, seek opportunities opportunities for the objectives and opportunities MTS consultation

Task A4- Developing Ensure that IIA Health objectives, Include equality Economic issues the IIA framework framework covers targets and indicators specific objectives and specific objectives to Natura 200 sites to be addressed in the indicators are included be included in the IIA IIA framework in the IIA framework framework

Task A5- Prepare Consultation as part of Consultation as part of Consultation as part of Consultation as part of Scoping Report, IIA Scoping Report IIA Scoping Report IIA Scoping Report IIA Scoping Report consulting on the with statutory with statutory with statutory with statutory scope of the IIA consultees consultees consultees consultees

Figure 3.2: IIA Scoping detailed process

Stage B – developing and refining alternatives and assessing impacts will commence following consultation on this report, taking into account the responses of those consulted.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

3.10.5 Stage C involves preparing the IIA report. Stage D involves the publication for wider public and stakeholder consultation of the draft revised MTS and associated IIA report. The IIA report assesses the likely significant impacts of those proposals, and so forms part of the supporting consultation material at stage C.

3.10.6 The responses to the consultation will be analysed by TfL and a report prepared for the Mayor, with recommendations for potential changes (if any). The Mayor will then submit the final proposed version of the revised MTS to the London Assembly, which has the power to reject it (but not amend it) by a two-thirds majority of those voting. If not rejected, the Mayor will proceed to formally publish revised (new) MTS (Stage E) and publish a Post-Adoption Statement which will set out:

• how environmental considerations have been integrated into the MTS;

• how the environmental report has been taken into account;

• how opinions expressed by consultees have been taken into account;

• the reasons for choosing the MTS as adopted, in the light of the other reasonable alternatives dealt with; and

• the measures that are to be taken to monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of the MTS.

3.11 Spatial and temporal Scope of the IIA

3.11.1 The spatial scope refers to the geographic area that will be covered by the IIA. The principal spatial scope for the IIA will be the Greater London Authority area. The IIA will also take account of potential impacts on adjoining areas as appropriate. Figure 3.3 below shows a map of the Greater London Authority area.

(Source TfL, 2016)

Figure 3.3: Greater London Authority area. 15

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

3.11.2 The MTS covers the period to 2040 and this will therefore also be the timeframe for the IIA. Where possible, significant effects identified will be categorised as short term (0-5 years), medium term (6- 15 years) and long term (16-25 years)

3.12 Uncertainties and Assumptions

3.12.1 IIA is a strategic level assessment by nature and is based on broad assumptions and judgements, therefore some uncertainty over the assessment may exist. Qualitative rather than quantitative assessments will need to be made and there will be some degree of subjectivity which is typical of the IIA process. The assessment will be undertaken by independent consultants with specialist knowledge across a range of sustainability topics. The monitoring plan will assist in providing more clarity for the duration of the strategy and will enable to address the uncertainties identified in the IIA Scoping report.

3.12.2 Where the MTS makes reference to a collective set of actions rather than specific details of individual schemes an assumption about the predicted effects will be made based on the nature of the collective actions. The assessment will assume that all actions listed in the MTS under each transport policy narrative and objective will be implemented.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

4. Identifying other plans, programmes and sustainability objectives (Task A1)

This chapter describes the process and the need to identify other plans and programmes relevant for the MTS review, their objectives and targets, and provides a summary on the implications of the documents review for the MTS. The most relevant plans that will require detailed consideration at the next stage of the MTS review are summarised in sections and presented in Appendix A. They have been scoped and presented as of June 2016.

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 Task A1 requires that all relevant policies, plans, programmes and environmental objectives are analysed. The relationship between various policies, plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives may influence the MTS. The relationships are analysed to:

• Identify any external social, environmental or economic objectives that should be reflected in the IIA process; • Identify external factors that may have influenced the preparation of the plan ; and • Determine whether the policies in other plans and programmes might lead to cumulative or synergistic effects when combined with policies in the plan.

4.1.2 A plan or programme may be influenced in various ways by other plans or programmes, or by external environmental protection objectives such as those laid down in policies or legislation. The IIA process takes advantage of potential synergies and addresses any inconsistencies and constraints. This IIA Scoping Report presents an analysis of the objectives of the key policies, plans and programmes (including legislation) that are relevant to the MTS and the IIA assessment process.

4.1.3 The most relevant plans are summarised and presented in Appendix A. They have been scoped as of June 2016. These are presented by their geographic scope, from international to local.

4.2 Implications of the Policy Review

4.2.1 The review of relevant plans, programmes and policies has identified a number of key messages that need to be taken into consideration when developing the MTS and IIA objectives: • Accessibility – the review of the policies, plans and programmes identified the need for transport systems to be accessible and well connected. There will be a close relationship with the London Plan, which is being revised at the same time as the MTS. The new transport system should be easier for older and disabled people to use. The transport system should facilitate access to jobs, housing developments, education, healthcare and amenities for all Londoners.

• Air quality – the urgent need to meet mandatory standards for air quality and cut the annual number of premature deaths from air pollution-related diseases by almost 40 per cent by 2020.

• Natural Environment –Opportunities for transport infrastructure planning, design and operation to integrate biodiversity and the network of green spaces and green infrastructure to provide a range of sustainability benefits, i.e. healthy living, improving air and water quality, cooling the urban environment, service resilience, enhancing biodiversity and ecological resilience. This could include both enhancing existing habitats and providing new areas for biodiversity as opportunities arise.

• Climate Change – need to encourage the use of renewable energy sources and low carbon technology for transport infrastructure projects in the MTS. New transport development should be designed to adapt to climate change for the increased likelihood of extreme weather events, and temperature rises, as well as current infrastructure improved to be resilient to climate change. The Mayor has a commitment to reduce London’s CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2025.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• Crime, Safety and Security – identified as an important issue for staff and users of the transport system. Safer Streets for London Plan (2013) sets out challenging targets to reduce the number of number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) by 40 per cent by 2020.

• Connectivity – growth in London’s opportunity areas is dependent on the provision of high quality public transport connectivity.

• Economic competitiveness and Employment – the importance of London’s position as a leading global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient economic structure providing opportunities for all.

• Energy use and generation – energy consumption by the transport sector contributes to supply / demand gap. Greater use of renewable energy sources for transport will be important.

• Flood Risk – there is a need to ensure that transport projects are designed not to increase flood risk and to encourage the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

• Geology and Soils – a need to focus on prevention and remediation of environmental damage, including land contamination. Need to increase efforts to reduce soil degradation and remediate contaminated sites. • Heritage – a need to protect and enhance the built environment around key transport facilities.

• Housing – transport has an important role in increasing housing provision and unlocking development. Considering future land use planning for housing and employment growth together with transport improvements is vital; the MTS therefore has an important role in enabling housing development through increasing connectivity and enabling increased density on potential development sites.

• Inclusion, Fairness and Social Integration – reducing inequalities for those groups who experience more barriers to using public transport than others and encouraging active travel for all.

• Landscape, Townscape and Public Realm – importance of creating and maintain a safe and attractive public realm which encourages people to walk and cycle, promoting a sense of place and reducing the need to travel.

• Materials and Waste – a need to apply principles of circular economy when aiming for waste reduction, reuse, re-manufacturing and recycling in all construction and operational practices.

• Noise and Vibration – a need to minimise noise and vibration levels and the number of people exposed to high levels of noise from roads and railways.

• Physical activity – a need to improve the overall health of London’s population and make London a socially integrated city of strong and resilient communities by encouraging modal shift for car owners and for older people, as well as reducing physical inactivity.

• Water resources and quality – identified need to focus on the protection, improvements and sustainable use of the water environment. • Health and health inequalities – how can transport help to reduce inequalities in health outcomes and improve the overall physical and mental health and wellbeing of Londoners?

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

5. Baseline Information and key sustainability issues in London (Tasks A2 & A3)

This chapter presents information on sustainability issues and sets out initial baseline data for the IIA. It summarises baseline data across all IIA topics and provides analysis of trends to determine the likely significance of each sustainability issue for the MTS, with full details being provided in Appendix F. The baseline data has been aggregated into themes representing three dimensions of sustainable development and presented in the context of transport system’s role in facilitating sustainable development across different sustainability topics by identifying transport related issues and opportunities. Significant interlinkages exist between the thematic issues and cross-cutting issues such as air quality, health and equality which have been identified across many sustainability topics and addressed in an integrated way which can assist in the development of coherent policy guidance to inform the MTS review process.

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 The baseline data for the IIA includes existing relevant environmental and sustainability information from a range of sources which is both quantitative and qualitative. A list of references is provided at end of the document and additional data sources are provided in Appendix I. This information provides the basis for assessing the potential impact of the MTS policies and will aid development of appropriate mitigation measures, together with future monitoring data.

5.1.2 This chapter presents preliminary baseline information with respect to London’s environment, population and economy as they relate to the capital’s transport system (they are set out in full in Appendix F). The baseline refers to the conditions prevailing in the absence of the revised MTS (i.e. business as usual) and has been developed with regard to the current situation and predicted trends as detailed in existing literature and data.

5.1.3 The sustainability baseline data is the current status of the environment or sustainability, plus its likely future status in the absence of the MTS proposed strategic actions (i.e. business as usual). Information about the environmental/sustainability baseline helps to identify existing problems that the proposed MTS policies should try to resolve. The baseline sets a context for the impact prediction and evaluation stage, and provides a basis against which the proposed MTS policies’ impacts can later be monitored.

5.1.4 This IIA Scoping Report is built upon the large amount of data collected from engagement with local and national government bodies to ensure that the MTS policies are based on up-to-date information about the state of natural environment and other characteristics of the study area. Not all the baseline data needs be available for an IIA to proceed. This IIA Scoping Report can be seen as a way of identifying what data need to be collected and monitored in the future.

5.1.5 The baseline information in this chapter is set out in relation to topics relevant to each of the individual assessments which comprise the IIA. It can be seen from Table 5.1 that the majority of these topics are applicable to more than one of the assessments. This table is an indicative marker of different inter-relationships between sustainability topics and the individual assessments which together make up the IIA.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Table 5.1: Key issues (and subsequent topic areas) for baseline

Integrated Impact Assessment

Strategic Assessment Equality Health Community Habitats Topic Environmenta of Economic Impact Impact Safety Regulation l Assessment Impacts Assessmen Assessment Assessment Assessment (SEA) t (EqIA) (HIA) (HRA) (AEI) (CSA)

Accessibility • • • • • Air quality • • • • • Natural • • • • • Environment Climate change • • • Crime, safety and • • • • security Connectivity • • • • Economic competitiveness • • and employment Energy use and • • • • generation Flood risk • • • Geology and soils • Heritage • • • Housing • •

Inclusion, fairness and social • • • integration Landscape, townscape and • • • • public realm Materials and waste • • Noise and vibration • • • • Physical activity • • • Water resources • • • and quality Health and health • • • inequalities Culture • Design • •

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

5.1.6 For each topic key issues have been identified. These have been used to inform the development of IIA objectives against which the emerging MTS will be assessed.

5.1.7 The baseline information for MTS in this Chapter is set out in relation to the IIA appraisal framework’s three dimensions for sustainable development as set out in Chapter 3:

. Transport system’s role in supporting a strong, sustainable and competitive economy, new homes and jobs by providing transport infrastructure for all Londoners;

. Transport system’s role in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by delivering good public transport experience; safe and pleasant places; and creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being for all Londoners; and

. Transport system’s role in supporting natural environment by contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

5.1.8 The baseline information within this report is described having regard to different areas of London. Figure 5.1 depicts what is meant when the report refers to central, north, east, south or west London and Figure 5.2 depicts what is meant when the report refers to the Central Activities Zone (CAZ), inner or outer London.

(Source: GLA, 2015a) Figure 5.1: Sub-regions of London

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: GLA, 2015a) Figure 5.2: Outer London, inner London and Central Activities Zone (CAZ)

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

5.2 Identifying significance of issues for the MTS

5.2.1 Table 5.2 below summarises baseline data across all IIA topics and provides analysis of trends to determine the likely significance of each sustainability issue for the MTS. The information presented in the table serves as an indicator of how baseline data and relevant sustainability issues have changed over time. The information in this table gives some indication as to where key sustainability issues will need to be addressed in the MTS review for performance of the transport system against specific economic, social and environmental objectives to be enhanced.

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Environment – Significant Total N/A London is bigger than London A 30% increase in Managing growth in a Population resources and issue for MTS population ever before with population is demand on public sustainable way natural capital approximately 8.7 million projected to transport by 2041 Providing enhanced residents increase over 10 The population capacity on the Equality groups Population million Population is not over 65 will be transport system to – the most change inhabitants by distributed evenly 68% higher by accommodate for deprived 2036 across the region with 2041 bringing rapidly growing more densely populated rising demand for population Economy – areas in inner London. accessible supporting The number of The most densely services London’s the population populated boroughs are Increased pressure on competitiveness over 65 is Accessibility will Islington, Tower Hamlets capacity of public increasing and be compromised and Hackney transport and highway will be 68% by rising networks to meet London has a younger higher. By 2036, crowding, the forecast demand age structure than the 15% of London’s biggest barrier to rest of the UK population is public transport expected to be for disabled 11% of London’s over the age of customers population was over the 65 age of 65 in 2015 By 2041, Since 2001, London’s London’s

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Accessibility Equality groups Access to Composite physical Improvements Accessibility to Not all public transport Significant jobs and accessibility score (%): made but public transport stations and stops are – people on low Refers to: issue for MTS services significant stations may not accessible, for those incomes, older 2008 – 36 barriers remain improve who are mobility people and Ability of all MTS has a 2009 – 36 for many groups impaired or travelling disabled people people to Accessibility will direct impact Travel by with heavy luggage or access the 2010 – 37 be compromised on this issue people with a buggy transport by rising Health – which affects a a disability 2011 – 38 system and its crowding, the Many people with community variety of IIA infrastructure, 2012 – 44 biggest barrier to sensory or cognitive cohesion topics and is including those public transport impairments pertinent from Composite with physical, 2013 – 46 for disabled experience non- Health – levels of the equality, physical sensory or customers physical barriers to use active travel / health and accessibility 2014 – 50 cognitive of the transport economic score (%) physical activity impairments 2015 – 54 network. perspectives 2016 – 59 Economy – Customer Compared with 2011, access to satisfaction/ disabled residents now employment perception make more trips on opportunities of journey public transport- 0.57 experience per person per day in Safety – levels of 2011 compared with actual and 0.51 in 2001. perceived crime However, disabled people make fewer work and education trips than the average London resident.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

surveys shows the positive trend for all indicators. 41 per cent of the public transport networks in London were not fully accessible in 2015. Average trip rate for disabled Londoners is 34 per cent lower than for non-disabled people. Older Londoners make fewer trips, especially Londoners over 70 years of age, and tend to walk or catch the bus more than average. But 45 per cent of older people also drive a car at least once a week. With a different approach to features like service frequency and staffing, London Overground continues to deliver high levels of service reliability and customer satisfaction.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS

Overall customer satisfaction with the TLRN is measured on a quarterly basis and expressed in terms of a score out of 100. Recent scores have typically been around 70.

Customer satisfaction 2015/2016 (%) Cross Rail 84 Buses 86 Underground 89 Overground 90.

Equality groups Unfavourable People’s Central London has Improvements to Large portions of Improving transport Connectivity – people on low access to greater accessibility to the transport southeast London accessibility levels for incomes, older Significant jobs public transport than networks will have fewer those living in outer people and issue for MTS Refers to: those living in outer continue to be jobs accessible by London disabled people, London reflected in car in 2031 One’s ability to Increased pressure on people living in MTS has a Public incremental (increasing delays reach East London has fewer capacity of public outer London direct impact transport improvements to at the Blackwall employment, connections across the transport and highway on this issue reliability key indicators of Tunnel) education, River Thames networks to meet Health – which affects a transport shops, forecast demand community variety of IIA connectivity and recreation, The cross-river bus cohesion topics and is physical friends, family Public network in east London Poor cross-London pertinent from is poor accessibility connectivity, and health and transport Health – levels of the equality,

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS social services capacity particularly in east active travel / health and Number of jobs measured by London physical activity economic available within 45 whether the perspectives minutes travel time Poor access to infrastructure Economy – increased from 937,900 employment in London is in place and access to in 2006 to 995,950 in for those who live whether it is employment 2013, representing a However, outside its boundaries able to opportunities steady increase of 6.2%. inequality of accommodate transport demand London’s workday connectivity is Economy – population grows by half apparent attractiveness for

a million. 1 in 6 people between businesses to working in London different parts of operate in east actually live outside its London London boundaries By 2041, it is An average of 26.7 expected that million trips per day trips per days were made in London in will have grown 2015 – an 18 per cent to 32.2 million increase from 2000 and trips per day. 0.2 per cent higher than 2014 Private transport accounted for Public transport 47 per cent of all accounted for 28 per trips in 2000, but cent of trips in 2000, and just 36 per cent 37 per cent in 2015 in 2015. Demand for Underground carried a travel in London total of 1.35 billion will increase by journeys – 39 per cent around 7 million higher than 2000/01 and trips on an

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS a 3.3 per cent growth average day, over the most recent from 25.3 million year in 2011 to 32.2 million in 2041. Bus demand in 2015/16 stood 71 per cent higher than in 2000/01, at 2.3 billion journeys over the year.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Unfavourable EU target In 2014, 39 out of 67 Targets for PM2.5 Complying with EU Air quality NO2, Environment – value of sites measured did not will not be met by legal annual limit PM2.5 air quality Critical issue 25µgm-3 achieve the annual 2020 values for NO2 Refers to: PM10 for MTS for PM2.5 mean objective for NO2 London will be in Complying with EU Environment – Condition of (WHO 8 sites recorded an breach of legal legal annual limit biodiversity, MTS has a the air with guideline annual mean of twice limits on nitrogen values for PM10 cultural heritage direct impact respect to the value of the legal limit or above. dioxide and likely assets on this issue presence of 10µgm-3) Achieving the WHO 14 sites exceeded the to remain so untl which affects a pollutants guideline value for Annual hourly mean objective at leat 2030. Equality groups variety of IIA (including NOx PM2.5 mean for NO2 London may – the most topics and is and PM) objective attract fines under Pollutants cause deprived, younger pertinent from 2.6 million Londoners less than the EU laws and around 9,400 people, older the living in areas 40µgm-3 continue equivalent deaths and people environmental, exceeding the EU legal for PM104 damaging the 3,150 hospital health, annual limit value for helath of admissions every year Health – economic and Annual NO2 Londoners. in London & impose an cardiovascular equality mean All 47 sites measured economic cost of disease, perspectives objective met the annual mean air between £1.4bn and respiratory less than By 2025, existing quality objective of £3.7bn. disease and some 40µgm-3 policies and 40µgm-3 for PM10. 1 cancers for NO2 natural churn of 86 of the 100 site did not meet the the fleet will secondary schools daily mean objective for Economy – cost deliver 40% exposed to the highest PM10 on the public reduction. This NO2 levels in 2013 health system Pollutants cause around means that there were above the annual 9,400 equivalent deaths is a delivery gap mean limit of 40µgm-3 every year in London of further 20% for PM10. due to poor air quality reduction in emissions.

4 Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Unfavourable Proportion London has Large loss of Habitat targets Protecting and Natural In 2015 SINCs covered Environment – of green targets to SINCs during might not be met improving the Capital and 19.24% or 30,806ha of biodiversity This issue space over meet in 2013/14 by 2020 functionality and Natural Greater London values potentially can time and terms of connectivity of green Environment Roughly 47% of London Trend expected to be very new enhancing spaces, and avoid the is green (2015) continue as result Environment – significant for housing and erosion of valued Includes: 33% of London is of increased habitats and MTS as developme increasing natural places as a vegetated greenspace demand for species continuing All living things nts being each result of increased (2015) development and trend for loss and the places built on habitat by pressure for transport 2.5% of Greater intensification of SINCs where they live Greenfield 20205 infrastructure. London’s area is blue Health – levels of alongside sites Protecting and Habitats – the space (2015) physical activity increasing enhancing priority natural home 24% of London is demand for habitats in accordance of an animal, private, domestic Health - London transport Planting for with the London plant or other garden land (2015) heat island effect infrastructure trees when Biodiversity Action organism Over 22,5000ha of development Plan habitat targets. cut down or woodland and orchard will put a major Species – a Potential loss of fall down to habitat were recorded in pressure on group of living biodiversity as a result natural 2015 the organisms of increased pressure causes environment consisting of for transport Area of similar infrastructure SINCs individuals development to capable of accommodate higher interbreeding levels of traffic Areas of deficiency in access to nature.

5 London Biodiversity Action Plan

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Environment – Unfavourable Proportion Reducing Between 2005 and Between 2005 On current Meeting the Mayor’s Climate threat of global of CO2 CO2 2013, total CO2 and 2013, total projections the target to reduce change climate change Critical issue emissions emissions emissions in London fell energy Mayor’s 2025 London’s CO2 adaptation, for MTS from from by 11.6 per cent; with consumption in target to reduce emissions by 60% of mitigation Health – heat and transport ground- 15.3 per cent falling London fell by CO2 emissions 1990 levels by 2025. and energy cold related MTS has a based coming from transport. 15.5 per cent, will not be met.) Increases in extreme deaths direct impact transport, with transport weather events due to Includes: Road transport made up The expected gap on this issue contributin sector decrease climate change, CO2 Total road approximately 29% of is likely to be Health – use of affects a g to a in consumption including storms, flash emissions transport total CO2 emissions in equivalent to the fossil fuels by variety of IIA emissions, London- by 8.1%. surface water floods from transport Greater London (2013) emissions from transport sector topics and is million wide 60 and increase fluvial compared to 25% in 45% of London’s and associated pertinent from tonnes per cent Little progress flows and Sea level Transport 2010 traffic harmful air the reduction has been rise and drought, will infrastructure emissions on environmental, by The transport sector achieved damage the resilience adaptation London has a health health, accounts for 36% of the towards 60 per high for the transport 2025, of economic and UK’s energy cent reduction concentration of network and increase Energy supply which Economy – equality consumption by 2025 target vulnerable the cost and demand by the transport growing perspectives groups, which are complexity of transport must contribution to likely to be maintaining sector deliver a energy supply disproportionately operational 48% demand gap affected by the performance Use of reduction impacts of climate standards. Reducing renewable in transport Equality groups change reliance on fossil fuels. energy CO26. – older people, The impacts of climate sources in the younger people, change will not be transport BAME Londoners, equal or fair, and are sector LGBT, women likely to increase and disabled existing inequalities. people

6 Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Annual Report: 2013-2014 (June 2015)

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Favourable Crime A 40 per In 2012/13 violence Overall crime A negative trend Reducing the number Crime, Safety Equality groups levels and cent against the person has gone down of violent assaults of violent assaults and and Security – older people, However, surveys on reduction in offences on London’s and anti-social sexual offences on the Number of theft younger people, significant communitie the number trains were 2,173 and in behavior on the transport network Includes: and handling BAME Londoners, issue for MTS s feeling of people 2014/15 were 2,556 transport network assaults Reducing ASB on the LGBT, women in respect of Perceived towards killed or are likely to rise. Disproportion across all reduced transport network and disabled sexual crime (fear of safety. seriously modes. 3 in 10 between 2012- However, overall people offences on crime) injured by Maintaining year-on- Road Londoners are put off 14 but numbers crime figure will busses and 20207 year falls in crime on Actual crime Safety and using public transport remain high likely to continue Health – active the person the public transport number of because of concerns to fall if current travel / levels of offences on Anti-social Rates of network accidents about ASB aspirations with physical activity public behaviour recorded crime on the road respect of Safety concerns are a transport (ASB) Crime on London's on public Volume of community can be barrier to active travel Economy – transport network is at a transport Road safety road traffic met. and contribute to London’s global record low rate after continue to fall – casualties inactivity which, in reputation falling by 8.3% in in 2013/14 they turn, has impacts on Crime rates 2014/15 compared with more than health and wellbeing Safety – levels of on public last year. halved (65.3% actual and transport drop) Two biggest crimes on perceived crime public transport are violence and sexual

assaults. In 2012/13 sexual offences on Reports of buses were 483 and in violence and 2014/15 they were 684. sexual offences In 2012/13 violence have risen against the person offences on buses were 4,994 and in 2014/15 were 5,801

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Environment – Favourable Change in Designated assets The % of Heritage assets Reducing the amount Historic designated assets number of currently include 4 World Conservation are likely to of designated assets Environment visitors in Heritage Sites, over Areas at risk continue to be that are at risk Economy – Heritage 1,000 conservation has remained preserved through Includes: Preventing loss or London’s sites along areas, almost 19,000 stable for past legislation. damage of designated reputation as a Designated with the listed buildings, over few years However, some assets city rich in assets (i.e. number of 150 registered parks % of listed designated assets heritage archaeological heritage and gardens, more than Some designated buildings at risk may still be at risk remains, sites open 150 scheduled assets are still at risk has slightly from neglect, Economy – historic for the monuments and 1 from neglect, decay or increased over decay or levels of tourism buildings, public. battlefield inappropriate past few years inappropriate (from cultural historic (Barnet). Those development development. perspective) landscapes) designated assets at % of Scheduled risk include 72 Major infrastructure Ancient All forms of conservation areas, 493 improvements, i.e. Monuments at infrastructure listed buildings, 37 HS2, may have risk has slightly improvements, scheduled monuments heritage implications, decreased over including major, and 14 registered parks including demolition of past few years can have an and gardens. old buildings of historic % of Registered value impact both Parks and positive and Improving capacity of Gardens at risk potentially underground may has remained negative on the result in fairly stable in significance of all advancements to recent years types of heritage underground stations assets. contributing to London’s heritage

value

7 Mayor’s Safer Streets for London Plan (2013)

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Employment Demand in Economic Significant Total Workplace population of Growth in Capacity employment growth in Competitiveness issue for MTS employment 5.52m (2014) projected employment constraints could Refers to: central London will be to grow to 5.8m by expected to be jeopardise Geographica dependent on the 2021, and 6.4m by concentrated in employment The operation l distribution capacity on rail routes 2036. CAZ and central growth in CAZ / of London’s of and multi-modal employment London. Central London labour market Sectoral profile of connectivity towards and Canary Wharf employment is central London changing. Higher Professional density employment Productivity services uses (services) are decline/stagnation expected to growing at expense of grow by 80% by lower density 2014; with 80% (manufacturing). decline in London’s employment manufacturing has grown from 4.6 over same million jobs in 2000 to period. 5.6 million in 2015 and Projecting is projected to grow to forward to 2041, 6.3m in 2031, and 6.8 the largest million jobs by 2041. growth in employment is expected in central and inner London where 1.4 million jobs are expected in the City of London and Westminster

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Unfavourable People's Fewer connections In 2015, traffic Agglomeration Economic Improving congestion Economy – access to across the river in east volumes for benefits may be competitive- and overcrowding on journey Significant jobs London London as a tempered by so- ness public transport experience and issue for MTS whole were up called congestion Levels of economic attractiveness for Perception 1.6% and again costs that are the From an MTS activity are lower and Reducing road traffic businesses to MTS has a of journey reached consequences of perspective, unemployment rates congestion operate in London direct impact experience volumes higher a mass of measured higher in east London on this issue than back in businesses and based on: Poor service quality Economy – which affects a Public 2011. In Inner people competing 2009-2015: means that south and London’s global variety of IIA Public transport London they over scare 19.8% growth in south east London reputation topics and is transport crowding increased by resources underground journey suffers from poor pertinent from experience 1.1%, while stages Pressure on access to jobs, Environment – the equality, including Asset traffic in Outer public transport hampering growth resources and health, safety speed or utility condition London grew by 6.2% growth in bus system will natural capital and economic of accessible 1.7%, which passenger stages continue perspectives services , Public takes traffic Safety – levels of crowding, the transport DLR increase of 67.1% levels almost up actual and ability to board reliability in journey stages to 2009 levels. If perceived crime services and and this is a new Road congestion has ease of capacity trend (in Outer increased on average Safety – levels of interchange London traffic from 2006 to 2015 KSI volumes are up

In east London, high for the third Equality groups demand and lack of year) or an – people on low resilience at the current exception it will incomes, older river crossings lead to have be people and very slow and unreliable monitored disabled people, journeys, constraining closely. economic growth people living in outer London

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS

Forecasts show an 87 per cent rail passenger kilometre increase coupled with a 65 per cent increase in Underground passenger kilometre from 2011 to 2041.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Unfavourable Assets at 100’s of kms of road and Flooding will Without additional Flood risk Adapting transport Environment – flood risk rail are at risk of surface continue to be a measures to infrastructure to be flood risk Significant water flooding in London risk for London. adapt to potential Includes: flood resilient issue/critical The rising sea impacts of climate There are 85 sites (57 Environment – issue for MTS Tidal flooding Cost of level will steadily change the no. Stations, 16 no. Increasing probability threat of global damage reduce the level resilience of the River flooding Shafts and 10 no. of flooding that could climate change Increasing due to flood of protection that transport system Tunnel Portals and 2 no. probability of Surface risk defences offer may not be significantly affect others) on the London Economy – flooding will flooding and increased sufficient to transport in London Underground which are journey potentially heavy rainfalls accommodate the Groundwater at high and rising risk of experience and make this will increase risks of flooding. It TfL’s highway flooding flooding attractiveness for issue to be surface water is estimated that drainage systems are businesses to critical for MTS flooding and climate change not designed to cater The total annualised operate in London flooding from could increase for the high volumes of flooding risk has been established as drains fluvial and coastal rainfall Economy – approximately £6.7M, risk by a factor of London’s global eight to 12 times. London network of with the most significant reputation By the 2080s, underground tunnels is risks being from flooding associated with water winters will be vulnerable to flooding mains bursts (65% 30% wetter, overall) and pluvial heavy winter Effects of climate /surface water events rainfall could change the growing (32% overall) occur twice as need for adaptation frequently and the number of storms crossing the UK each winter could increase from five to eight8

8 Royal Geographical Society, http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/Teaching+resources/Key+Stage+3+resources/The+geography+of+science/Flood+in+London+A+Mission+Impossible.htm

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS

Proportions Increased Geology and Soils in London have Atmospheric Soils remain at risk Environment - Unfavourable of Soil type pressure on soils soils high levels of deposition of of acidification and the loss of soil throughout resulting from contamination from pollutants to soil eutrophication organic matter However, in London competing substances such as lead has reduced caused by reduces soil the context of Soil resources demands and Changes in over time atmospheric quality, affecting MTS, the soil Much of the land within pressures, Contaminated Geological deposition the supply of contamination London is classes as pressure good soil features nutrients and will be dealt urban or non-agricultural agricultural land over time Some soils in making it more through the use. outside of London Geological London have high difficult for plants planning Approximately 14,000ha features levels of to grow, and system, while of land is dedicated to Designated contamination from increases atmospheric agriculture with the Lea Soils in London heavy metals, lead, emissions to the deposition is geological Valley containing the have high levels solvents and other atmosphere effected by air sites largest area of of contamination hazardous pollution and horticulture and from substances hydrocarbons Human health - will be allotments, covering such as lead impacts of addressed approximately 830ha contaminated through air

land on quality topic in

human health the MTS

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Growth in passenger Unfavourable Number of 49,000 Completion London is Housing Net completion of numbers and the Health – levels of vacant homes per rates are well experiencing Supply, conventional housing expansion of the physical activity Significant compared annum below the target significant Quality, were at 23,986 for railway makes issue for MTS to occupied (London population and Choice and 2013/14, representing Proportion of development even Economy – housing Plan) employment Affordability 80% of the annual target affordable more challenging number of jobs MTS has a growth Number of homes direct and Refers to: houses Affordable homes decreased and Housing targets Need to deliver major Equality – indirect role for Provision of built per delivered: fell to 28% in will be continued station improvements affordability of the provision housing year 2011/2012 – 17,200 2015 to be consistently and new infrastructure housing of housing, 2012/2013 – 8,700 below the London to unlock land issue which Housing Plan target Environment - affects a price Over the past 10 years, Significant upfront impact on natural variety of IIA inflations the annualised rate of Affordable homes investment in environment and topics and is delivery will new housing infrastructure, air quality pertinent from completions in London continue to including transport, to (domestic the equality, decline was 0.9 per cent while unlock large sites for emissions). health, safety the annualised growth in development. and economic population was 1.4 per Housing to be close to perspectives cent. public transport networks – the density Currently, only half of of development is the homes London constrained through needs are being built. planning guidance London’s Growth Areas have the potential to Not sufficient supply of provide 570,000 new affordable housing to jobs and at least maintain London’s 300,000 new homes. competitiveness

Around 49,000 new

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Poor quality public Environment – Favourable Land use Londoner’s satisfaction In 2011 road In the absence of Design realm in some parts of visual amenity area % with streets, pavements users were most the MTS review London which can biodiversity and and public spaces has satisfied with the deficiencies in Refers to: discourage active air quality. generally remained working open spaces may travel Topography, reasonable over years. condition of not be properly Health – watercourses, traffic lights, addressed There has been a Deficiencies in open community land use and street lighting, significant increase in spaces in some parts cohesion pattern, drainage, road the proportion of of the city vegetation, markings and Londoners who think Health – levels of public open signage that the quality of their Risk of poor design, physical activity space and directions. They local area has got ‘a lot’ lack of legible cultural were least better between 2011 neighbourhoods and Health – quality heritage satisfied with and 2012 – 22% to 29% sense of place of life and features traffic of Londoners. wellbeing congestion, the Pavements 72 per cent of availability and and roads, Economy – Londoners say that they condition of cleanliness of social cost from would walk more if there cycle lanes and open spaces reducing/increasin was improved safety the time allowed and the quality g the number of and security, for to stop, pick-up of local parks cars on the road and drop-off in example better street Traffic speed, lighting or safer road loading bays for Safety – levels of traffic commercial crossings, and 66 per KSI congestion, vehicles cent say that they would road markings, walk more if streets signage were cleaner and more directions and attractive. the extent to which streets are cluttered

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Reducing the amount Environment – Favourable Amount of In 2013, London Amount of The amount of Materials and of waste produced by air pollution hazardous produced 4.7 million waste collected waste generated waste the transport sector MTS can play waste tonnes of commercial by local is likely to Environment – its role in produced and industrial waste authorities 0.7% increase Refers to: Using and promoting biodiversity applying by the accounting for about 32 increase from The amount of sustainable forms of principles of Materials, transport percent of London’s total 2013/14, 2.7% hazardous waste transporting waste Environment – circular substances or sector waste. increase from produced by threat of global economy objects which 2012/13) Amount of Of waste collected in London is likely to Managing large climate change when aiming have no waste 2014/15 21% was Amount of increase volumes of hazardous for waste further use recycled landfilled waste landfilled waste currently sent to Economy – zero reduction, and are is decreasing landfill waste economy reuse, re- disposed of London recycled, reused with more being manufacturing e.g. primary or composted 30% of incinerated in Reduce amount of Economy – and recycling raw materials waste energy from waste produced, resource in all such as waste facilities increase reuse, re- efficiency and construction aggregates The transport, storage and communication manufacturing and innovation and and minerals The amount of sector accounted for recycling in all operational and secondary hazardous roughly 18,107 tonnes construction and practices. manufactured waste produced (5%) of London’s operational practices Waste products by London is hazardous waste in management increasing 2011 can be With increasing considered London produces 7.2 trends in alongside million tonnes of recycling, there transport construction, demolition has been a planning and excavation waste decreasing trend each year equating to in the amount of 48 percent of all waste waste sent to arisings landfill

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Unfavourable Perception Main source of ambient Satisfaction with New transport Noise and Parts of the population Environment – of noise noise in London is road the level of infrastructure vibration are exposed to noise pollution Significant traffic, followed by rail. transport related development will Proportion roadside and railway issue for MTS noise has shown likely to contribute Refers to: of people 13% of people rate road noise that exceeds the Equality groups a steady to the increasing exposed to transport as the greatest threshold – younger people, MTS has a Unwanted increase over proportion of roadside source of noise and those living direct impact noise / sound the previous five people exposed to and railway consider it a ‘serious Aviation noise affects closest to busy on this issue years, however noise above noise problem’ people living within roads which affects a there is still a threshold above proximity to an airport variety of IIA 41% of Londoners were large number of Health – quality threshold topics and is disturbed by road traffic people exposed of life and pertinent from to roadside and wellbeing. Noise in 2012 the railway noise disturbance can Aviation noise affects environmental, above the increase levels of people living within equality, threshold in annoyance, proximity to an airport health and Greater London anxiety, sleep economic disruption and perspectives can be associated with cardiovascular disease through increased blood pressure

Health – community cohesion

Economy – social costs

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS

Change in Physical modifications Uncertainty to In the longer term, Water Physical modifications Environment – Unfavourable water affect 44% of water identify trend water resources resources to water bodies water quality and quality in bodies in the Thames occurring as a will be affected by and quality availability rivers and river basin district result of drier summers Pollution from waste Significant estuaries Pollution from waste transport and a greater Includes: water on water bodies issue for MTS water affects 45% of infrastructure potential for Pollution and surface water run- Waterbodies water bodies in the development on drought from waste off MTS can Thames river basin the water quality Quality of water on Increased cause direct district and pollution water within water economic growth impact on this waterbodies bodies In 2013, pollution from is likely to cause issue which towns, cities and an increase in affects water Physical transport affect 17% of run-off and quality and modification water bodies in the potential availability. s to water Thames river basin contamination Opportunity for bodies district and disruption of MTS to flows for surface address this Changes to the natural water and issue at the flow and level of water groundwater, policy level. affects 12% of water there is also likely bodies in the Thames to be an increase river basin district in demand for Length of surface water water. rated as being of good biological quality has seen a notable reduction for the period from 2013-2015

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA Topics Indicator Targets Current quantified Trends Evolution Key issues Likely significant Present data without the MTS impacts on… condition/ review Level of significance for MTS Difference – most Inequalities in health Unfavourable Life Adults need Positive change In the absence of Health and deprived to least outcomes and the Equality groups expectancy 150+ has been the MTS review Health deprived: overall physical and – younger people, Critical issue (years) at minutes a identified, this issue may not Inequalities 2005-2009: mental health and those living for MTS birth of week of although be properly 5.2 years male; wellbeing of closest to busy most and physical difference still addressed Refers to: 3.5 years female Londoners roads MTS has a least activity to exists The health of direct impact deprived stay healthy the population 2010-2014: Low levels of physical Health – quality on this issue in terms of 20% of To reduce 4.4 years male activity of life and affects a general health, wards, by childhood 2.8 years female wellbeing variety of IIA lifestyle, life sex obesity and Differential in life topics and is expectancies increase In 2015 57.8% of adults expectancy and health Economy – pertinent from and other physical were achieving the life expectancy across social costs, costs the health, health activity to recommended 150 of Obesity is a London to NHS economic and determinants 70% 9 physical activity a week growing problem equality and is likely to Differentials in health perspectives London has the highest continue. Active determinants of rate of childhood obesity lifestyles and different people in the country. Only 6 healthy eating out of 10 children are a campaigns will Increasing health healthy weight when help reduce this inequalities across the they start secondary trend population. school Areas with high levels of environmental noise 58% of men and 51% of are often socially women in London are deprived either overweight or obese

9 In 2015, a partnership of agencies across London (Mayor of London, London Councils, NHS England and others) jointly committed to a shared ambition that by 2020, 70 per cent of adults in London will get 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity each week. http://hellowae.com/realising-the-benefits-of-active-travel/. Realising the benefits of Active Travel. J. Jarvie, April 12, 2016.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

An estimated 72,000 Londoners are thought to suffer from dementia – a figure expected to increase 2.5 fold by 2050, largely reflecting a relative ageing of London’s population.

An estimated 28 per cent of Londoners do less than 30 minutes of physical activity per week.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

6. Key issues

This chapter provides a summary of the key issues identified across sustainability topics and their likely evolution in the absence of the MTS review.

6.1.1 Key issues for the revised MTS are summarised in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Key issues

Topic Key issues Evolution in the absence of the MTS review

Accessibility • Not all public transport stations and stops are Accessibility to public transport accessible, for those who are mobility stations may not improve. impaired or travelling with heavy luggage or a buggy • Many people with sensory or cognitive impairments experience non-physical barriers to use of the transport network. Air quality • High levels of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 Without additional measures to emissions from road transport tackle the issue of air quality, • London is not compliant with legal limit London will continue to be non- values for NO2 and PM10 compliant with legal limits with • Large numbers of the population are higher levels of exposure to exposed to levels of NO2 above the EU limit pollutants and continued value. This tends to be those who are also significant impact on public health. more susceptible to the health effects of air

pollution. • Exposure to poor air quality is unequal Increasing economic growth and across London and some people particularly development will lead to increased in the most deprived areas are more exposed car use and congestion leading to to poor air quality than others localized air quality issues. Natural Capital • Protecting green spaces and erosion of Increased traffic growth and and Natural valued natural places as a result of increased congestion will continue air Environment pressure for transport infrastructure pollution hence causing indirect • Protecting and enhancing priority habitats in negative effects on air and water accordance with The London Biodiversity quality leading to deterioration of Action Plan habitat targets natural and built environment. • Potential loss of biodiversity as a result of Increased transport development increased pressure for transport infrastructure will put pressure to use areas of development to accommodate higher levels of green space for development traffic purpose, severing corridors and • Areas of deficiency in access to nature reducing quality and quantity of natural environment and connectivity between areas green space. Climate change • Road transport will continue to contribute The Mayor’s CO2 emissions significantly to CO2 emissions targets are likely not be met if • HGVs and buses are expected to contribute additional reduction measures are a higher proportion of CO2 emissions in the not put in place by the MTS. future Climate change effects will • London is not currently meeting the Mayor’s continue including increased CO emission target i.e. a reduction in 2 temperatures, severe storms and London’s CO emissions by 60% of 1990 2 flooding. 49

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Key issues Evolution in the absence of the MTS review levels by 2025 The effects of climate change will • Increases in extreme weather events due to not be experienced equally among climate change will damage the resilience for London’s population and are likely the transport network and increase the cost to increase existing inequalities. and complexity of maintaining operational performance standards • The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, and are likely to increase existing inequalities

Crime, Safety • Increasing levels of reported of violent Active travel targets unlikely to be and Security assaults and sexual offences on the transport met unless this barrier to travel is network addressed. • Anti-social behavior on the transport network Some groups in society are likely as a deterrent to its use for many Londoners to remain reluctant to use public • Safety concerns are a barrier to active travel transport, particularly at certain and contribute to inactivity which, in turn, has times of day. impacts on health and wellbeing Connectivity • Poor orbital connectivity by public transport in The issues of poor connectivity are outer London likely to deteriorate further as a • Poor cross-London connectivity by public result of increasing pressure on transport modes, especially north-south by the transport system. bus in east London • Reduced public transport connectivity across London as a result of congestion and overcrowding on services particularly at peak times • Congestion on roads as a result of poor connectivity by public transport leading to excessive reliance on private cars • Issue about cycling yet to be identified – baseline missing • Reduced connectivity in Central London by walking as a result of congestion and overcrowding on pavements and footpaths Economic • Managing growth in a sustainable way Without additional measures competitiveness • Providing enhanced capacity on the transport capacity on rail routes and multi- system to accommodate for rapidly growing modal connectivity towards central population London, there is a threat to • Poor transport connectivity to some areas London’s position as a leading with the greatest capacity for development global city. • High freight vehicle kilometres on the road

network adding to congestion • Potential loss of agglomeration benefits resulting from pressures on transport network • Congestion on roads reduces economic output • Overcrowding on and across London’s transport network, particularly the Underground and Network Rail networks • Customer dissatisfaction when using the transport network e.g. experiences of annoyance, pain and dissatisfaction as a deterrent to attracting skilled labour 50

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Key issues Evolution in the absence of the MTS review • Interchange between international and domestic public transport networks • Accessibility will be compromised by rising crowding, the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers Employment • Demand in employment growth in central Economic growth and employment London will be dependent on the capacity on are likely to continue. rail routes and multi-modal connectivity

towards central London Without additional measures capacity on rail routes and multi- modal connectivity towards central London, this could be a threat to London’s competitiveness in terms of its ability to attract a flexible labor force. Energy use and • High levels of combustion of oil, diesel and Without additional measures the supply petrol by transport contributing towards gap between supply and demand climate change for energy by transport sector is • Transport contribution towards energy gap likely to increase. as transport shifts towards electric energy Flood risk • Increasing probability of flooding that could Without additional measures to significantly affect transport in London adapt to potential impacts of • TfL’s highway drainage systems are not climate change the resilience of the designed to cater for the high volumes of transport system may not be rainfall. sufficient to accommodate the risks • London network of underground tunnels is of flooding. vulnerable to flooding Geology and • Threat to London’s geodiversity values as a Impacts on geology and soils from soils result of increased demand for transport new transport infrastructure need infrastructure greater consideration through the • Some soils in London have high levels of planning process. contamination from substances such as heavy metals, lead, solvents and other hazardous hydrocarbons Historic • Reducing the amount of designated assets Some designated assets may still Environment that are at risk be at risk from neglect, decay or • Preventing loss or damage of designated inappropriate development. assets

• Some designated assets are still at risk from neglect, decay or inappropriate development Heritage assets are likely to • Major infrastructure improvements, i.e. HS2, continue to be preserved through may have heritage implications, including legislation. demolition of old buildings of historic value • Improving capacity of underground may result in advancements to underground stations contributing to London’s heritage value Housing • Poor transport connectivity to some areas The challenges to meet housing Supply, Quality, with the greatest capacity for development demand are likely to increase.

Choice and • The requirement for significant upfront Affordability investment in infrastructure, including transport, to unlock large sites for

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Key issues Evolution in the absence of the MTS review development • The requirements for housing to be close to public transport networks – the density of development is constrained through planning guidance • Growth in passenger numbers and the expansion of the railway makes development even more challenging • Need to deliver major station improvements and new infrastructure to unlock land • The requirements for housing to be close to public transport networks – the density of development is constrained through planning guidance • Not sufficient supply of affordable housing to maintain London’s competitiveness Equality and • Some Londoners continue to face real or In the absence of the MTS review Inclusion, perceived barriers to using public transport real or perceived barriers to using Social • Perception of poor road safety is a deterrent public transport are likely to persist. Integration to more people taking up cycling and for pedestrians. Design • Poor quality public realm in some parts of In the absence of the MTS review London which can discourage active travel poor quality public realm may not • Deficiencies in open spaces in some parts be consistently addressed. of the city • Risk of poor design, lack of legible neighborhoods and sense of place

Materials and • Key issue – reduce amount of waste In the absence of the MTS review waste produced, increase reuse, re-manufacturing this issue may not be properly and recycling in all construction and addressed. operational practices Noise and • Parts of the population are exposed to In the absence of the MTS review vibration roadside and railway noise that exceeds the this issue may not be properly threshold addressed Physical activity • Many Londoners are not doing enough In the absence of the MTS review physical activity each day, impacting their this trend is likely to continue. overall health • Low levels of physical activity

Water resources • Physical modifications to water bodies In the absence of the MTS review and quality • Pollution from waste water on water bodies this issue may not be properly addressed. Increased economic growth is likely to cause an increase in run-off and potential contamination and disruption of flows for surface water and groundwater, there is also likely to be an increase in demand for water. Health and • Inequalities in health outcomes and the overall physical and mental health and Health Obesity is a growing problem and 52

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Key issues Evolution in the absence of the MTS review Inequalities wellbeing of Londoners is likely to continue. Active lifestyles • Low levels of physical activity and healthy eating campaigns will • Differential in life expectancy and health life help reduce this trend. expectancy across London • Differentials in health determinants of different people • Increasing health inequalities across the population

Culture • Poor accessibility for all to some historic and In the absence of the MTS review cultural environments this trend is likely to continue.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

7. Integrated Impact Assessment Framework (Task A4)

This chapter introduces the IIA assessment framework, against which the sustainability of the MTS proposals will be tested. It is structured around sustainability themes and complemented with the assessment guide questions which have been colour coded to represent different elements of the IIA assessment. This chapter outlines the process of the determination of IIA objectives and their linked indicators measuring progress or otherwise towards them. A ranking of objectives has been carried, highlighting those which are judged to be particularly important for the MTS review. A full list of suggested indicators is presented in Appendix G. Difficulties encountered and proposals for monitoring the effects of implementation of the MTS are also presented in this chapter.

7.1 Objectives, questions and indicators

7.1.1 An important element of the IIA process is the determination of IIA objectives. An objective is a statement of what is intended, specifying a desired direction of change. The achievement of objectives is normally measured by using indicators and need to be specific and measurable. IIA objectives are used to show whether the objectives of the MTS are beneficial for the achievement of sustainable development, to compare the sustainability effects of alternatives, or to suggest improvements.

7.1.2 An objectives-led approach is considered to be most appropriate to assessing the MTS as it enables assessment of the extent to which each aspect of the MTS contributes towards delivery of each objective as opposed to just meeting prescribed targets. Thus a more qualitative approach is adopted that allows for a better identification and description of effects rather than attempting to assign a quantitative value, which is more limited and restrictive at this strategic level.

7.1.3 Draft IIA objectives have been developed in accordance with: • The findings from the review of relevant plans and programmes, and data gathered during scoping (summarised in Chapter 4); • Consultation with the GLA; • Feedback from key stakeholders.

7.1.4 Alongside each IIA objective is a set of guide questions that will be used to assess whether the revised MTS will help to achieve or conflict with the objective. These may be revised slightly as the strategy evolves, but will be based on the questions presented below.

7.1.5 Draft IIA objectives and assessment guide questions are provided in Table 7.2. Guide questions are coloured to indicate which of the elements of the IIA the question addresses: • Green = SEA • Purple = EQIA • Orange = HIA • Red = HRA • Blue = AEI • Pink = CSIA

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

7.1.6 It is intended that all Mayoral strategies will be assessed against the same IIA objectives, with guide questions being different and relevant to the strategy being assessed. During the preparation of each of the individual strategies, it may be determined that particular objectives are scoped out as they are deemed as not being applicable to the scope and intent of the strategy.

7.1.7 A total of 23 IIA objectives have been derived for the assessment of the MTS. Table 7.1 below shows the link between SEA Directive issues and IIA objectives (detailed list of the IIA objectives is presented in Table 7.2).

Table 7.1: Link between SEA Directive Issues and IIA objectives

SEA Directive Issue IIA Objectives Material Assets 4,9,14,15,16,17 Climatic Factors 2,3,5 Biodiversity 10 Fauna 10 Flora 10 Water 12 Soil 6 Air 1 Cultural heritage, architectural and archaeological heritage 7 Landscape 25 Population 19,21,23 Human health 20

7.1.8 IIA objectives align with wider international, national and local environmental, health, social and economic policy objectives and form the basis of what the revised MTS and other Mayoral strategies will be appraised against. A diagram showing the process of the determination of IIA objectives is presented in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1: The process of the determination of IIA objectives.

Baseline data collection on identified topics for the MTS

Relevant plans and Defining IIA Identifying issues programmes scoping, objectives, guide across all topics to be identifying objectives questions and addressed by the and targets in other indicators to measure MTS plans relevant to the the impact of the MTS proposed MTS objectives and policies

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

7.1.9 Chapter 5 summarises quantified baseline data across all IIA topics and provides analysis of trends to determine the likely significance of each sustainability issue for the MTS. On this basis, priority objectives have been identified on the basis that of current conditions and trends in order to help focus the later stages of the IIA. The four objectives are: • To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants, particularly in areas of poorest air quality and reduce exposure • To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events such as flood, drought and heat risks • To reduce the threat of climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a zero carbon London by 2050 • To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the City and between communities

7.1.10 These are highlighted in red in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Integrated Impact Assessment framework

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA

Environmental: Transport system’s role in supporting natural environment by contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy

Air quality • Reduce NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions 1. To reduce emissions and from road transport? concentrations of harmful • atmospheric pollutants, particularly in Reduce the number of people exposed to levels of NO2 concentrations that exceed areas of poorest air quality and 3 reduce exposure 40µg/m ? • Reduce inequalities in access to clean air across London, particularly for those: - who live in deprived areas? - who live, learn or work near busy roads? - who are more vulnerable because of their age or existing medical condition? • Help to achieve national and international standards for air quality? • Reduce costs to the economy resulting from premature deaths due to poor air quality and reduce costs to economy through fewer hospital admissions?

Climate change 2. To ensure London adapts and • Help London’s transport system function adaptation and becomes more resilient to the during extreme heat without impacts on mitigation impacts of climate change and human health? extreme weather events such as • flood, drought and heat risks Help London’s transport system function during a flood event or heavy rainfall? • Reduce impacts on groups more vulnerable to the effects of climate change (e.g. older

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA people are more vulnerable to excess heat)? • Contribute to species & habitat resilience? 3. To help tackle climate change • Reduce transport’s contribution to CO2 through reducing greenhouse gas emissions? emissions and moving towards a • zero carbon London by 2050 Help London meet its emission targets? • Invest in green technologies, equipment and infrastructure that reduce GHG emissions? • Contribute to effective traffic management to reduce GHG emissions? • Help develop more efficient and sustainable freight transportation? Energy use and 4. To manage and reduce • Reduce transport’s demand and demand for supply demand for energy, achieve energy? greater energy efficiency, utilise • new and existing energy sources Promote and improve energy efficiency in effectively, and ensure a resilient transport? smart and affordable energy • Encourage uptake of green/cleaner fuels system and renewable energy provision across all transport providers and private cars? • Provide infrastructure to make a better use of renewable energy sources? • Contribute to the provision of smart and affordable energy system for all? Flood risk 5. To manage the risk of flooding • Manage existing flood risks appropriately from all sources and improve the and avoid new flood risks? resilience of people, property and • infrastructure to flooding Avoid new development in areas prone to flood risk or mitigate the potential for such risk? • Make provision for the review of strategic flood risks to assets and operations and undertake appropriate risk management? • Reduce risk to critical infrastructure? Geology and 6. To conserve London’s soils geodiversity and protect soils from development and over • Promote the use of brownfield land? intensive use

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA Historic 7. To conserve and enhance the • Protect and enhance the built environment Environment existing historic environment, around key transport facilities, including including sites, features, removing barriers to use? landscapes and areas of • historical, architectural, Protect and enhance valued/important built archaeological and cultural value environment and streetscape settings in relation to their significance through inclusive design and and their settings. management? • Promote improved accessibility for all within existing historic/cultural/archaeological environments and their landscapes through inclusive design and management? • Have an adverse impact on local historic assets, historic buildings and archaeological deposits? Materials and 8. To keep materials at their • Promote materials efficiency in all waste highest value and use for as long construction and operational practices? as possible. To significantly • reduce waste generated and Promote sustainable waste management in achieve high reuse and recycling all construction and operational activity? rates • Promote the principles of circular economy when aiming for waste reduction, reuse, re-

manufacturing and recycling? • Increase the use of recycled materials I all construction and operational activity? • Maximise use of innovative waste management techniques including smart technology. • Encourage the movement of waste movements to more sustainable methods such as rail and river transport? • Increase opportunities to move materials up the waste hierarchy? Natural Capital 9.To protect, connect and • Protect and enhance the character of local and Natural enhance London’s natural capital greenscapes? (including important habitats, Environment • species and landscapes) and the Enhance the ecological function and services and benefits it provides, carrying capacity of the greenspace delivering a net positive outcome network? for biodiversity • Will it bring nature closer to people, particularly in most urbanised parts of the city? • Help to acknowledge monetary value to natural capital of London? • Conserve, enhance or create natural and semi-natural habitats of recognised ecological value and/or the green corridors that link them? • Enable the utilisation and management of green space and corridors associated with transport operations conserve, enhance

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA and create natural and semi-natural habits? • Avoid damage to sites, protected species and habitats, especially where there is a designation of international, national, regional or local importance? Noise and 10.To minimise noise and • Reduce the number of people exposed to vibration vibration levels and disruption to high levels of noise from roads and people and communities across railways? London and reduce inequalities • in exposure Contribute to effective traffic management to reduce noise levels?

• To minimise and reduce road, rail and aviation noise and vibration levels and disruption to all people and communities across London Water resources • and quality Contribute to the sustainable use of waterways for passenger and freight 11.To protect and enhance transport? London’s water bodies by ensuring that London has a • Protect and enhance the character and use sustainable water supply, of London’s riverscapes and waterways? drainage and sewerage system • Protect and enhance the regions waterbodies to achieve a good ecological status?

Economic: Transport system’s role in supporting a strong, sustainable and competitive economy, new homes and jobs by providing transport infrastructure for all Londoners Connectivity 12.To enhance and improve • Improve connectivity by public transport, connectivity for all to and from particularly in outer London? and within and around London • and increase the proportion of Improve connectivity across the River journeys made by sustainable Thames by all modes of transport, and active transport modes particularly in east London? • Reduce congestion on train and bus services? • Reduce congestion on roads across all parts of London? • Reduce congestion on public pavements and footpaths, especially in central London? • Reduce overcrowding at stations and stops and on platforms? • Reduce severance and consequent inequalities for those groups who are more greatly affected by severance (e.g. people on low incomes, disabled people, children and young people, older people and people dependent on walking and using public transport for travel)? • Increase accessibility to employment, training and up-skilling opportunities for all

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA people living in London by public transport, walking and cycling? • Will there be additional noise impacts on designated habitats? • Promote green infrastructure, value of ecosystem services and multifunctional land use and connectivity. Infrastructure 13.To ensure that provision of • Unlock land that has capacity for housing environmental, social and development? physical infrastructure is • Provide infrastructure to connect new managed and delivered to meet housing developments to key services? population and demographic • Enhance access for individuals with key change in line with sustainable skills to the right employment opportunities? development and to support economic competitiveness Economic 14.To maintain and strengthen • Improve interchange between international competitiveness London’s position as a leading, and domestic networks? connected, knowledge based and • Reduce overcrowding on the public employment global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient transport network? economy providing opportunities • Increase capacity to accommodate for all increased demand arising from employment growth in the CAZ and other key growth areas across London e.g. Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas • Increase accessibility to employment, training and up-skilling opportunities for all? • Contribute to the alleviation of poverty by providing affordable/discounted travel for disadvantaged sections of the community? • Improve network resilience and service reliability? • Ensure that provision of environmental, social and physical infrastructure is managed and delivered to meet population and demographic change in line with sustainable development and to support economic competitiveness? Sustainable 15. Make the best and most • Make the best use of land through Land Use efficient use of land so as to appropriate development on brownfield support sustainable patterns and sites and use of existing transport network? forms of development? • Support delivery of a net positive outcome for biodiversity?

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA Housing 16.To provide a quantum, type, Supply, Quality, quality and tenure of housing Choice and (including specialist and • Improve transport connectivity to areas with Affordability affordable provision) to better the greatest capacity for development? meet demographic change and • Unlock land that has capacity for housing household demand development? • Contributes to the provision of affordable housing?

Culture 17.To safeguard and enhance the Capital’s rich cultural offer, infrastructure, heritage, natural environment and talent to benefit • Improve accessibility for all to historic and all Londoners while delivering cultural environments? new activities that strengthen London’s global position

Social: Transport system’s role in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by delivering good public transport experience; safe and pleasant places; and creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being for all Londoners Accessibility 18.To maximise accessibility for • Improve accessibility to all public transport all in and around London modes? • Reduce travel times for mobility impaired people? • Improve legibility and ease of use of the transport network for people with sensory or cognitive impairments? • Help enable mobility impaired people to access the services they require? • Increase accessibility to key services and facilities for all? • Improve access to areas of biodiversity interests? • Encourage a modal shift to more sustainable forms of travel? • Address areas with deficiencies of access to open space? • Reduce levels of crime on the transport network, in particular violent assaults and sexual offences? Crime, safety 19.To contribute to safety and • Reduce levels of crime on the transport and security security and the perceptions of network, in particular violent assaults and safety sexual offences? • Reduce anti-social behaviour on the transport network? • Create a travel environment that feels safe to all users during the day time and night

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA time? • Reduce inequalities for those groups who have a greater fear of crime (e.g. groups such as girls, women, older people and people living in low income areas)? • Reduce the proportion of people feeling unsafe and as a result not using the public transport network? • Increase security and resilience to major incidents on the network? Health and 20.To improve the mental and • Help to reduce health inequalities and key health physical health and wellbeing of contributory factors to this? Londoners and to reduce health Inequalities • inequalities across the City and Support the physical and mental health and between communities wellbeing of communities, particularly those disproportionately affected by inequality? • Reduce annoyance caused by transport noise? • Reduce exposure to air pollution by most vulnerable groups? • Encourage modal shift, especially for those groups who own a car, or for older people who are less likely to walk or cycle? • Reduce levels of physical inactivity? • Improve connectivity to key services by promoting active modes of transport? Equality and 21.To make London a fair and • Encourage all groups to travel actively? inclusive city where every person Inclusion • is able to participate , reducing Reduce inequalities for those groups who inequality and disadvantage and experience more barriers to using public addressing the diverse needs of transport than others (e.g. those from lower socio-economic groups and deprived areas, the population some ethnic minorities, disabled people and Social 22.To ensure London has older people)? integration socially integrated communities • Make the transport system legible, safe and which are strong, resilient and easy to use by all? free of prejudice • Plan to provide for a changing population into the future (in particular a more diverse and aging population)? Design 23.To create attractive, mixed • Protect and enhance the character, use neighbourhoods, ensuring integrity and liveability of key streetscapes, new buildings and spaces are including removing barriers to use? appropriately designed that • promote and enhance existing Improve the use of the urban public realm sense of place and by improving its attractiveness and access distinctiveness, reducing the for all? need to travel by motorized • Create and maintain a safe and attractive transport public realm which encourages people to walk and cycle? • Reduce injury and collisions, particularly for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Assessment guide questions Will the strategy…? SEA, EQIA, HIA, HRA, AEI, CSIA pedestrians? • Improve poor quality public realm in some parts of London which can discourage active travel? • Deficiencies in open spaces in some parts of the city • Risk of poor design, lack of legible neighborhoods and sense of place

7.2 Compatibility testing

7.2.1 A compatibility test of the IIA objectives has been carried out using a framework presented in Appendix H. As there can be tensions between objectives that cannot be resolved, the compatibility assessment has clarified these so that subsequent decisions will be well based, and mitigation or alternatives can be considered.

7.2.2 Testing of the compatibility of the IIA objectives highlighted some potential tensions between objectives. Some natural potential incompatibility emerged between IIA objectives that require development (such as improving transport connectivity and provision of housing) and environmental objectives. Therefore, finding the right balance between these objectives is important for achieving sustainable development. For example, the protection of heritage assets could constrain opportunities for additional development but on the other hand an attractive environment including heritage assets could be a factor that helps to attract and retain businesses. Economic growth could result in greater waste generation however application of circular economy principles could assist in addressing this.

7.2.3 A separate assessment of the MTS objectives against the IIA objectives will be based on a symbol based system which indicates the degree of compatibility between IIA objectives and objectives of MTS. Key Compatible Neutral Incompatible

7.3 Assessment methodology of likely significant effects

7.3.1 The IIA will identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects of implementing MTS against the IIA objectives using the assessment guide questions. It will do this for the area within the GLA administrative boundary plus certain sites of receptors beyond the GLA administrative boundary which could still be affected by the MTS. This includes transport corridors, water bodies and some European designated sites and forms the spatial scope of the assessment.

7.3.2 Any likely effects identified as a result of implementing the MTS will be described according to criteria presented within the SEA Regulations including a description of the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of impacts. As the revised MTS covers a period up to 2040, the temporal scope of the IIA is proposed as follows:

• Short term effects – those effects that occur within the first five years of implementation of the revised MTS;

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• Medium term effects – those effects that occur between six and fifteen years following the adopted of the revised MTS;

• Long term effects – those effects that will occur beyond fifteen years.

7.4 Predicting the effects of the MTS against the IIA Objectives

Testing the MTS policy options and measures against the IIA objectives will use symbol based scoring system and provide a brief commentary explaining and expanding on the scoring. Impacts identified will be considered relative to their significance as per Table 7.3. Significance takes into account the magnitude, duration and permanency of the impact, along with consideration of potential secondary and cumulative impacts. For the purposes of this assessment major effects (positive or negative) will be considered significant).

Table 7.3: Significance ratings and definition

Scale of effect Definition

Major positive effect Revised MTS contributes greatly towards achieving the IIA + + objective + Minor positive effect Revised MTS contributes to achieving the IIA objective Neutral or no effect Revised MTS does not impact upon the achievement of the 0 IIA objective - Minor negative effect Revised MTS conflicts with the IIA objective Major negative effect Revised MTS greatly hinders or prevents the achievement - - of the IIA objective Uncertain Revised MTS can have positive or negative effects but the ? level of information available at a time of assessment does not allow to make a clear judgement

7.4.1 The assessment will identify cumulative and secondary effects of the strategy.

Secondary impacts are impacts that are not direct results of MTS but occur away from the original impact or as a result of a complex pathway e.g. development that changes water table and impacts the ecology of a nearby wetland.

7.4.2 The assessment will consider two types of cumulative effects: • Intra-strategy: those which arise from two or more impacts occurring simultaneously, whereby an impact that may not have a significant effect on its own may, combined with others, produce a cumulative effect. • Inter-strategy - significant effects of the MTS acting in combination with the impacts of other Mayoral Strategies, including the London Plan.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

7.5 Monitoring and difficulties encountered

7.5.1 The role of the IIA monitoring involves measuring the IIA indicators which may establish a causal link between implementation of the transport strategy and the likely significant effect being monitored. Thus it enables Jacobs to carry out an evaluation of the effectiveness and the MTS as a whole to facilitate sustainable development. Monitoring is used, where appropriate, during implementation of the plan or programme to address deficiencies in baseline information in the IIA. It enables unforeseen adverse effects to be identified at an early stage, and is a way of demonstrating success in delivering the MTS’ targets and reducing its environmental, social and economic effects.

7.5.2 It is not clear from the baseline data collected, how and whether the IIA monitoring framework, set out in the previous IIA Report in 2009, was brought forward and incorporated in the current monitoring framework for MTS to track the links between significant effects and the progress of implementation of the MTS. Specifically in relation to environmental topics, it is difficult for the IIA process to make an assumption about the contribution that the implementation of MTS policies and interventions has made on water quality, natural environment and sustainable management of waste and materials due to these aspects of sustainability not being explicitly monitored through the MTS monitoring framework. This points to some potential gaps in information monitoring and analysis in identifying trends in respect of particular IIA topics by current MTS. Thus there is a scope for MTS review to set out a monitoring framework in a way that seeks to take account of external factors and focus upon the links between the MTS implementation and the effects.

7.5.3 Where it is difficult to establish these links it might be necessary to collect further information on plan or programme output indicators. Any gaps in the existing information can be filled by incorporating IIA monitoring into existing performance monitoring for MTS. It is worth noting that the level of significance of sustainability issues relevant to MTS can change over time, with one sustainability issue becoming more pertinent over another due to direction of change of the baseline conditions. Therefore, it is important from the sustainability point of view, to monitor all relevant IIA indicators, even though they were previously not identified as a priority for the MTS, or being not directly influenced by the MTS policy interventions. This would enable an early detection of the likely significant effects across all three dimensions of sustainability, and how MTS can respond to these changes.

7.5.4 The development of IIA objectives and indicators and the collection of baseline information inform each other. The IIA objectives are linked to provisionally suggested indicators to measure progress towards them. A full list of suggested indicators is presented in Appendix G.

7.5.5 A full IIA monitoring framework will be developed at the next stage of the IIA process where measures proposed for monitoring will be clear, practicable and linked to the indicators and objectives used in the IIA.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

8. Next steps

This chapter outlines remaining stages of the IIA process, describes the MTS assessment template and summarises engagement which has taken place to date.

8.1 Remaining Stages of the IIA

8.1.1 Identifying options, choosing preferred options and proposing measures to mitigate (Stage B)

8.1.2 MTS options will be informed by the issues that London faces which have been identified in this IIA Scoping report. The IIA of the MTS will appraise policy options and MTS objectives against IIA objectives outlined in the IIA Framework in order to assess their compatibility and effects across all sustainability topics.

8.1.3 An example of how the table for IIA of MTS will look is shown in Table 8.1 below. Impacts will be commented on, and mitigation measures for such impacts are proposed, whether that is through rewording of the policy or mitigation by using other policies or proposals in the MTS.

Table 8.1: MTS assessment template

Policy Option Option

Short term Short term Long term term Short term Medium Long term

Comments IIA Objectives Comments 1. To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants, particularly in areas of poorest air quality and reduce exposure 2. To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events such as flood, drought and heat risks

8.1.4 Proposed Structure of the IIA Report

Responses received to the consultation on this IIA Scoping Report has been incorporated into the draft IIA Report. The proposed structure and contents of the IIA report are presented below. This is subject to change depending on the final content of the MTS.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Structure of report Information to include

• Summary of the IIA process Non-technical summary • Summary of the likely significant effects of MTS • How to comment on the report

Methodology used • Approach adopted in the IIA • Who was consulted, and when • Difficulties encountered in compiling information or carrying out the assessment

Background • Purpose of the IIA • MTS objectives

• Relationship with other policies, plans and programmes and environmental protection objectives IIIA objectives, baseline and • Environmental, social and economic baseline context characteristics • Key environmental, social and economic issues and problems identified • Data limitations • IIA objectives, guide questions and indicators

• Main strategic options considered Assessment of MTS issues and • Comparison of the significant environmental, social and options economic effects of the options • The preferred option and explanation of choice

• Significant environmental effects of the policies and Assessment of MTS policies proposals and proposed mitigation

• Significant, secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects Conclusions and • Proposed mitigation measures recommendations • Monitoring suggestions

8.1.5 Preparing the IIA Report (Stage C)

The IIA Report for the MTS will summarise: • The findings of the scoping stage; • How the environmental issues raised were taken into account when choosing the preferred options and developing the documents; • Other options considered and why they were rejected; • Significant effects of MTS as whole as well as each individual policies on the study area; • Links to other relevant documents; • Proposed monitoring of the significant impacts of MTS.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

8.1.6 Consulting on the Draft IIA report (Stage D)

8.1.7 Stakeholder consultation or engagement is an integral component of any assessment and is of particular importance in the context of the IIA. Its basis lies in both statutory requirements and non- statutory best practice, and both have been used to inform how best to integrate consultation within the IIA to maximise its benefit.

8.1.8 There are two periods of formal consultation:

• Consultation on the IIA Scoping Report with statutory and key stakeholders for the consultation period of five weeks with the dissemination of this IIA Scoping Report to statutory consultees (held in Autumn 2016);

• Consultation on the publication of the Draft MTS and accompanying IIA Report, with public stakeholders being invited to comment upon the findings of the IIA Report and its recommendations (Spring 2017).

8.1.9 A Statement will be prepared and made publicly available to outline how the responses to public consultation on the Draft MTS and the accompanying IIA Report have been taken into account in finalising and adopting MTS.

8.1.10 Monitoring effects of implementation of MTS document (Stage E)

The policies and objectives that have been devised, assessed and refined as a result of assessments and consultation representations will be monitored throughout the life of the MTS following its adoption. Monitoring, reviewing and updating of MTS will be essential both to ensure it continues to be 'fit for purpose' but also is a way of demonstrating success in delivering its targets and reducing its environmental, social and economic effects.

8.2 Ongoing stakeholder engagement

8.2.1 While formal consultation with statutory consultees must be undertaken in conformity with SEA/IIA practice, ongoing engagement will also be undertaken throughout the duration of the IIA. This will take place both through scheduled meetings and events with stakeholders but also through ongoing liaison which has already commenced.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

9. References

Aether. (2013). Analysing Air Pollution Exposure in London. Report to Greater London Authority. Accessed on 19 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/analysing_air_pollution_exposure_in_london_- _technical_report_-_2013.pdf

Alan Baxter and Sheils Flynn. (2011). London’s Natural Signatures: The London Landscape Framework. Prepared for Natural England, January 2011. Accessed on 16 May 2016 from: file:///C:/Users/mcottrell/Downloads/LNSsummary.pdf

British Geological Survey. (2011). Survey reveals man’s impact on London’s soil. Press Release. 12 May 2011. Accessed on 6 April 2016 from: http://www.bgs.ac.uk/news/NEWS/LondonEarth_Press_Release.pdf

Craig R, Mindell J (Eds.) (2013) Health survey for England 2012. Leeds: Health & social Care Information Centre.

Davison K, Lawson C. (2006) Do attributes in the physical environment influence children’s physical activity? A review of the literature. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2006;3(1):19).

Department of Communities and Local Government. (2016) Planning Practice Guidance. Natural Environment. Green Infrastructure. Paragraph 027, reference ID 8-027-2160211.Accessed on 9 June 2016 from: http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/natural-environment/green-infrastructure/

Department of Communities and Local Government. (2015a). Planning Practice Guidance: Planning and Flood Risk. Accessed on 6 April 2016 from: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk- and-coastal-change/planning-and-flood-risk/what-is-flood-risk/

Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2014). DUKES Total Energy 2014. Accessed on 25 May 2016 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449408/Chapter_1_Energy.pdf

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2015). Air Quality Plan for the achievement of EU air quality limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in Greater London Urban Area (UK0001). December 2015. Accessed on 10 June 2016 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/486113/aq-plan-2015-greater- london-urban-area-uk0001.pdf

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. (2009). Safeguarding our Soils. A Strategy for England. Accessed on 16 May 2016 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69261/pb13297-soil-strategy- 090910.pdf Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2012) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) in the United Kingdom. AIR QUALITY EXPERT GROUP. Accessed on 28 June 2016 from: https://uk- air.defra.gov.uk/assets/documents/reports/cat11/1212141150_AQEG_Fine_Particulate_Matter_in_the_UK.pdf

Department of Health Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (1998) Quantification of the effects of air pollution on health in the United Kingdom. London: HMSO.

Environment Agency. (2014). The case for change – current and future water availability. Report – GEHO1111BVEP-E-E. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://cdn.environment- agency.gov.uk/geho1111bvep-e-e.pdf

Environment Agency. (2013). Water for life and livelihoods. Managing water for people, business, agriculture and the environment. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/297311/LIT_8412_efb268.pdf

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Environment Agency. (2012). Thames Estuary 2100. Managing flood risk through London and the Thames estuary. November 2012. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322061/LIT7540_43858f.pdf

Environment Agency. (2009). Water for life and livelihoods. River Basin Management Plan Thames River Basin District. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289937/geth0910bswa-e-e.pdf

Environmental Research Group and King’s College London. (2016). London Air Quality Network – Summary Report 2014. March 2016. Accessed on 25 April 2016 from: https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/reports/2014_LAQN_Summary_Report.pdf

European Environment Agency. (2016). Explaining road transport emissions. A non-technical guide.

Funda, Atun (2014) Improving Societal Resilience to Disasters: A Case Study of London’s Transportation System. Springer: London.

Greater London Authority. (2016a). Biodiversity. Accessed on 22 March 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/parks-green-spaces-and-biodiversity/biodiversity#Stub- 67692

Greater London Authority. (2016b). London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory 2013. Created 14 March 2016 and modified 16 March 2016. Accessed on 31 March 2016 from: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/london- atmospheric-emissions-inventory-2013

Greater London Authority. (2016c). Crime on public transport. March 2016. Accessed on 22 March 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/crime_on_public_transport.pdf

Greater London Authority. (2016d). Policing the Night-Time Economy. March 2016. Accessed on 8 April 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/policing_the_night-time_economy.pdf

Greater London Authority. (2016e). Draft Economic Evidence Base 2016. February 2016. Accessed on 5 April 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/draft-eeb-2016.pdf

Greater London Authority. (2016f). Blue Ribbon Network. Chapter Seven. London’s Living Spaces and Places. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london- plan/london-plan-chapter-7/blue-ribbon-network-0

Greater London Authority. (2016g). Central Activities Zone. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/implementing-london-plan/supplementary-planningguidance/central-activities-zone

Greater London Authority. (2016h). Analysing Air Pollution Exposure in London. Published 17 May 2016. Accessed on 19 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/environment/environment- publications/analysing-air-pollution-exposure-london

Greater London Authority. (2016i). Human Streets. The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling, three years on. March 2016. Accessed on 24 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/human_streets_0.pdf

Greater London Authority. (2016j). Chapter five. London’s response to climate change. Policy 5.16 waste net self-sufficiency. Accessed on 24 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london- plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-5/policy-516-waste-net-self

Greater London Authority. (2016k). London Plan Annual Monitoring Report 12, 2014-15. March 2016. Accessed on 25 May 2016 from: http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/amr12.pdf

Greater London Authority. (2015a). The London Plan. The Spatial Development Strategy for London Consolidated with Alterations Since 2011. March 2015.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Greater London Authority. (2015b). The Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Annual Report, 2013- 14. June 2015. Accessed on 25 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/CCMES%20annual%20report_2013- 14_0.pdf

Greater London Authority (2015c) London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI) 2013. Version no. 1 interim. Published on 29 June 2015. Accessed on 25 May 2016 from: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/interim- leggi--2013/resource/4aaba9fa-b382-40bd-a3e3-593c53bed245

Greater London Authority (2014a) Housing in London 2014. The evidence base for the Mayor’s Housing Strategy.

Greater London Authority (2014b) London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. First Review. August 2014. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Regional%20Flood%20Risk%20Asse ssment%20-%20First%20Review%20-%20August%202014.pdf

Greater London Authority and London Geodiversity Partnership (2012) Green Infrastructure and Open Environments: London’s Foundations: Protecting the Geodiversity of the Capital. Supplementary Planning Guidance. March 2012. London Plan, 2011 Implementation Framework. Accessed on 16 May 2016 from: http://www.londongeopartnership.org.uk/downloads/Londons%20Foundations%202012.pdf

Greater London Authority (2010) The London Health Inequalities Strategy. April 2010. Accessed on 16 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/archives/LondonHealthInequalitiesStr ategy.pdf

Greater London Authority (2009a) London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal. Accessed on 6 April 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/file/1072/download?token=DJloydSf

Greater London Authority (2009b) The big squeeze. Rail overcrowding in London. February 2009. Accessed on 7 June 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/archives/FINAL_Overcrowding_repor t.pdf

Greater London Authority (2005) Climate change and London’s transport systems. Summary Report

Historic England (2015) Heritage at Risk. London Summary 2015. Accessed on 26 April 2016 from: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/har-2015-registers/lo-har-register2015.pdf/

Health Protection Agency (2010) The mortality effects of long-term exposure to particulate air pollution in the United Kingdom. London: Accessed on 24 July 2016 from: www.gov.uk/government/publications/comeap- mortality-effects-of-long-term-exposure-to-particulate-air-pollutionin-the-uk).

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2014) Protected areas designations directory. Accessed on 7 June 2016 from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1527

London First (2016) London’s future competitiveness. Accessed on 5 April 2016 from: http://londonfirst.co.uk/our-focus/londons-economic-development-strategy/londons-future-competitiveness/

London First (2011) London’s current and future competitiveness: a review of city competitor data. August 2011. Accessed on 5 April 2016 from: http://londonfirst.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Competitiveness_report_- _FINAL.pdf

London Geodiversity Partnership (2011) London Geodiversity Partnership. Accessed on 16 May 2016 from: http://www.londongeopartnership.org.uk/index.html

Lockett D, Willis A, Edwards N. (2005)Through seniors' eyes: an exploratory qualitative study to identify environmental barriers to and facilitators of walking. Can J Nurs Res. 2005 Sep;37(3):48-65). 71

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

London Underground (2016) London Underground Comprehensive Review of Flood Risk (LUCRFR).

Marko Tainio , Audrey J. de Nazelle, Thomas Götschi, Sonja Kahlmeier, David Rojas-Rueda, Mark J. Nieuwenhuijsen, Thiago Hérick de Sá, Paul Kelly, James Woodcock (2016) Preventive Medicine, Volume 87, June 2016, Pages 233–236

Mayor of London (2015) Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy Update. A review of progress and priorities for action. Accessed on 22 March 2016 from: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/documents/s44476/05a%20Biodiversity%20Strategy%20Update%20- %20Appendix%201%20-%20Working%20Draft%20Document.pdf

Mindell JS, Watkins SJ and Cohen JM, Health on the Move 2 (2011) Transport and Health Study Group, section 6.4.

Paulo Rui Anciaes, Peter Jones & Jennifer S. Mindell (2015): Community Severance: Where Is It Found and at What Cost? Transport Reviews, DOI:10.1080/01441647.2015.1077286).

Rabl A, De Nazelle A. ( 2012) Benefits of shift from car to active transport. Transport Policy 2012;19:121–31).

Rodrigue, J.P. (2016) The Environmental Impacts of Transportation. Online. Accessed on 2 August 2016 from: https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/ch8c1en.html

Sustainable Development Commission (2011) Fairness in a car-dependent society. Accessed on 26 May 2016 from: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

Therivel, R. (2010) Strategic Environmental Assessment in Action. 2nd Edition. Earthscan: London.

Therivel, R. and Brown, L. (1999) ‘Methods of Strategic Environmental Assessment’, in J.Petts (ed) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol.1, Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp441-464.

Thames Water (2014) Water Resources Management Plan 2015-2014. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: http://www.thameswater.co.uk/about-us/5392.htm

The Geological Society of London (2012) Geology for Society. Accessed on 16 May 2016 from: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/geology-for-society

Transport for London (2016a) London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory 2013. LAEI Workshop 14 April 2016. Downloaded on 26 April 2016 from: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/london-atmospheric-emissions-inventory- 2013

Transport for London (2016b) Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2016. PowerPoint, 18 February 2016.

Transport for London (2015a) Travel in London. Report 8. Accessed on 8 April 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-8.pdf

Transport for London (2015b) Connecting the Capital. Our plan for new river crossings for London. December 2015. Accessed on 4 April 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/connectingthecapital-newrivercrossingsforlondon- dec-2015.pdf

Transport for London (2015c) Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Regeneration and Development Impact Assessment, October 2015. Document reference: ST150030-PLN-ZZZ-ZZ-RP-PC-0019

Transport for London (2015d) Travel in London: Understanding our diverse communities. September 2015. Accessed on 23 March 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-understanding-our-diverse- communities.pdf

Transport for London. (2015e). Roads Task Force. Progress report: a successful first year. April 2015. Accessed on 24 May 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/roads-task-force-update-report-april-2015.pdf

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Transport for London (2015f) Your accessible transport network. Our commitment to making it even easier for you to travel around London. May 2015 update. Accessed on 24 May 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/your- accessible-transport-network-3-main-document.pdf

Transport for London (2015f) Crime and Statistics Bulletin Q2 2015/16. Accessed on 21 June 2016 from http://content.tfl.gov.uk/crime-and-antisocial-behaviour-bulletin-q2-1516.pdf

Transport for London (2014a) Improving the health of Londoners. Transport Action Plan.

Transport for London (2014b) Transport Emissions Roadmap. Cleaner transport for a cleaner London. September 2014. Accessed on 8 April 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/transport-emissions-roadmap.pdf

Transport for London (2014c) London’s Road Modernisation Plan. The biggest road investment programme for a generation. October 2014. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/londons-road- modernisation-plan.pdf

Transport for London (2014d) Understanding the travel needs of London’s diverse communities. A summary of existing research. August 2014. Accessed on 25 May 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/understanding-the- travel-needs-of-london-diverse-communities.pdf

Transport for London (2013a) The Mayor’s Vision for Cycling in London. An Olympic Legacy for all Londoners. Accessed on 10 May 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/cycling_vision_gla_template_final.pdf

Transport for London (2013b) Central London Grid: Changing the culture of cycling in London. Proposed cycle routes in central London for local engagement. December 2013. Accessed on 7 June 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/plugin-central-london-grid.pdf

Transport for London (2012a) Your accessible transport network. The Mayor’s commitment to making it even easier for you to travel around London. Accessed on 23 March 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/your- accessible-transport-network.pdf

Transport for London (2012b) Understanding the travel needs of London’s diverse communities. Disabled people. April 2012. TfL number: 10038. Accessed on 24 May 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/disabled- people.pdf

Transport for London (2010) LU Biodiversity Action Plan 2010. Connecting Nature. Accessed on 22 March 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lu-biodiversity-action-plan.pdf

Transport for London (2011) Skills and Employment Strategy, Update – 2011.

Transport for London (2015g) Casualties in Greater London during 2014. Accessed on 25 July 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/improving-the-health-of-londoners-transport-action-plan.pdf

Outer London Commission. (2015) Removing the Barriers to Housing Delivery. Issue 3 Background Paper June 2015. Outer London Commission Round 4, 2015-16. Towards a review of the London Plan. Accessed on 9 June 2016 from: https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/OLC%20background%20paper%20- %20issue%203%20barriers%20to%20delivery%20-%20June%202015.pdf

University of Westminster (2014) London Freight Data Report: 2014 Update. Prepared by Julian Allen, Michael Browne and Allan Woodburn for Transport for London. 1 December 2014. Accessed on 9 June 2016 from: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/london-freight-data-report-2014-update.pdf

World Health Organisation (2016a) Health. Trade, foreign policy, diplomacy and health. Accessed on 24 May 2016 from: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story046/en/

World Health Organisation (2016b) Physical activity. Accessed on 26 May 2016 from: http://www.who.int/topics/physical_activity/en/ 73

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix A: Summary of the most relevant plans and programmes This Appendix presents the most relevant plans, programmes and strategies (including legislation), which have an influence on the MTS review, are summarised and presented in Appendix A. They have been scoped as of June 2016. They include those applicable at the European, National and London scale. UK Government policies (excluding legislation) are primarily focused on those published since 2010, as those prior to this date many have been superseded, at least in part.

The documents are listed under the topics included in this Scoping Report. However, where a plan, policy or programme is relevant to more than one topic it is not repeated. The relationships between policies and topics are identified through the identification of relevant IIA objectives.

Research, monitoring reports, guidance documents and commissioned advice is deliberately not included in Appendix A; thought these types of documents have been used to inform the scoping of key issues.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Sustainable On 25 September 2015, the 194 countries of the UN General Assembly adopted development the 2030 Development Agenda titled Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda The 2030 Agenda for for Sustainable Development. The Official Agenda for Sustainable Development IIA Objectives 1-23 Sustainable Development adopted on 25 September 2015 has 92 paragraphs, with the main paragraph (51) outlining the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and its associated 169 targets. Economic This document sets out the government’s approach to raising productivity competitiveness Fixing the foundations: creating The government’s framework for raising productivity is built around two pillars: and employment a more prosperous nation (July • encouraging long-term investment in economic capital, including IIA Objective 20 2015) infrastructure, skills and knowledge; • promoting a dynamic economy that encourages innovation and helps resources flow to their most productive use. Tasked with advising the Mayor on jobs and growth, the London Enterprise Panel identified four key priorities: • skills & employment: to ensure Londoners have the skills to compete for and sustain London’s jobs; • small & medium sized enterprises: to support and grow London’s Jobs and Growth Plan for businesses; London. GLA (2013) • science & technology: for the capital to be recognised globally as world IIA Objectives 13, 14, leading hub; for science, technology and innovation - creating new jobs and growth; and • infrastructure: to keep London moving and functioning. The Plan was endorsed by the Mayor of London.

The Economic Development Strategy sets out this vision with respect to the London economy, and how it can be realised. The Mayor’s ambitions are for Economic Development London to be the World Capital of Business, and to have the most competitive Strategy. GLA (2010) IIA Objectives 14, 15, 16 business environment in the world; to be one of the world’s leading low carbon

capitals, for all Londoners to share in London’s economic success and for London to maximise the benefits of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

Infrastructure The report considers a wide range of infrastructure types - transport, green, London Infrastructure Plan digital, energy, water and waste - that we know the city will require over the 2050 (Mayor of London, coming decades. 2014) and London IIA Objectives 4,8, 9, 12, 13 Infrastructure Plan 2050 It articulates the vision for the London of 2050, which will be greener and more Update, Mayor of London, productive, at the forefront of technological changes, and environmentally, 2015) financially, socially and economically sustainable.

Through this Act, the Government aims to take forward proposals to build more Housing Supply, homes that people can afford, give more people the chance to own their own Quality, Choice and Housing and Planning Act home, and ensure the way housing is managed is improved. 2 This Act seeks to Affordability 2016 achieve this, in part, by implementing reforms that will make sure that the IIA Objectives 15, 16 planning system does not add any unnecessary obstacles to the delivery of new homes. The Mayor's London Housing Strategy sets out his policies to meet the housing needs of London's growing population. The statutory document includes plans for GLA Housing Strategy 2014 building at least 42,000 well-designed new homes a year across all tenures, and IIA Objectives 15, 16 for improving the housing opportunities of working Londoners. Local Transport 2010 to Summary of Government policy on local transport including: reducing the need to Connectivity 2015 Government Policy travel, funding mechanisms; increasing the use of buses; taxis; and encouraging IIA Objective 12 (DfT, 2015 people to cycle.

An efficient freight transportation system helps support the UK economy. Getting goods from one place to another at a reasonable cost and with the minimum impact on the environment and communities is essential. Freight: 2010-2015

Government Policy (DfT) Government is working with the freight industry to help them cut costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Effective and proportionate regulation will also ensure goods are moved safely and securely across the UK and abroad.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Rail is vital to the UK’s economic prosperity. If rail services are inefficient and do not meet people’s needs for routing or frequency, business and jobs suffer. Rail links with airports and ports are business opportunities for travel, tourism and the Rail Network 2010-2015: transportation of goods.

Government Policy (DfT) Encouraging people to use trains rather than cars, and reducing carbon emissions from trains and stations themselves, can also contribute to the UK’s carbon reduction targets.

This document sets out the case for these new river crossings to better connect the Capital and cater for future growth: • Pedestrian and cycle crossings Connecting the Capital (TfL, • Ferry services IIA Objective 12 2015) • Public transport crossings • Road crossings

This document promises ambitious new cycle routes and infrastructure. They are a step-change in cycling provision. The document sets out key outcomes to increase Mayor’s vision for cycling in cycling in London: London. An Olympic • a tube network for the bike; Legacy for all Londoners (March 2013) and Human • safer streets for the bike; IIA Objective 20 Streets, the Mayors Vision • more people travelling by bike; for Cycling three years on • better places for everyone. (2016) Human Streets reports on the progress implementing the vision and defines the priorities for the future.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

Accessibility Taking forward the Mayor’s The Mayor's Transport Strategy includes an accessibility implementation plan to Transport Strategy- improve access to transport for disabled people. These documents explain the Accessibility approach we are taking to improve accessibility beyond committed investment IIA objective 18, 21, 22 Implementation Plan (2012) programmes. Single Equality Scheme The Single Equality Scheme sets out our plans to continue improving travel

Progress Report – 2012 choices, promote equality and enhance access to transport services and and annual reports employment for all groups who live, work and travel in London. IIA Objectives 18, 21, 22

The Equality Act 2010 (Equality Act) requires public authorities to work to eliminate Equality and IIA Objectives 21, 22 discrimination and promote equality in all their activities. Under Section 149 of the Inclusion Equality Act a public authority has a duty to ensure that all decisions are made in such a way as to minimise unfairness, and do not have disproportionately negative impacts on people because of their protected characteristics or background. The duty requires the Mayor (and TfL) to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation as well as to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a Equality Act 2010 protected characteristic and those who do not under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This may involve, in particular, removing or minimising any disadvantage

suffered by those who share a relevant protected characteristic, taking steps to meet the needs of such people; and encouraging them to participate in public life or in any other activity where their participation is disproportionately low, including tackling prejudice and promoting understanding. (The protected characteristics and groups are: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, gender, religion or belief, sexual orientation and marriage/ civil partnership status) This document sets out our equality commitments from 2016-20. We will publish our progress towards delivering our objectives each year. Action on Equality 2016- The way we treat our customers, support our people and work with our IIA Objectives 21, 22 2020 (TfL, 2016) partners is central to making every journey matter. Action on Equality is underpinned by our vision for equality - every person matters - clearly supports our purpose of keeping London moving, working and growing and making life in our city better

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

To achieve the Mayor’s vision we aim to: • ensure the capital’s diverse communities, particularly the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, benefit from London’s success; • ensure services delivered by the GLA group are accessible and appropriate to all Londoners; • support businesses to consider social issues in their corporate planning in order to bring real change to people’s quality of life; • work with the GLA group and more widely with London councils, the public, private, voluntary and community sectors to provide practical solutions that tackle inequality effectively • support the development across the London economy of diverse markets, workforces and suppliers • ensure the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games benefits all Londoners • ensure we communicate and engage with all of Equal Life Chances for All • London’s communities so we understand and respond to the different IIA Objectives 21, 22 (2014) needs of all Londoners • seek to influence discussions about equality and diversity at local, national and international levels

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

TfL’s Action on Equality: Supports findings from Travel in London: Understanding our diverse TfL’s commitments to 2020 IIA objectives 19, 20, communities and sets out TfL’s equality commitments from 2016-2020 (March 2016) 21,22

Physical Activity Sets out Government’s approach to tackling obesity in England, in the context of the White Paper Health Lives, Healthy People. Sets two overarching targets:

• a sustained downward trend in the level of excess weight in children by

Department of Health. 2020 Healthy Lives, Healthy • a downward trend in the level of excess weight averaged across all adults People: a Call to Action on by 2020. IIA Objective 20 Obesity in England. Increasing physical activity and active travel identified as one of the measures London: Department of for achieving these targets. Guidance subsequently provided in Healthy Lives, Health 2011. Healthy People briefing paper: Obesity and the environment (DoH 2013).

A national action plan for promoting physical activity to improve public health. Identifies thoughtful urban design, understanding land use patterns, and creating Everybody active everyday transportation systems that promote walking and cycling as helping to create (Public Health England active, healthier, and more liveable communities. IIA Objective 20 2014

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

Mayor’s Safer Streets for Sets challenging targets to reduce the number of KSIs by 40 per cent by 2020 from London Plan (2013) a baseline 2005 – 2009 average. Reducing injuries on the Capital’s roads, as a IIA objective 19 result of criminal and ASB is one way to contribute to achieving this target.

By improving the skills and attitudes of drivers and riders, and providing better Road Safety: 2010-2015 Crime, Safety and safety education, the government can further reduce the cost of emergency IIA objective 19 Government Policy (DfT). Security services, health and welfare services, insurance, traffic congestion, as well as the personal cost to people affected by road collisions. Mayor’s Strategy for improving transport safety, Provides police partners and operators to work together to improve transport IIA objectives 19 security and reliability in safety, security and reliability. London 2015-2017, The Right Direction (May 2015)

A revision of previously existing European air quality legislation which sets out EU Ambient Air Quality long‐term air quality objectives and legally binding limits for ambient concentrations IIA objective 1 Directive (2008/50/EC) of certain pollutants in the air. The directive replaced nearly all the previous EU air quality legislation and was made law in England through the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.

Air quality Establishes mandatory standards for air quality and set objectives for sulphur and nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulates and lead in air. Some pollutants have Air Quality Objectives (AQOs) expressed as annual mean concentrations due to the Air Quality Standards chronic way in which they affect human health or the natural environment (i.e. Regulations 2010 impacts occur after a prolonged period of exposure to elevated concentrations). IIA objectives 1, 7, 9 Others have AQOs expressed as 24-hour or 1-hour mean concentrations due to the acute way in which they affect human health or the natural environment (i.e. after a relatively short period of exposure).

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Environment Act 1995 (as Under this Act local authorities have a duty to declare Air Quality Management

amended) Areas Air Quality Plan for the The air quality plans set out targeted local, regional and national measures to achievement of EU air ensure that UK air will be cleaner than ever before. This will build on significant quality limit values for improvements in air quality in recent decades and fulfil our environmental IIA objectives 1, 20 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in responsibilities, benefit our health and make our cities better places to live and the UK, 2015. work. Paragraph 124 identifies that: “planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative National Planning Policy impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should Framework (2012) ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent IIA objectives 1, 7, 9 with the local air quality action plan” (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2012, p. 29)

Includes zone specific air quality plans which set targeted local, regional and national measures to ensure the UK air will be cleaner than ever before. There is an air quality plan for achieving EU air quality limit values for NO2 in Greater UK’s Air Quality Action Plan London (September 2011). The plan identifies a variety of joint measures to (Defra, revised January improve NO2 in the Greater London Urban Area agglomeration zone, including IIA objectives 1, 2,3, 4, 2016) measures at different administrative levels (EU, national, regional and local). Some 11,7 measures include, for example, promoting smarter travel, congestion charging, sustainable freight distribution, smoothing traffic flow, low-carbon vehicles, clean transport technologies and renewable energy sources Transport Emissions Explains how new, innovative solutions may be required to meet the needs of Roadmap (TERM), Cleaner London in a future where fewer vehicle kilometres are driven (to help achieve CO2 transport for a cleaner targets and pollution limits). This has implications for policies related to car London (TfL, September IIA objectives 1, 2,3, ownership, freight deliveries and road user charging 2014)

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

Transport Action Plan, Recognises the importance of transport and street environments in improving

Improving the health of people’s health. It identifies air quality as one indicator of a healthy street IIA objectives 1, 20 Londoners (TfL, February environment and that poor air quality can impact upon cardiovascular disease and 2014) respiratory diseases depending on a number of factors such as a person’s exposure to air quality and their vulnerability to disease.

Cleaning the Air, the Detail how the Mayor aims to protect Londoners' health and increase their quality Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy of life by cleaning up the Capital's air. The strategy sets out a framework for IIA objectives 1, 20 (GLA, December 2010) improving London’s air quality and includes a range of measures such as age limits for taxis, promoting low-emission vehicles, eco-driving and new standards for the Low Emission Zone aimed at reducing emissions from transport.

Cleaner Air for London, the Detail how the Mayor aims to protect Londoners' health and increase their quality Progress Report on the of life by cleaning up the Capital's air. The strategy sets out a framework for delivery of the Mayor’s Air improving London’s air quality and includes a range of measures such as age limits Quality Strategy (GLA, July for taxis, promoting low-emission vehicles, eco-driving and new standards for the IIA objectives 1, 20 2015) Low Emission Zone aimed at reducing emissions from transport.

Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds Provides a framework for the conservation and management of wild birds in 79/409/EEC Natural Capital and Europe, including their habitats. Natural EC Directive on the Environment Conservation of Habitats Conserve fauna and flora and natural habitats of EU importance. and Wild Fauna and Flora Establish a network of protected areas throughout the community designed to IIA objective 9 92/43/EEC maintain both the distribution and abundance of threatened species and habitats.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

Conservation of Habitats Provide for the designation and protection of a Natura 2000 sites, the protection of and Species Regulations European protected species, and the adaptation of planning and other controls for 2010 the protection of European Sites in the UK IIA objective 9

The principal piece of UK legislation relating to the protection of wildlife. It consolidates and amends existing national legislation to implement the Convention Wildlife & Countryside Act on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) 1981 (as amended) and Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (Birds IIA objective 9 Directive) in Great Britain. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was passed to provide additional levels of protection for wildlife whilst also strengthening the protection afforded to SSSI

Designed to help achieve a rich and diverse natural environment and thriving rural Natural Environment and communities. Section 40 of NERC Act carries a duty to public bodies and statutory . Rural Communities Act undertakers to ensure due regard to the conservation of biodiversity. Section 41

2006 requires the Secretary of State to publish a list of the living organisms and types of IIA objective habitat which it deems of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity

England biodiversity Sets out principles (and priorities) to guide adaptation to climate change and strategy: Climate change manage impacts of climate change on biodiversity, principles include: maintain and adaptation principles, Defra, IIA objectives, 2, 3, 9 increase ecological resilience, accommodate change, take practical action now, 2011 develop knowledge and plan strategically, and integrate action across all sectors.

The purpose of this UK Biodiversity Framework is to set a broad enabling structure for action across the UK between now and 2020. It seeks a more joined up

UK post-2010 Biodiversity strategic approach in relation to planning for biodiversity (i.e. Biodiversity Action IIA objective 9, 23 Framework, Defra, 2012 Plans). It identifies a set of strategic goals and key actions to achieve these. The

framework takes account of international drivers such as the ‘Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020’ (including the 20 Aichi targets), agreed at Nagoya, Japan in October 2010, and the EU Biodiversity Strategy (EUBS) May 2011.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

Sets out the strategic direction for biodiversity policy for the next decade on land (including rivers and lakes) and at sea. Identifies a vision, mission, outcomes and Biodiversity 2020, Defra, actions to show what achieving the overarching objective by 2020 will mean in IIA objective 9, 23 2015 practice. Vision for England - By 2050 our land and seas will be rich in wildlife, our

biodiversity will be valued, conserved, restored, managed sustainably and be more resilient and able to adapt to change, providing essential services and delivering benefits for everyone. Mayor's Biodiversity Sets out a summary of the current status of London’s habitats and wildlife, the Strategy Update, A review progress which has been made on implementing the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy of progress and priorities for IIA objective 9 and priorities for action going forward action (GLA, 2015)

London Underground Identifies London Underground land holdings essential habitats for the wide range Biodiversity Action Plan, of plants and animals in London. Because of this, the railway lineside environment IIA objective 9 Connecting Nature (2010) is increasingly recognised for its contribution to London’s greenspace and as a biodiversity asset for London Green infrastructure is the network of green spaces (as well as features such as street trees and green roofs) that is planned, designed and managed to deliver a range of benefits, including: Green Capital. Green – healthy living; Infrastructure for a future city (2016) – mitigating flooding; IIA objective 9, 23 – improving air and water quality; – cooling the urban environment; – encouraging walking and cycling; and – enhancing biodiversity and ecological resilience.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Climate Change The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through: "(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change; UNFCCC Paris (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and IIA objective 2,3 Agreement, 2015, COP 21 foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development." Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment. The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement.

United Nations Framework Aimed to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change and stabilise GHG Convention on Climate concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous Change, UN, 1992 IIA objective 2,3 anthropogenic interference with the climate system

Kyoto Protocol sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% of 1990 levels, 2008-12. Kyoto Climate Change UK agreement is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5% below 1990 Protocol & UK Climate IIA objective 2,3 levels by 2008-12. Change Programme, 1997 UK Climate Change Programme national goal of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2010.

EC White Paper: Adapting Presents the framework for adaption measures and policies to reduce the EU’s to Climate Change, IIA objective 2,3 vulnerability to the impacts of climate change COMMISSION

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Outlines the need to create a mechanism by 2011 where information on climate change risks, impacts and best practices would be exchanged between governments, agencies and organisations working on adaptation policies. Since OF THE EUROPEAN IIA objective 2,3, 4 the impacts of climate change will vary by region, many adaptation measures will COMMUNITIES, 2009 need to be carried out nationally or regionally. The role of the EU will be to support and complement these efforts through an integrated and co-ordinated approach, particularly in cross-border issues and policies which are highly integrated at EU level. Adapting to climate change will be integrated into all EU policies.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Sets out a legally binding framework for national GHG emissions to be reduced by

Climate Change Act 2008 at least 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The Act also paves the way

for the UK to adapt to climate change IIA objective 2,3, 4 Outlines some of the most important risks and opportunities that climate change may present to the UK. It provides an overview but also focuses on five complementary themes: Agriculture & Forestry, Business, Health & Wellbeing, Climate Change Risk Buildings & Infrastructure and the Natural Environment. It provides an indication of Assessment, Defra, 2012 the potential magnitude of impacts, when they might become significant and the IIA objective 2,3, 4 level of confidence. The CCRA sets out the main priorities for adaptation in the UK. Forms one of the key components to the Government’s response to the Climate Change Act 2008. Sets out what government, businesses, and society are doing to become more climate ready. Developed in response to the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment. National Adaptation Forms one of the key components to the Government’s response to the Climate Programme (NAP), Defra, Change Act 2008. IIA objective 2,3, 4 2015

The Climate Change Act established a legally binding target to reduce the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% below base year levels by 2050. The The Carbon Plan (DECC, plan sets out how the UK will achieve decarbonisation within the energy policy 2011) framework: to make the transition to a low carbon economy while maintaining IIA objective 2,3, 4 energy security, and minimising costs to consumers, particularly those in poorer households. London Climate Change Details the programmes and activities that are ongoing across London to further Mitigation and Energy limit climate change and achieve the Mayor’s target to reduce London’s CO2 Strategy (2011 emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by 2025 IIA objective 2,3, 4 The Mayor has set world-leading targets to reduce London’s carbon dioxide (CO2) Mayor’s Climate Change emissions. With concerted effort by the Mayor, Government, Londoners and the Mitigation and Energy wider market London can achieve a target to reduce its CO2 emissions by 60 Annual Report: 2013-2014 IIA objectives 2,3, 4 percent from 1990 levels by 2025. This report updates on London’s progress (June 2015) towards meeting this target and Mayoral activity to reduce London’s CO2 emissions and secure its energy supply in 2013-14

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Through this Directive the EU committed to providing 20 per cent of energy from Energy use and Promotion of The Use of renewable sources by 2020 and a mandatory 10% minimum target should be Generation Energy from Renewable

Sources Directive achieved by all Member States for the share of biofuels in transport petrol and IIA objective 2,3, 4 (2009/28/EC) diesel consumption.

Restates target of 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 Establishes the methods and reasons for increasing the use of renewable electricity, heat and transport. On Renewable transport it identifies a preferred . UK Renewable Energy approach to achieve the 2020 transport sub-target, and actions for implementation IIA objective 4 Roadmap (DECC, 2011) after 2014. Supports the market for plug-in vehicles by making up to £30m

available for investment in recharging infrastructure and providing a grant of up to 25% of the purchase price (capped at £5000) for eligible electric, plug-in hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell cars. Provides an overview of the potential extent of flooding now and in the future, and Flood Risk Thames Catchment Flood enables policies to be set for managing flood risk within Thames Catchment. The Management Plan (2009) plan, which contains a range of data and policies, is used to inform planning and IIA objectives 2, 5, 11 decision making by key stakeholders. Securing London’s water Calls for organisations involved in the city's water management to work in future, the Mayor’s Water partnership with the Mayor, boroughs and communities to seek and develop

Strategy (2011) opportunities to manage flood risk through enhancing London’s green spaces. Sets out the recommendations and actions needed to manage flood risk through this century. In developing the plan the Environment Agency investigated and Thames Estuary 2100 Plan understood flood risk in the Estuary today, how it might change in the future and (TE2100 Plan) (November the many ways London can manage and adapt to those changes. It aims to direct 2012 IIA objectives 2, 5, 11 future work on flood warning, flood plain management and expenditure needed to maintain and replace 330 km of walls, embankments, flood barrier and gates. Considers flooding, of any kind, causing or with the potential to cause London-wide London Resilience impacts. This includes flooding from rivers, the sea (tidal), surface water, Partnership Strategic Flood groundwater, reservoirs, sewers, canals and artificial waterways. This may be Response Framework severe flooding in one or more locations requiring a London-wide response, or a IIA objectives 2, 5, 11 (2015) greater number of less severe flooding in multiple locations within London.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Recognises that soil degradation is a serious challenge. It aspires that by 2020 land is managed sustainably in the Union, soil is adequately protected and the Seventh Environment Action remediation of contaminated sites is well underway. It commits the EU and its Programme (2014) Member States to increase efforts to reduce soil erosion and increase soil organic IIA objective 6 matter, and remediate contaminated sites. Focuses on prevention and remediation of environmental damage, including land EU Environmental Liability contamination, which presents a threat to human health. The Directive is based on IIA objective 6

Directive (99/31/EC) the polluter pays principle, where polluters are responsible for remediating damage Geology and soils they cause to the environment. Sets out a vision to improve the sustainable management of soil and tackle IIA objective 6 Safeguarding our Soils – A degradation within 20 years. Aims to ensure that England’s soils are better

Strategy for England protected and managed. Four main themes:

• Sustainable use of agricultural soils • Role of soils in mitigating and adopting to climate change • Protecting soil functions during construction and development • Preventing pollution and dealing with historic contamination. Details 16 key objectives for meeting these themes

Historic European Conventions for Environment the protection of the Set out a framework for the protection of assets of national value, as well as Architectural Heritage of archaeological assets generally.

Europe and the protection of IIA objectives 7, 23 Archaeological Heritage 1987 The convention links together in a single document the concepts of nature UNESCO World Heritage conservation and the preservation of cultural properties. The Convention IIA objectives 7, 23 Convention recognizes the way in which people interact with nature, and the fundamental need to preserve the balance between the two. Planning (Listed Buildings Builds on the framework set out in the European conventions and includes for the IIA objectives 7, 23 and Conservation Areas) Act protection of Scheduled Monuments,

1990 Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens and Listed Buildings

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Builds on the framework set out in the European conventions and includes for the Ancient Monuments and protection of Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and IIA objectives 7, 23 Archaeological Areas Act Gardens and Listed Buildings. 1979

Mayor’s Culture Strategy, Builds on the framework set out in the European conventions and includes for the IIA objectives 7, 23 Cultural Metropolis protection of Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and (November 2010) Gardens and Listed Buildings. Makes a number of commitments which the Mayor, working with the London Cultural Strategy Group and range of partners, intends to deliver. Assesses and celebrates achievements since publication of the Strategy, offers an update and analysis using the latest knowledge and research, and identifies some of the key issues and challenges still facing London’s cultural sector.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA

Water Act 2003 National legislation which transposes the WFD into UK law. Water resources IIA objective 11 and quality Implements the Water Act at a regional level, focusing on the protection, improvement and sustainable use of the water environment. Many organisations River Basin Management and individuals help to protect and improve the water environment for the benefit of Plan (RBMP) for the Thames people and wildlife. River basin management is the approach the Environment IIA objective 11 River Basin District (2015) Agency is using to ensure combined efforts achieve the improvement needed in the Thames River Basin District. Water for People and the Environment – Water Establishes how water resources should be managed to 2050 and beyond to Resources Strategy for ensure that there will be enough water for people and the environment. IIA objective 11 England and Wales The first water strategy for London and provides a complete picture of London's water needs. The strategy calls for organisations involved in the city's water management to: invest in a water management and sewerage infrastructure system that’s fit for a Mayor’s Water Strategy world class city and will create jobs; (2011) IIA objective 11 support and encourage Londoners to take practical actions to save water, save energy and save money off their utility bills; and realise the potential of London’s sewerage as an energy resource to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Sets out how water resources are managed in the London area. It provides London Abstraction information on where water is available for further abstraction and an indication of Licensing Strategy (2013) how reliable a new abstraction license may be. IIA objective 11 Identifies why the green infrastructure approach is increasingly important, and the changes to policy, governance, valuation and funding that are needed to ensure Green Infrastructure Task long-term investment in London’s green infrastructure. Design Force Report, Natural Capital Investing in a Green Infrastructure for a Future IIA objective 9, 23 London (December 2015)

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Materials and The aims of this Directive are: Waste • To provide a comprehensive and consolidated approach to the definition and management of waste. Waste Framework Directive • To shift from thinking of waste as an unwanted burden to a valued (2008 IIA objective 8 resource and make Europe a recycling society. • To ensure waste prevention is the first priority of waste management. • Requirements of the EU Waste Framework Directive Waste (England and Wales)

(Amendment) Regulations Transposes the requirements of the Waste Framework Directive in UK Law. 20011 (as amended 2014) IIA objective 8 Sets out detailed waste planning policies and places responsibility on waste planning authorities to ensure that waste management is considered alongside National Planning Policy for other spatial planning concerns such as housing and transport; recognising the Waste (October 2014) positive contribution waste management can make to developing sustainable IIA objective 8 communities. This includes preparing Local Plans which identify opportunities to meet the needs of their area for the management of waste streams.

UK Waste Strategy for Describes a vision for better managing waste and resources and sets out changes IIA objective 8 England (2007) needed to deliver more sustainable development in England.

Sets out policies and proposals for reducing the amount of municipal waste Mayor’s Municipal Waste produced in London, increasing the amount of waste reused, recycled or Strategy, London’s Wasted composted, and generating low carbon energy from waste remaining. This strategy IIA objective 8 Resource (November 2011 also sets out how, through the London Waste and Recycling Board, more waste management infrastructure will be developed in London. Noise Informing and consulting the public about noise exposure, its effects and the

EC Noise Directive measures considered to address noise. Addressing local noise issues by requiring 2000/14/EC authorities to draw up action Plans to reduce noise where necessary and maintain IIA objective 10 environmental noise where it is good.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Sets out a long-term plan for dealing with noise from transport (including road traffic, rail traffic, aircraft and water transport) and fixed industrial sources, which Mayor’s Ambient Noise are the main long-term, predictable, sources of 'ambient noise' (also called IIA objective 10 Strategy (2004) 'environmental noise'). Published in 2004 by the previous administration, Sounder City remains the Mayor's ambient noise strategy for London. Health and Health The London Health Commission set an overarching goal: make London the world’s Inequalities healthiest major global city. IIA Objective 20 In order to support and deliver this, the LHC developed 10 key aspirations clearly outlining what needs to be achieved to improve the lives of Londoners: • Give all London’s children a healthy, happy start to life; • Get London fitter with better food, more exercise and healthier living; • Make work a healthy place to be in London; Better Health for London: • Help Londoners to kick unhealthy habits; next steps - GLA, 2015 • Care for the most mentally ill in London so they live longer, healthier lives; • Enable Londoners to do more to look after themselves; • Ensure that every Londoner is able to see a GP when they need to and at a time that suits them; • Create the best health and care services of any world city, throughout London and on every day; • Fully engage and involve Londoners in the future health of their city; Put London at the centre of the global revolution in digital health The London Health Inequalities Strategy sets out a framework for partnership action to: IIA Objective 20 • improve the physical health and mental wellbeing of all Londoners; The London Health Inequalities Strategy GLA • reduce the gap between Londoners with the best and worst health outcomes; (2010) • create the economic, social and environmental conditions that improve quality of life for all; and • empower individuals and communities to take control of their lives, with a particular focus on the most disadvantaged. Transport Action Plan, Improving the health of Sets out a framework focusing on improvement of physical health and mental well- IIA objective 20 Londoners (TfL, February being of all Londoners. 2014)

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA This report set out a range of hypothetical modelled scenarios to explore the current and future health impacts of road transport in London and how these IIA Objective 20 compare with other urban areas which have different transport mixes. This modelling suggests that: • T he health of Londoners benefits from our relatively high levels of walking and public transport use and low car use. • In future we can expect these benefits to grow with increased cycling, especially if those who take up cycling include more older people than the Transport and Health in current demographic of cyclists.

London. GLA (2014) • There is potential for walking and cycling levels to increase beyond those anticipated by 2031 in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. If this were the case then there would be larger health benefits for Londoners, primarily as a result of increased physical activity levels. • London’s transport system currently plays a significant role in ensuring Londoners remain physically active. There is potential for many more Londoners to get the physical activity they need from active travel in London.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Document Title Key objectives, targets and indicators relevant to the MTS and IIA Implications for IIA Sustainable Land Provides the national planning policy framework in support of sustainable use development for which the key planning objectives should be: IIA objectives 1-23 • Building a strong, competitive economy. • Supporting a prosperous rural economy. National Planning Policy • Promoting sustainable transport. Framework (2012) • Supporting high quality communications infrastructure.

• Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change. • Conserving and enhancing the natural environment.

The overall strategic plan for London, setting out an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London

over the next 20–25 years the document that brings together: IIA Objectives 1-23 • the geographic and locational (although not site specific) aspects of the Mayor’s other strategies – including those dealing with: Transport, Economic Development, Housing and Culture; London Plan: spatial strategy • a range of social issues such as children and young people, health for London consolidated with inequalities and food; changes since2011 • a range of environmental issues such as climate change (adaptation and mitigation), air quality, noise and waste; • the framework for the development and use of land in London, linking in improvements to infrastructure (especially transport); • setting out proposals for implementation, coordination and resourcing; and • helping to ensure joined up policy delivery by the GLA Group of organisations (including Transport for London).

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix B: Natura 2000 Sites within 15 km of the MTS Area

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives

Richmond Park SAC Within the GLA area • Stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) To maintain or restore: (846.68ha) The following boroughs are • The extent and distribution of the habitat of stag Site code: UK0030246 within or adjacent to the site: beetle

• Richmond upon Thames • The structure and function of the habitats of stag beetle • Kingston upon Thames • The supporting processes on which the habitats • Wandsworth of stag beetle rely

• Merton • The population of stag beetle, and

• The distribution of stag beetle within the site.

Wimbledon Common Within the GLA area • Stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) To maintain or restore: SAC (348.31ha) The following boroughs are • Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica • The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats Site code: UK0030301 within or adjacent to the tetralix and habitats of stag beetle European sites: • European dry heaths • The structure and function (including typical • Merton species) of qualifying habitats

• Wandsworth • The structure and function of the habitats of stag beetle • Richmond upon Thames • The supporting processes on which qualifying • Kingston upon Thames habitats and the habitats of stag beetle rely

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives

• The populations of stag beetle, and,

• The distribution stag beetle within the site.

Epping Forest SAC Partially within the GLA area • Atlantic acidophilus beech forests with Ilex To maintain or restore: (1604.95ha) and sometimes Taxus in shrub layer The following boroughs are • The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats Site code: UK12720 within or adjacent to the • Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica and habitats of stag beetle European sites: teralix • The structure and function (including typical • Waltham Forest • European dry heaths species) of qualifying habitats

• Redbridge • Stag beetle (Lucanus cervus) • The structure and function of the habitats of stag beetle • Enfield • The supporting processes on which qualifying habitats and the habitats of stag beetle rely

• The populations of stag beetle, and,

• The distribution stag beetle within the site.

Lee Valley SPA and Partially within the GLA area SPA: To maintain or restore: Ramsar (447.87ha) The following boroughs are • Great bittern (Botaurus stellaris) (Non- • The extent and distribution of the habitats of the SPA site code: within or adjacent to the breeding) qualifying features 9012111 European sites: • Gadwall (Anas strepera) (Non- • The structure and function of the habitats of the Ramsar site code: • Enfield breeding) qualifying features UK11034 • Waltham Forest • Northern shovelor (Anas clypeata) • The supporting processes on which the habitats

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives (Non-breeding) of the qualifying features rely • Haringey Ramsar: • The population of each of the qualifying features, • Hackney and, • Ramsar Criterion 2: The site supports

the nationally scarce plant species • The distribution of the qualifying features within whorled water-milfoil Myriophyllum the site. verticillatum and the rare or vulnerable invertebrate Micronecta minutissima (a water-boatman).

• Ramsar criterion 6: species/populations occurring at levels of international importance (northern shoveler, gadwall).

South West London Partially within the GLA area SPA: To maintain or restore: Waterbodies SPA and Ramsar (828.1ha) The following boroughs are • Gadwall (Anas strepera) (Non- • The extent and distribution of the habitats of the within or adjacent to the breeding) qualifying features SPA site code: European sites: UK9012171 • Northern shovelor (Anas clypeata) • The structure and function of the habitats of the • Hillingdon (Non-breeding) qualifying features Ramsar site code: UK11065 • Hounslow • Ramsar: • The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely • Richmond upon Thames • Ramsar criterion 6: species/populations occurring at levels • The population of each of the qualifying features, of international importance (northern and, shoveler, gadwall). • The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives

Wormley – Outside GLA area – approx. • Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or To maintain or restore: Hoddesdonpark 4km north oak hornbeam forests of the Carpinion Woods SAC betuli • The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats (335.53ha) • The structure and function (including typical SAC site code: species) of qualifying habitats, and UK0013696 • The supporting processes on which qualifying habitats rely

Windsor Forest and Outside GLA area – approx. • Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus To maintain or restore: Great Park SAC 6km to west robur on sandy plains: Dry oak-dominated (1687.26) woodland • The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats and habitats of the violet click beetle • Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the • The structure and function (including typical SAC site code: shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or species) of qualifying habitats UK0012586 Ilici-Fagenion): Beech forests on acid soils • The structure and function of the habitats of violet • Violet click beetle (Limoniscus violaceus) click beetle

• The supporting processes on which qualifying habitats and the habitats of violet click beetle rely

• The populations of violet click beetle, and,

• The distribution of violet click beetle within the site.

Mole Gap to Reigate Outside GLA area – approx. • Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles To maintain or restore: Escarpment SAC 6km to south (Yew-dominated woodland)

100

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives (887.68ha) • Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests (Beech • The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats forests on neutral to rich soils) and habitats of qualifying species SAC site code: UK0012804 • European dry heaths • The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying habitats • Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- • The structure and function of the habitats of Brometalia) (Dry grasslands and qualifying species scrublands on chalk or limestone). • The supporting processes on which qualifying • Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland habitats and the habitats of qualifying species facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- rely Brometalia) (important orchid sites) (Dry grasslands and scrublands on chalk or • The populations of qualifying species, and, limestone, including important orchid sites) • The distribution of qualifying species within the • Stable xerothermophilous formations with site. Buxus sempervirens on rock slopes (Berberidion p.p.) (Natural box scrub)

• Bechstein’s bat (Myotis bechsteinii)

• Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus)

Thames Basin Heaths Outside GLA area – approx. • Dartford Warbler (Sylvia undata) To maintain or restore: SPA (8274.72ha) 8km to south-west (breeding) • The extent and distribution of the habitats of the SAC site code: • Nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus) qualifying features 9012414 (breeding) • The structure and function of the habitats of the Overlaps with • Woodlark (Lullula arborea) (breeding) qualifying features Thursley, Ash,

101

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives Pirbright & Chobham • SAC (UK0012793) The supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely

• The population of each of the qualifying features, and,

• The distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

Thursley, Ash, Outside GLA area – approx. • Depressions on peat substrates of the To maintain or restore: Pirbright & Chobham 8km to south-west Rhynchosporion SAC (5138ha) • The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats • European dry heaths • The structure and function (including typical • Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica species) of qualifying habitats, and SAC site code: tetralix (Wet heathland with cross-leaved UK0012793 heath) • The supporting processes on which qualifying habitats rely Overlaps with Thames Basin Heaths SPA (9012414)

Burnham Beeches Outside GLA area – approx. • Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with To maintain or restore: SAC (382.76ha) 9km to west Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori-petraeae or • The extent and distribution of qualifying habitats SAC site code: Ilici-Fagenion) (Beech forests on acid UK0030034 soils) • The structure and function (including typical species) of qualifying habitats, and

• The supporting processes on which qualifying habitats rely

102

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives

Thames Estuary and Outside GLA area – approx. SPA: To maintain or restore: Marshes SPA 14km east (4838.94ha) and • Hen harrier (Circus cyaneus) (Non- • The extent and distribution of the habitats of the Ramsar (5589ha) breeding) qualifying features

• Pied avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta) • The structure and function of the habitats of the (Non-breeding) qualifying features SPA site code: UK9012021 • Ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) • The supporting processes on which the habitats (Non-breeding) of the qualifying features rely Ramsar site Code: UK11069 • Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola) • The population of each of the qualifying features, (Non-breeding) and,

• Red knot (Calidris canutus) (Non- • The distribution of the qualifying features within breeding) the site.

• Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpine) (Non- breeding)

• Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islándica) (Non-breeding)

• Common redshank (Tringa tetanus) (Non-breeding)

• Waterbird assemblage

103

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives

Ramsar criterion:

• Ramsar criterion 2 The site supports one endangered plant species and at least 14 nationally scarce plants of wetland habitats. The site also supports more than 20 British Red Data Book invertebrates.

• Ramsar criterion 5

Assemblages of international importance: Species with peak counts in winter:

45118 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003)

• Ramsar criterion 6 –

Species/populations occurring at levels of international importance.

Species with peak counts in spring/autumn:

Ringed plover , (Charadrius hiaticula)

104

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Natura 2000 Site Location Qualifying features Conservation objectives

Black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica)

Species with peak counts in winter:

Grey plover (Pluvialis squatarola)

Red knot (Calidris canutus)

Dunlin (Calidris alpina alpine)

Common redshank (Tringa totanus tetanus)

105

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix C: Crowding Maps for AM peak, 2014

London Underground crowding maps for AM peak, 2014

106

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

National Rail crowding maps for AM peak, 2014

107

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

London Underground crowding maps for AM peak, 2041

108

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

National Rail crowding maps for AM peak, 2041

109

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix D: Existing and proposed cycle routes in Central London

Source: TfL, 2013b

110

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix E: Existing and proposed cycle superhighways and quietways in London

Source: TfL, 2013b

111

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix F: Supporting Data for Baseline

Transport system’s role in supporting a strong, sustainable and competitive economy, new homes and jobs by providing transport infrastructure for all Londoners

Population

In 2015, London’s population peaked at 8.6 million people, equalling the previous peak which was last reached in 1939. Since 2001 London’s population has increased by more than 1.3 million people (18%) and more than one million jobs, generating huge increase in the demand for travel (TfL, 2015b).

Based on the short-term migration scenario the total population of Greater London is projected to rise by 2.35 million between 2014 and 2041 to reach 10.89 million. In comparison the long-term migration scenario projects a rise of 1.96 million to reach 10.50 million by 2041 (GLA, 2016).

London’s population is projected to reach 10 million in 2029 under the short-term scenario and 2033 under the long-term scenario (GLA, 2016).

All boroughs are projected to see a rise in their population between 2014 and 2041 under both sets of projections. Under the short-term migration scenario, this proportional rise is projected to be greatest in Barking and Dagenham (a rise of 40.1 per cent) and lowest in Kensington & Chelsea (11.5 per cent). For the long-term scenario, Redbridge (31.8 per cent) and Islington (15.1 per cent) are projected to see the highest and lowest levels of growth respectively (GLA, 2016).

London is expected to see continued rapid population growth of the coming decades as shown in Figure 5.4.

Figure 9.4: London’s population 1971 – 2036

112

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

As depicted in Figure 5.4, growth is expected to remain focused in the north of the east subregion of Greater London (refer to Figure 5.2 which identified sub regions) with about 40% of London’s population growth expected to be located within this area by 2041. This equates to an addition 600,000 people living in the east sub region.

Figure 9.5: Absolute change in growth, 2011 – 2041 The White population of Greater London is projected to increase from 4.91 million in 2011 to 5.48 million in 2041, an increase of 0.57 million (11.5 per cent) over the period. The 2041 projected White population is 0.38 million (7.6 per cent) higher than the preceding R2013 SHLAA CHS projection (GLA, 2015).

The BAME (all ethnic groups except White) population of Greater London is projected to increase from 3.31 million in 2011 to 4.88 million in 2041, an increase of 1.57 million (47.5 per cent) over the period. The Greater London BAME population is not projected to reach a majority at any time over the projection period (by 2041 the White proportion is projected to be 53 per cent and the BAME 47 per cent). However, by 2036 12 London boroughs are projected to have BAME majority populations, three in Inner London (Newham, Tower Hamlets, and Lewisham) and nine in Outer London (Brent, Harrow, Redbridge, Ealing, Hounslow, Barking and Dagenham, Croydon, Waltham Forest, and Hillingdon), (GLA, 2015).

Hackney, Islington and Westminster are within two percent of the most deprived areas in England. Falling within the most deprived five per cent of areas are also parts of Haringey, Tower Hamlets, Croydon, Brent, Newham, Kensington & Chelsea, Barking & Dagenham, Enfield, Croydon, Lewisham, Waltham Forest, Lambeth and Ealing. The City and Richmond are the only local authority areas within London with no areas in the most deprived 20 per cent of England (Figure 5.6).

113

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(S ource: Department for C ommunities and Local Government, 2015 in GLA, 2015d)

Figure 5.6: Index of Multiple Deprivation for London, 2015

For London to remain an economically vibrant, attractive and liveable city, the MTS will need to respond to: • London’s rapid employment and population growth and the associated demand for travel; • Increasing social and environmental challenges; • Implications for customer service development and investment. Given the scale of the challenges facing London, together with an increasingly constrained funding context, the main drivers of the transport strategy will need to be framed more clearly than ever before in terms of how transport best contributes to the broader strategic objectives for London.

Accommodating forecast growth within London’s existing boundaries will rely on greater integration between land use and transport planning. Growth will need to be accommodated in a way that delivers more housing that is accessible and affordable for Londoners and a continued shift towards public transport, walking and cycling.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Managing growth in a sustainable way Key issues Providing enhanced capacity on the transport system to accommodate for rapidly growing population

Accessibility will be compromised by rising crowding, the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers

Increased pressure on capacity of public transport and highways networks to

114

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

meet forecast demand

Economic competitiveness

The relative economic performance of London as a major international city

The transport network plays a key role in maintaining London’s economic competitiveness. This includes international and national gateways (e.g. airports, railway stations and coach stations) which act as hubs for tourism, trade and the general transport system as used by visitors and the everyday population to travel to/from, within and around London and as relied upon to deliver efficient goods and services to Londoners, businesses and visitors.

London is a competitive international location for business. London ranks as the leading global city according to the PWC Cities of Opportunity and the Global Financial Centres Index. London First’s 2012 report on London’s current and future competitiveness noted that London has remained a leading international business centre and according to many reports, the leading international financial centre. However these same reports show that London’s lead over other global cities is diminishing. Emerging markets are improving fast and traditional rivals are regaining ground (London First, 2016).

The economic opportunities that are offered by businesses locating in London (e.g. higher wages and numerous career opportunities), in part, encourage people to live and work in the capital (GLA, 2016e). However, this also means that there is more competition from both businesses and people for the same resource.

London has higher net business start-up rates than for the UK as a whole. It is a prominent destination for inward investment, particularly those areas where London has industrial specialisation, such as information and communication, financial services and professional services.

International and national gateways

International and national arrivals into London come by air, rail, road and coach. This report looks at those international and national gateways within TfL’s control (i.e. rail and coach stations). It does not look at airport connections or capacity. Connectivity to/from London’s airports is considered within Section – Connectivity.

There is only one railway station that is served by international rail: St. Pancras which is served by the Eurostar connecting to Avignon, Brussels, Lille, Lyon, Marseille and Paris. Services to Amsterdam and Germany are being progressed; however international rail access is, of course, geographically limited. No international services currently call at Stratford International Station.

One barrier to operating international services to and from London is that the UK is outside the Schengen passport free area in the EU. This means that passport checks are necessary before boarding trains in the UK, France and Belgium. Immigration controls have been set up at St. Pancras, Lille, Brussels and Paris. Any new service will require immigration controls at station terminals, which can be complicated to accommodate as existing stations have constraints on space. There are a number of mainline railway stations served by national rail that provide long distance services to major economic centres elsewhere in Great Britain (e.g. Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow) as well as allowing access to the employment zones of London for many areas. High Speed 2 (HS2) will aid in providing significant changes to national rail connections across Britain and will help take pressure off long distance high speed services on the West Coast Main Line, Midlands Main Line and East Coast Main Line which presently offer a total of 25,100 seats into London in the three hour AM Peak. HS2 will have 26,000 seats into London in one hour AM Peak and will result in increased capacity on existing high speed services, resulting in between four to five times more national capacity than at present (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016).

115

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Maximising the benefits from HS2 when it opens in 2026 requires good connections to and from the CAZ, Heathrow airport and the rest of outer London. These will be provided at Euston and Old Oak Common with connections onto Underground, Overground and Crossrail services.

In addition to rail, coach services provide national and international connectivity at a low cost for many groups including students, people visiting family and friends and holiday-makers. Victoria Coach Station and its surrounds is the largest coach station in London and it provides national and international connections to London. It provides services to 1,200 destinations in the UK and abroad). It currently operates at or close to capacity and fails to provide adequate provision for coach passengers and operators and is in need of substantial refurbishment. The Victoria Coach station site is safeguarded to aid the construction of Crossrail 2.

The transport system – use by people

Transport has “…the potential to be one of the best things about living and working in London but at times is experienced as one of the worst” (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016). Satisfaction with the transport system, or lack thereof, can influence where people choose to live, work and visit. Indicators of customer satisfaction have shown a steady but continuous upward trend in London’s public transport system; however customer feedback suggests that improvements are still needed particularly around congestion, use of new technology and customer service (TfL, 2015a).

Key aspects which influence customer satisfaction of London’s transport network, including public transport, roads, walking and cycling are identified in Figure 5.7. Low customer rankings across these aspects result in customer annoyance, pain and dissatisfaction and can impact London’s economic competitiveness. Specifically, it can impact on people’s perception of the quality of life available in London and fewer people may be willing to live and work in it, reducing the effective supply of labour that is available, or reducing the quality of the labour force due to the lowered attraction of the city to high-quality workers.

(Source: TfL, 2015a)

Figure 5.7: TfL’s customer model

At present, almost 800,000 people commute into London for work and the GLA estimates that this will grow to more than a million by 2036. The Central Activities Zone (CAZ) covers London’s geographic, economic and administrative core. It brings together the largest concentration of London’s financial and globally- oriented business services. Almost a third of all London jobs are based there and, together with Canary Wharf, it has historically experienced the highest rate of growth in London. Employment in the CAZ and Isle 116

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

of Dogs is also expected to grow substantially, particularly driven by expansion of the office-based business services sector, as well as more jobs in areas like retail and leisure services (GLA, 2016e).

The centralisation of jobs in the CAZ brings agglomeration benefits and therefore increasing competitiveness from businesses and people when they locate in central London. It also generates growth in demand for radial peak travel and a continuing ebb and flow of passengers. Londoners spend more time idling in traffic than their counterparts in European cities; many parts of the tube and rail network suffer from significant crowding at peak times and London has limited airport capacity (GLA, 2016e).

Businesses have chosen to locate to London and the South East for many reasons including because of the extensive rail network provides access to the largest potential labour force, customer base and supply chain in Europe. Central London’s very high employment densities and the associated agglomeration benefits depends on access to a very large population within 45 minutes travel time. (GLA, 2016e) Figure 5.8 illustrates that the CAZ provides greater than 2.5 million jobs within 45 minutes travel journey from different parts of London. This is in comparison to most parts of outer London which provide less than 0.5 million jobs within 45 minutes from different parts of London.

(Source: TfL, 2015a) Figure 5.8: Number of jobs available by mass public transport within 45 minutes travel time, 2015

Employment growth in central London place significant pressure on the public transport network, in particular rail models. A million additional daytime public transport trips are expected by 2041 to/from/within central London. Eight in ten arrivals to central London in the morning peak are by rail, underground or DLR. While funded rail and underground investment will increase capacity on the Underground and National Rail networks, demand is increasing faster than supply and by 2041 the crowded passenger experience 10 is expected to increase by 60% on London Underground and 150% on National Rail (TfL London Transport Studies Model, 2016).

10 Defined as passenger-km exceeding a standing passenger density of two people per square metre 117

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Key lines identified by TfL as needing more capacity include: • North East (Victoria, Piccadilly, Central and Northern lines) – South West corridors (Northern, District and rail lines to Waterloo); • DLR (Canary Wharf); • Tramlink (east Croydon); • Crossrail (Ilford to Liverpool Street).

Additionally, congestion at station entries and exits and in some cases interchanges within stations is a key challenge for London, particularly in central London where demand for travel in peak period will rise substantially, placing considerable pressure on key destinations and interchange stations. Passenger flows at some of central London’s rail termini 11 are higher than those at London’s Underground stations (TfL London Transport Studies Model, 2016).

Catering for the efficient dispersal of the large volumes of rail passengers alighting at central London’s rail termini is of importance to the functioning of London’s economy. As well as handling a large proportion of commuter traffic into central London, central London’s rail termini are often vitally important gateways for business travel between central London and the UK’s most economically active areas, and many of the thousands of passengers travelling through them each day are travelling on business. The efficient onward distribution of this high value travel is therefore of significant importance for the economies of London and the UK as a whole.

Where employment continues to grow to meet forecast demand, it is possible that London’s economic growth would in reality be constrained if the transport network was not fit for purpose, reflected by highly crowed commuter services.

Further congestion and crowding on many parts of London’s private and public transport networks may result in loss of agglomeration benefits currently enjoyed by firms in London. As per GLA’s draft Economic Evidence Base 2016 the agglomeration benefits currently enjoyed by firms in London may be tempered by the diseconomies of agglomeration (or so-called congestion costs) that are the consequence of a mass of businesses and people competing over scare resources. If the costs of agglomeration begin to exceed the benefits then future growth and/or wellbeing in London could be undermined (GLA, 2016e).

The transport system – use for freight

Almost 90% of all freight lifted in London is moved by road, with river (5.3%), rail (4.3%) and air (1.1%) transport accounting for the remainder. However, rail and water transport are being increasingly used for major transport infrastructure projects in London. For example, Crossrail aims to ensure that 85% of the excavated material is transported by rail or water. The Lee Tunnel sewage project is also making use of river transport for excavated material as well as the Thames Tideway sewage project (University of Westminster, 2014).

Freight activity across London has been increasing. By 2014, LGV vehicle kilometres were 20% higher and HGV vehicle kilometres were 4% higher than in 1994-1999 and this growth is expected to continue (University of Westminster, 2014).

Key factors leading to increased freight vehicle kilometre include: • Increased business-to-customer (e.g. e-commerce and click and collect etc.) deliveries; • Increased business-to-business (e.g. just-in-time) deliveries which has reduced stock- holding capacity; • Reduced number of distribution centres due to release of industrial land to other uses;

11 Central London has 14 rail termini including Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Fenchurch Street, Liverpool Street, London Bridge, Moorgate, Euston, King’s Cross, Marylebone, Paddington, St Pancras, Charing Cross, Victoria and Waterloo. 118

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• Relocation of freight / logistic hubs to areas with good highway accessibility e.g. motorway hubs / M25; • Growth in sub-contracting / self-employment due to industry fragmentation of supply chain to create more flexible and agile supply chains; • Lengthening of supply chains as a result of broadened customer demand for choice.

These trends are expected to continue, and unless other measures are undertaken to reduce freight vehicle kilometres (e.g. consolidation of practices, substitution of postal deliveries, new methods of delivery), London will see an increase freight traffic and a higher proportion of van traffic resulting in less efficient utilisation of road capacity and greater road congestion.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Poor transport connectivity to some areas with the greatest capacity for development High freight vehicle kilometres on the road network

Potential loss of agglomeration benefits resulting from pressures on transport network

Congestion on roads reduces economic output

Overcrowding on and across London’s transport network, particularly the Underground and Network Rail networks

Customer dissatisfaction when using the transport network e.g. experiences of annoyance, pain and dissatisfaction as a deterrent to attracting skilled labour

Interchange between international and domestic public transport networks

Accessibility will be compromised by rising crowding, the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers

Opportunities The positive impact which transport investment projects can have on accessibility to employment, education and training opportunities

Supporting the development of green technologies and innovation

Opportunity for a responsible procurement, engaging more Small and Medium size Enterprises (SMEs) within and across London and boosting local employment

Implications of the Identified importance of London’s position as a leading global city and to support a Policy Review strong, diverse and resilient economic structure providing opportunities for all.

Suggested IIA To maintain and strengthen London’s position as a leading connected knowledge based global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient 119

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Objectives economy, providing opportunities for all

To ensure that provision of environmental, social and physical infrastructure is managed and delivered to meet population and demographic change in line with sustainable development and to support economic competitiveness

Employment

The operation of London’s labour market

London had a workplace population of 5.52 million in 2014 and is projected to grow to 5.8 million in 2021, 6.2 million in 2031 and 6.4 million in 2036. Since 2014, employment has grown much more strongly that output growth, resulting in a productivity decline / stagnation. This contrasts strongly with recoveries from previous UK recessions which have been characterised with strong productivity growth and has caused concern about the nature of the employment growth since (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016).

By 2036, 1.3 million jobs are expected in the City of London and Westminster alone with a further 1.3 million spread across the remainder of the central sub-region (Camden, Islington, Kensington & Chelsea, Lambeth and Southwark). Tower Hamlets – containing Canary Wharf and the Isle of Dogs – will contain 400,000 jobs and new employment centres will emerge in the east of London (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016).

TfL London Transport Studies Model, 2016 Figure 5.11: Change in jobs, 2011 to 2041 120

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

London’s employment profile has changed over the past 15 years. Manufacturing has been declining and jobs in professional services, health and education have been increasing. Overall there has been a loss of comparatively lower density employment and an increase in comparatively higher density employment uses. These sectoral trends are predicted to continue with manufacturing and wholesale predicted to decline by 80% and 40% respectively by 2041 (compared to 2011) while professional services are predicted to increase by almost 80%, followed by over a 50% increase of jobs in administrative / support services, information / communication and accommodation and food respectively (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016).

The CAZ covers London’s geographic, economic and administrative core and brings together the largest concentration of London’s financial and globally-oriented business services. Almost a third of all London jobs are based there and, together with Canary Wharf, it has historically experienced the highest rate of growth in London. Employment in the CAZ and Isle of Dogs is expected to grow substantially, particularly driven by expansion of the office-based business services sector, as well as more jobs in areas like retail and leisure services (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016).

Continued economic growth and employment in central London will depend on the provision of more high capacity rail and multi-modal connectivity within, around and across London. As discussed in Section – Connectivity, south and south east London as well as most of outer London has poorest connectivity to employment in central London. This may influence where businesses choose to locate in London.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Demand in employment growth in central London will be dependent on the capacity on rail routes and multi-modal connectivity towards central London Managing growth in a sustainable way

Providing enhanced capacity on the transport system to accommodate for rapidly growing population

Poor transport connectivity to some areas with the greatest capacity for development High freight vehicle kilometres on the road network

Potential loss of agglomeration benefits resulting from pressures on transport network

Congestion on roads reduces economic output

Overcrowding on and across London’s transport network, particularly the Underground and Network Rail networks

Customer dissatisfaction when using the transport network e.g. experiences of annoyance, pain and dissatisfaction as a deterrent to attracting skilled labour

Interchange between international and domestic public transport networks

Accessibility will be compromised by rising crowding, the biggest barrier to public transport for disabled customers

Opportunities The positive impact which transport investment projects can have on accessibility to employment, education and training opportunities

Supporting the development of green technologies and innovation

121

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Opportunity for a responsible procurement, engaging more Small and Medium size Enterprises (SMEs) within and across London and boosting local employment

Suggested IIA To maintain and strengthen London’s position as a leading connected Objectives knowledge based global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient economy, providing opportunities for all

Housing Supply, Quality and Choice

A person’s home / shelter

Over the last decade, London’s housing stock grew by 0.8% a year. London saw 21,900 net conventional completions in 2012/13 but remains well below its peak in 2008/09. Housing supply is likely to increase in the near future with gross new house building starts rising to almost 20,000 in 2013. However current rate of new house building is well below growth in both population and jobs and it is estimated that London needs more than 50,000 new homes every year (as per the target within the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP)), (GLA, 2014a).

Of the total homes delivered in 2012/13 around 8,700 were affordable homes, down from a record level of 17,200 in 2011/12 (GLA, 2014a). The share of affordable housing delivered in London over the three years to 2013/14 was an average of 34% but fell to 28% in 2014/15 (GLA, 2016k), with the highest numbers of affordable housing delivered in east London boroughs (GLA, 2014a).

Of new house builds in 2013 a quarter had three or more bedrooms, which were up from 15% from the previous five years. New homes were completed at an average density of 120 per hectare in 2012/13, compared to a peak of 136 in 2009/10. Further, between 2001 and 2011 thousands of extra homes have been created by converting larger homes into multiple smaller ones.

Both total supply and tenure splits vary widely at borough level as depicted in Figure 5.9. Over the period of 2010/11 to 2012/13, the highest numbers of completions were in the two neighbouring boroughs of Southwark and Lewisham with 3,730 each. The boroughs with the fewest completions were the City of London with 160 and Kensington and Chelsea with 340. The highest proportions of affordable housing were in Waltham Forest and Brent (63% and 51% respectively) and the lowest (apart from the City of London at 1%) in Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea (16% and 23% respectively).

122

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

( Source: GLA, 2014a)

Figure 5.9: Net conventional completions by borough and tenure, 2010/11 to 2012/13

The Outer London Commission, in their report on removing barriers to housing delivery, issue 3 background paper (June 2015) identified a number of contributing factors affecting housing delivery in particular locations across London including: • The cost of delivering new physical infrastructure necessary to support new development (e.g. tube, rail, road and utilities) and the associated phasing requirements for development; • Residential land values in comparison to industrial or office land values in certain areas of London; • Residential densities which can be achieved in certain locations due to low existing transport PTAL scores; • Viability constraints restricting residential densities in particular opportunity areas in London due to the combination of low residential values and relatively low PTALs (e.g. London Riverside, Barking and Dagenham); and • Constraints inhibiting the potential to optimise densities in particular town centres due to heritage designations and the surrounding suburban residential densities.

Of relevance to the MTS, two key issues associated with delivering housing include: • The requirement for significant upfront investment in infrastructure, including transport, to unlock large sites for development; and

123

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• The requirements for housing to be close to public transport networks – the density of development is constrained through planning guidance, which sets guideline densities for different neighbourhood types (central, urban and suburban).

Transport plays a fundamental role in unlocking land for development of homes. Transport capacity and connections across the city are an important pre-requisite for bringing forward additional housing sites and increasing housing output. People want to live close to stations with excellent transport services and thus connection to employment, services and facilities.

New transport connections can change market expectations, unlocking investments to make denser and better quality housing viable. This will also help to deliver housing that is more affordable for Londoners, with areas opened up where average land values will remain low enough to enable family and affordable housing to be delivered and where average prices are below the London average.

Many of these areas with the greatest capacity for development and that are relatively close to central London have poor transport connectivity and this has directly limited private sector investment in housing. This includes many of London’s Opportunity Areas as depicted in Figure 5.10 such as the Upper Lea Valley and the six that lie within the Thames Gateway (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016).

Further, the London Housing Commission report, Building a new deal for London (March 2016) suggests that densification of low-density areas could unlock significant additional housing development across the capital e.g. in low density town centres where there are good transport links.

The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report for 2014-15 highlights that there are a number of factors businesses consider as problematic in the UK for doing business – with housing and access to skilled workers amongst the top six factors.

There has been some deterioration in London’s international rankings, notably around cost of staff and quality of life. Housing shortage and the associated worsening of housing affordability could constrain employment growth: • Addressing the housing supply and affordability issues that lie behind these factors is fundamental to London’s future growth and competitiveness, and is a key part of the Government’s Productivity Plan launched in July 2015. • London’s rapid population growth is driving the need for an additional 1.5m homes and a 50 per cent increase in public transport capacity over and above what is already planned. • Demand for new housing is outstripping supply by a factor of three to one. Over the decade when London’s population grew by more than a million, its housing stock grew by less than 300,000. As a result, house prices have spiralled, with the average house in London now costing over 13 times the average wage, and properties in some prime west London areas costing more than 30 times the average wage. This is pricing many people on modest incomes out of large parts of the city and leading to longer, less sustainable commuting patterns.

Providing sufficient housing to meet demand is essential to London’s ability to attract and retain talented workers and in turn maintain the city’s competitiveness. It is also critical to provide affordable housing in order to retain lower paid workers who are essential to the city’s functioning.

124

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: GLA, 2015a) Figure 5.10: London’s Opportunity Areas

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues The requirement for significant upfront investment in infrastructure, including transport, to unlock large sites for development

The requirements for housing to be close to public transport networks – the density of development is constrained through planning guidance

Not sufficient supply of affordable housing to maintain London’s competitiveness

125

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Opportunities Considering future land use planning for housing and employment growth together with transport improvements is vital; the MTS therefore has an important role in enabling housing development through increasing connectivity and enabling increased density on potential development sites.

Implications of the Transport has an important role in increasing housing provision and unlocking Policy Review development. Considering future land use planning for housing and employment growth together with transport improvements is vital; the MTS therefore has an important role in enabling housing development through increasing connectivity and enabling increased density on potential development sites.

Suggested IIA To provide a quantum, type, quality and tenure of housing (including Objectives specialist and affordable provision) to better meet demographic change and household demand

Connectivity

One’s ability to reach employment, education, shops, recreation, friends, family and health and social services measured by whether the infrastructure is in place and whether it is able to accommodate demand

Connectivity for the MTS relates to ease of reaching employment, education, shops, recreation, friends, family and health and social services by different modes of transport i.e. public transport, private transport, cycling and walking. Good connectivity can help to improve mental wellbeing and personal resilience as well as reduce stress and social isolation.

To measure connectivity, this report looks at the existing transport network (broken down into public transport, private transport and cycling and walking) and whether it is sufficient in terms of connecting people and places across London, within London and to and from London.

Connectivity can be impacted by busy wide roads, railways and rivers which can sever destinations which are geographically close but as a result of the road (the infrastructure itself or the volume and/or speed of traffic it carries), railway or river, cannot be easily reached.

Public transport

Connectivity to the public transport network in London is measured by using TfL’s Public Transport Access Level (PTAL). The PTAL value combines information about how close public transport services are to a site and how frequent these services are. The highest level of connectivity has a PTAL score of 6b and the lowest has a PTAL score of 0. As shown in Figure 5.12, generally the CAZ and metropolitan centres including Uxbridge, Harrow, Wood Green, Stratford, Ilford, Romford, Bromley, Croydon, Sutton, Kingston, Hounslow, Ealing and Shepard’s Bush are more connected to the public transport system than other parts of London. It also shows that east London is less connected than west London.

126

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: TfL, 2015a) Figure 5.12: Public transport connectivity within Greater London, 2015 Poor connectivity in east London is largely due to the River Thames which acts as a barrier due to limited river crossings when compared with river crossings in west and central London. There are 20 crossings in west London, 19 in central London and 12 crossings east of Tower Bridge of which only three are highway crossings. The cross-river bus network in east London is poor with only one bus route east of Tower Bridge, compared with 47 bus routes that cross the river west of Vauxhall (TfL, 2015b). This is likely to impact the most deprived Londoners living in east London as they tend to use the bus more than other modes of public transport such as the Underground. Fewer connections across the river in east London results in impacts on the economy and means that residents living in east London have fewer employment options, facilities and services available to them. Levels of economic activity are lower and unemployment rates higher in east London compared with the rest of the city and the UK (TfL, 2015c). There is also issue on the lack of orbital connectivity from one outer London borough or ‘high street’ centre to another. Importantly, PTAL scores do not consider crowding and the ability to board services or the ease of interchange. These elements affect connectivity as they impact on the ‘ease’ of reaching employment, services and facilities by public transport. Overcrowding on public transport is a serious concern. Overcrowding occurs on platform stations and on buses, trains and the Tube. Overcrowding is not solely caused by a lack of physical infrastructure, but can also be triggered by disruptions to otherwise adequate services or by passenger behaviour. A standing density above two passengers per square metre in peak times is uncomfortable for passengers and is used as an acceptable threshold for planning purposes. Very high densities will cause passengers to be ‘left behind’ on the platform and degrade operational performance, further reducing effective passenger capacity (TfL, 2016b). Very high densities also increase the risks of transmission of communicable diseases by inhalation and contamination of handles.

127

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

GLA’s ‘The Big Squeeze, Rail overcrowding in London’ (February 2009) reported that overcrowding on trains was a problem in 2009 and that the most overcrowded trains were carrying around 40% more passengers than they should have been during the morning and evening peak periods. Since 2009, the growth in public transport trips has increased significantly, maintaining or heightening concern over overcrowding. As per TfL’s Travel in London, Report 8 (2015) between 2008/09 and 2014/15: • there was an aggregate 19.8% growth in Underground journey stages12 (equivalent to 3.1% year on average) and a net 25.5% growth in passenger kilometres; • bus passenger stages grew by 6.2% (equivalent to 1% per year) and bus passenger kilometres grew by 6%; • the DLR saw a net increase of 67.1% in journey stages and 86.8% in kilometres travelled; • the new London Overground (largely established over the period since 2008) has seen a 321.4% increase in journey stages (equivalent to 27.1% per year); • patronage on Tramlink increased by 13.7% in terms of journey stages (equivalent to 2.2% per year); • patronage of National Rail services serving London saw an increase of 35.2% journeys (equivalent to 5.2% per year).

Whilst the Tube upgrade programme and other developments and enhancements of networks have helped to respond to increased journey stages (in terms of providing more capacity), the forecast growth of London and subsequent growth in public transport trips means that overcrowding on public transport is a key issue for the MTS as shown in Appendix C. In 2041, total trips by public transport are predicted to increase from 9.5 million (in 2014) to 12.3 million (TfL, 2016b) and despite committed investment, demand growth will lead to crowding increased on public transport between 2014 and 2041.

Private transport

London has an extensive road network. Roads and streets in London account for 80% of public spaces in London, 80% of all journeys and 90% of all goods moved (TfL, 2015e).

Congestion on the road network makes for a more hostile road environment, reducing the ease of reaching employment, services and facilities by private transport. Congestion is caused by high usage of the road and also as a result of incidents which cause delay and have adverse impacts across the wider road network.

Figure 5.13 shows that road congestion has, on average, increased between September 2006 and March 2015, in particular at AM and PM peaks. It further shows that central London has seen the greatest increase in road congestion, followed by inner London and outer London.

12 Journey stages are component parts of trips. A trip is defined as one-way movement from an origin to a destination to achieve a specific purpose. 128

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: TfL, 2015a) Figure 5.13 : Average vehicle delay (minutes per kilometre) by functional sector of London. Working weekdays, by time period. TfL’s network of interest

However, not all journeys on the road are made by private transport. Buses, taxis and freight also use the road network and more than half of road congestion in central London is caused by these vehicles rather than private transport. Therefore, in order to identify which parts of London are mostly affected by road congestion (and therefore least connected by private transport), it is important to understand mode share across London and how many trips are made by car. The largest portion of trips made by car occurs in outer London including those travelling from outer London to outside of the GLA boundary and those travelling from outside the GLA boundary into outer London (Figure 5.14).

Additionally, east London suffers from road congestion as a result of limited river crossings between Tower Bridge and Dartford Crossing. These include the Rotherhithe and Blackwall Tunnels which both have restrictions on use by large vehicles and are over capacity, particularly in peak directions at peak periods. Incidents at these crossings cause unreliable journey times across the Thames, congestion on approach roads to the tunnel, lack of road network reliance and considerable cost to the economy arising from drivers caught in congestion.

Poor cross-London connectivity in east London place limitations on businesses’ access to markets, as well as residents’ connectivity to employment and other opportunities

129

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Figure 5.14: Mode share across London (2016)

Cycling

Cycling is a major mode of transport in London with 645,000 journeys made each day by bike in 2014 equating to 10% of bus passenger journeys, one fifth of Tube passenger journeys or 100% of all journeys on the District Line (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016). Cycling growth across London in 2014 was 10.3%. Between 2008 and 2014 cycling on TfL controlled main roads rose by 63% and cycling on all roads rose by 31.9% (GLA, 2016i).

The key reason why people do not feel they can cycle relates to ‘safety’ and ‘perception of safety’ being the number one deterrent for 75% of those thinking about taking up cycling. Research found that many potential cyclists are not comfortable cycling in traffic and require high quality, segregated routes to begin cycling. Lack of high quality infrastructure is also a barrier with about half of cyclists rating the security of their bike when left unattended as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.

In some areas, London’s cycling infrastructure has improved significantly over the past 8 years and has helped to improve connectivity between land uses by cycling. London’s cycling infrastructure includes the London Cycle Network (LCN) implemented by boroughs and the London Quietway network and Cycle Superhighways network implemented by TfL.

Two Quietway routes are expected to be completed in late 2016/2017. The first runs from Waterloo to Greenwich and opened in June 2016. The second will run from Bloomsbury to Walthamstow. Quietways are designed to appeal to non-cyclists as well as existing cyclists, providing quieter routes away from main roads. They also include orbital routes between outer London town centres, to target trips currently made by car (GLA, 2016i).

130

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Figure 5.15 shows the total flow of cyclists per hour in AM peak hour in 2014. This figure shows that while there have been significant improvements in cycling infrastructure across London, there are still parts of London with poor connectivity by cycling, including east, south east and north west.

(Source: TfL, 2016)

Figure 5.15: Total flow of cyclists per hour, AM peak hour, 2014

In addition, TfL are working on the East-West Cycle Superhighway and the North-South Cycle Superhighway (see Appendix D). The East-West Superhighway will be Europe’s longest substantially segregated urban cycle route (GLA, 2016i). Phase 1 of the East-West and North-South superhighways opened in May 2016. Six completed cycle superhighways can be found in Appendix E.

There are six completed cycle superhighways including: • Cycle Superhighway 1: White Hart Lane, Tottenham to Liverpool Street Station; • Cycle Superhighway 2: Stratford to Aldgate; • Cycle Superhighway 3: Barking to Tower Gateway; • Cycle Superhighway 5: Oval to Pimlico; • Cycle Superhighway 7: Merton to the City; • Cycle Superhighway 8: Wandsworth to Westminster.

The first section of a central London segregated Superhighway to be opened was in November 2014 at Vauxhall Bridge on Cycle Superhighways 5.. Since its opening, the number of cyclists using the bridge increased by 73%. More than 80% of the cyclists crossing the bridge are using the segregated track.

131

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Walking

Walking is a universal mode of travel for those who are able. It accounts for 30% of all trips made by Londoners and two thirds of trips under a mile. Walking is the most common mode used to travel for shopping and to travel to school/college. People walk as part of trips made by other modes and in particular to access public transport. There are more than four times as many walk stages as walk trips made every day – 29 million walk stages including 7 million longer than five minutes (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016).

By 2041 there will be 8 million ‘walk all the way’ trips and 38 million walk stages (walking as part of a trip by another mode) daily in London (TfL, 2016b). This will place increasing pressure on streets and public spaces and increased pedestrians will strain footpath capacity, therefore impacting connectivity by walking.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Poor connectivity by all modes of public transport in outer London

Poor cross-London and orbital connectivity by public transport modes, especially the bus in east London

Reduced public transport connectivity across London as a result of congestion and overcrowding on services

Poor connectivity by public transport that leads to high private car use leading to congestion

Poor cross-London connectivity by road transport, particularly in east London

Low connectivity by cycling in outer London, particularly east, south east and north west

Reduced connectivity across London by walking as a result of congestion and overcrowding on pavements and footpaths

Opportunities Improve connectivity by all modes of public transport across London

MTS has the potential to make a large beneficial contribution to reducing congestion through improvements to public transport, cycle and walking routes.

Promoting rail and water transportation for freight.

Implications of Growth in London’s opportunity areas is dependent on the provision of high quality the Policy public transport connectivity. Review

Suggested IIA To enhance and improve connectivity for all to and from and within and around Objective London and increase the proportion of journeys made by sustainable and active transport modes

132

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Education and skills

“TfL must ensure it has a workforce with the right skills to help it achieve its objectives. Equally, it is essential that the companies supplying services and goods to TfL also have the appropriate skills” (TfL, 2011).

London’s 24,000 bus drivers receive extensive training above and beyond that normally given to bus drivers throughout the UK, in the form of a bespoke BTEC vocational award. This includes customer service and disability awareness training.

The provision of transport related education and skills for TfL are not anticipated to be set out in the MTS and therefore are dealt with through TfL Skills and Employment Strategy. Education and skills is not an issue directly influenced through MTS. Instead, provision of education and skills can be facilitated in the MTS through inclusion of strategic priority to increase connectivity (see Chapter on connectivity). Access to education impacts both on the economy and on individuals’ health, and has a major impact on inequalities. Also, the DH Social Exclusion Unit report showed that lack of transport options was a major contributor to lack of education and employment opportunities. Therefore, it is important to reflect in the MTS that access to education and skills is very much dependent on the adequate provision of sustainable public transport and transport connectivity. For the purpose of this report Education and Skills theme was scoped out of the IIA framework.

133

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Transport system’s role in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by delivering good public transport experience; safe and pleasant places; and creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being for all Londoners

Accessibility Ability of all people to access the transport system and its infrastructure, including those with physical, sensory or cognitive impairments

The GLA Act requires (section 142(2)) that the Mayor’s Transport Strategy contains proposals for the provision of transport that is accessible to persons with mobility problems and must contain a timetable for their implementation. However, for the purposes of IIA, accessibility for the MTS describes the ability of all people to access the transport system and its infrastructure, including those with physical, sensory or cognitive impairments.

Public transport modes impose physical access restrictions for some Londoners such that can’t be overcome by the individual (e.g. by means of paying, or overcoming a lack of comprehension or fears around safety etc.). Other barriers to accessing the public transport system, such as social and/or emotional barriers (e.g. affordability of certain modes and fear of safety) are discussed in Section – Inclusion.

TfL’s ‘Your accessible transport network’ (2012 and May 2015 update) identifies barriers to people being physically able to access public transport, these include: • Inability to get to the train platform i.e. no step-free access; • Inability to get onto the train carriage or bus e.g. large gap between platform and carriage, uneven access or no ramp; • No designated wheelchair space; • No audio and/or visual announcements;

Physical access to transport including stations, buses and train carriages can be impaired by steps. Out of 270 currently functioning stations across the Underground and Overground network, 67 Tube stations and 56 London Overground stations have step-free access. All DLR stations are step-free. This therefore reduces the level of accessibility to public transport for disabled people, those carrying heavy luggage, people accompanied by a child under 5 (and therefore probably using a buggy or pram) and those aged over 74 (TfL, 2012a) or with existing cardio-respiratory disease that limits exertion, without being sufficient to be considered ‘disabled’.

The number of step-free stations is expected to increase with plans to make more stations step-free over the next ten years: New stations built as part of the Metropolitan line extension, Northern line extension and the Elizabeth line (currently being built by Crossrail Ltd) will also have step-free access.

Further, some bus stops in London are not accessible. A fully accessible bus stop is where the kerb is high enough for a wheelchair ramp to deploy and where the step into the bus is at a reasonable height for the older or disabled people to board. It also means there is a protected ‘clearway’ so only buses can use the stop and it is free from any street furniture or clutter blocking access to the doors. In March 2015 more than 80% of stops met these standards, up from less than 30% in 2008 (TfL, 2015f).

Those bus stops which are not accessible are difficult to change. This can be due to a number of reasons, for example where the stop is located on common land and not on a pavement or where the stop is on a triple kerb, meaning significant road and pavement work would be required to make the stop accessible.

134

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

TfL acknowledge that more work is needed to make London’s transport network more accessible and they are investing money to make improvements. During this time, there are other services available to help alleviate physical accessibility related impacts including Dial-a-Ride which is a free door-to-door service for disabled and older passengers. Furthermore, all black cabs and some private hire vehicles are wheelchair accessible.

Passengers with sensory or cognitive impairments (‘hidden’ or ‘non-physical’ disabilities) also face a range of obstacles to the use of the public transport network. These could include a lack of confidence and/or understanding. As such these cannot effectively be addressed through physical interventions, but rather require alternative forms of communication (including travel information on how to undertake a fully accessible journey), supported by enhanced training for customer service staff, to make the network more legible and easier to use.

One of the consequences of a network which is not fully accessible is the differential in journey times between passengers with and without mobility or cognitive impairments.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Not all public transport stations or stops are accessible, impairing access by those who are mobility impaired or travelling with heavy luggage or a buggy

Many people with sensory or cognitive impairments experience non-physical barriers to use of the transport network

Improving transport accessibility levels for those living in outer London

Opportunities Improving accessibility for all passengers

Improving transport accessibility levels for those living in outer London Implications of the Policy Review

Suggested IIA To maximise accessibility for all in and around London Objectives

135

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Equality and Inclusion

One’s ability to feel able to / want to participate in societal activities

“Inclusion” for the revised MTS refers to one’s ability to feel able to / want to use the transport network including public transport, private transport and active modes of travel such as cycling and walking. It looks at those social and emotional barriers that prevent people from feeling able to travel e.g. due to certain disadvantages such as those on low incomes or those with learning difficulties and others who feel less safe within the community.

A sense of inclusion amongst certain groups will change over time having regard to changes in the population. London is hugely diverse, and this diversity is expected to increase with the growing population to comprise a greater mix of people of all races and ages (TfL, 2015d).

In particular, the proportion of BAME Londoners in Greater London is projected to increase to 50% by 2038 and is projected to increase from 3.3 million in 2011 to 5.2 million in 2041 (GLA, 2014 in TfL, 2015d).

The percentage of the population aged 65 and over is also expected to grow, particularly from 2020 onwards. The number of London residents aged 65 and over is expected to be 68% higher in 2041 than in 2014 (increase from 11% to 16%). Further, the portion of younger Londoners (under 25) is predicted to increase at a slower rate than the rest of the population with a 13% increase between 2011 and 2041 (GLA, 2014 in TfL, 2015d).

Public transport

People often feel excluded from using public transport where they cannot afford it or they are concerned about safety due to anti-social behaviour (ASB). Additional reasons why people may feel excluded from using public transport include their ability to understand the transport system and their ability to ‘turn-up-and- go’ (TfL, 2015f), especially pertinent to people with cognitive impairment, (whether lifelong or associated with dementia), lack of literacy or mental illness.

Seven groups of people who typically face increased barriers to public transport use include (TfL, 2014d): • Black, Asian and minority ethnic people (BAME) (40% of Londoners); • Women (51% of Londoners); • Older people (aged 65 or over) (11% of Londoners); • Younger people (under the age of 25) (32% of Londoners); • Disabled people (14% of Londoners); • People living in a lower income household (income of less than £20,000 per year) (37% of Londoners); • Lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGBT) (2.5% of Londoners).

BAME Londoners (65%), 16-24 year-olds (62%) and women (59%) are most likely to mention overcrowding as a barrier to using public transport (TfL, 2015d).

136

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Cost of tickets is more commonly mentioned as a barrier to using public transport by BAME Londoners (62%), people in lower income households and younger Londoners aged between 16 and 24 (59%) (TfL, 2015d). The SEU report mentioned cost of transport as a barrier that reduces employment and education opportunities.

As per research summarised in TfL’s Understanding the travel needs of London’s diverse communities (September 2015), concerns about ASB and crime are particularly mentioned as barriers to public transport use by Londoners living in DE households (44%), BAME Londoners (42%), disabled Londoners (42%) and women (40%).

As London’s population diversifies, the need for London’s public transport system to overcome barriers to its use will become increasingly important. This is particularly applicable for older people living in outer London who predominantly rely on the bus as their public transport mode (61% of older Londoners use the bus at least once a week). As shown in Figure 5.16, the spatial distribution of people aged 75 and over is predicted to be higher in outer London and this may result in greater demand for accessible transport in outer London, including greater connectivity by bus (which is currently poor as discussed in Section – Connectivity).

(Source: TfL, 2015d)

Figure 5.16: Predicted geographic distribution of people aged over 75 in 2031

Private transport

Private transport offers the freedom to travel to almost any destination, at whatever time, with passengers and luggage and minimal need to plan ahead. It makes it easier to keep in touch with friends and family and to reach a wider range of job opportunities (Sustainable Development Commission, 2011).

There are 2.6 million cars registered in London and more than half of London households have at least one car (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5, 2016). London households are more likely to own a car if they: • Live in outer London; 137

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• Live in an area with poor connectivity to public transport; • Have a higher income; • Have children; • Are of western European nationality.

The following groups are less likely to have household access to a car: • Disabled Londoners, compared with non-disabled Londoners; • Women, compared with men; • Londoners aged 16-24, compared with all Londoners; • BAME Londoners, compared to white; • Londoners on lower household incomes, compared with all Londoners.

Key barriers to car ownership are likely to relate to high costs associated with motoring and maintenance as well as costs to drive into central London.

64% of all Londoners aged 17 or over have a drivers licence. Of these, the following groups are less likely to hold any type of driving licence: • Disabled Londoners, compared to non-disabled Londoners; • Women, compared with men; • BAME Londoners, compared with white Londoners.

Cycling and walking

In 2014 only 2% of daily journey stages in London were by cycling. 21% of daily journey stages were by walking (TfL, 2015a).

According to TfL’s Travel in London report, Understanding our diverse communities (September 2015) most Londoners, regardless of whether they cycle currently, know how to ride a bike.

Cycling levels of BAME Londoners and white Londoners are very similar. 18% of BAME Londoners cycle in London at least sometimes compared with17% of white Londoners (TfL, 2015d).

The key reason why people do not feel they can cycle relates to ‘safety’ and ‘perception of safety’ is the number one deterrent for 75% of those thinking about taking up cycling. Research found that many potential cyclists are not comfortable cycling in traffic and require high quality, segregated routes to begin cycling. Lack of high quality infrastructure is also a barrier with about half of cyclists rating the security of their bike when left unattended as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ (MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5).

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Some Londoners continue to face real or perceived barriers to using public transport

Providing a public transport system that responds to an aging population

Perception of poor road safety is a key deterrent to more people taking up cycling and for people walking

138

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Opportunities Make transport network more inclusive for all Londoners

Implications of the Importance of reducing inequalities for those groups who experience more barriers to Policy Review using public transport than others and encouraging all groups to travel actively.

Suggested IIA To make London a fair and inclusive city where every person is able to Objective participate, reducing inequality and disadvantage and addressing the diverse needs of the population

To ensure London has socially integrated communities which are strong, resilient and free of prejudice

139

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Physical activity

Any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that requires energy expenditure (WHO, 2016b)

The quality of health is inextricably linked to the form of transport services provided and the incentives and choices offered for how to travel around London. As discussed in Section – Connectivity, transport enables people to reach jobs, education, shops, recreation, health and social services as well as travel to see friends and family. All of these are essential for a healthy, fulfilling life. However, the biggest potential role that transport can play in the health of Londoner is that it often provides the main way people stay active. If people are not traveling actively as part of their daily routine, they are less likely to be getting the exercise they need (TfL, 2014a).

Physical activity is vital to help prevent a wide range of illness including heart disease, stroke, depression, type 2 diabetes, some cancers, osteoporosis, and depression (TfL, 2014a). Physical inactivity has been identified as the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality causing an estimated 3.2 million deaths globally (WHO, 2016b). Many Londoners suffer health problems from lack of physical activity (TfL, 2015d). Certain groups, such as those who own a car and older people, are less likely to walk or cycle making them less likely to be getting the activity they need.

The benefits from active travel generally outweigh health risks from air pollution and therefore should be further encouraged. When weighing long-term health benefits from physical activity against possible risks from increased exposure to air pollution, a recent research shows that promoting cycling and walking is justified in the vast majority of settings, and only in a small number of cities with the highest PM2.5 concentration in the world cycling could lead to increase in risk (Tainio et al., 2016).

Obesity is highest among those in ‘routine and manual occupations’ often living in those parts of London with the poorest health and highest deprivation indicators. Childhood obesity is a particular cause for concern and represents a future burden of chronic ill-health and premature deaths (GLA, 2010). In the period 2013-14 obesity in children in London was over 18% higher than across the rest of England (TfL, 2015d).

The recommended level of activity recommended for avoiding health risks associated with lack of physical activity is 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity each week in periods of ten minutes or more13. Moderate-intensity aerobic activity includes brisk walking and cycling (TfL, 2015a). In 2015 57.8% of adults were achieving the recommended 150 of physical activity a week.

Figure 5.17 identifies the percentage of adults who achieve two ten-minute periods of walking or cycling per day. On average across all age groups, only 34% of adults in London achieve two ten-minute periods of active travel per day.

13 The physical activity recommendations can also be met by undertaking 75 minutes per week of vigorous intensity physical activity, or by a pro rata combination of moderate and vigorous intensity activities. 140

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: TfL, 2015 a) Figure 5.17: Percentage of adults who achieve two ten-minute periods of walking or cycling each day, 2014/15

TfL has identified ten indicators which make streets more inviting for walking and cycling. These indicators are depicted in Figure 5.18.

(Source: Jacobs, adapted from TfL, 2014a) Figure 5.18: Indicators of a healthy street environment

141

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Londoners are not doing enough physical activity each day, impacting their overall health

Opportunities Reduce physical inactivity by promoting active travel, making streets safer and making cycling an attractive option for everyone

Implications of the Need to improve the overall health of London’s population and make London a Policy Review socially integrated city of strong and resilient communities by encouraging modal shift for car owners and for older people, as well as reducing physical inactivity.

Suggested IIA To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to Objective reduce health inequalities across the City and between communities.

Crime, Safety and Security

Actual crime and antisocial behaviour, fear of crime and confidence to travel and threats to security / major incidents

The current MTS established the requirement for the development of a transport community safety strategy in London. TfL subsequently produced The Right Direction Strategy to fulfil this requirement, on behalf of the Mayor and the London Transport Community Safety Partnership (LTCSP).The LTCSP is an alliance of organisations which share a responsibility for and commitment to working together to make journeys within the Capital increasingly safe, secure and reliable14.

The LTCSP focuses on the transport policing priorities that matter to London and that benefit from a consistent, co-ordinated approach across different transport operators and policing agencies, such as tackling unwanted sexual behaviour on public transport, reducing theft and tackling hate crime. The LTCSP has been central to the significant improvements made over the last ten years.

The MTS set expected outcomes for the safety and security goal by 2031:

Crime rates on the LU/DLR network were expected to reduce by 15% to 11.1 crimes per million passenger journeys (cpmpj). In 2015/16, there were 7.3 cpmpj.

Crime rates on London buses were expected to reduce by 25% to 9 cpmpj. In 2015/16, there were 7.5 cpmpj.

Reduce the proportion of Londoners who have significant concerns about crime and ASB on public transport (during the day or night) such that it deters them from using it to 20 per cent. In 2015, 22% were deterred from using public transport in London.

14 Association of Train Operating Companies; British Transport Police; City of London Police; GLA; London Criminal Justice Partnership; London Councils; London TravelWatch; Metropolitan Police Service; Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime; Network Rail; Transport for London 142

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

The MTS crime targets were achieved 17 years ahead of the initial target. The transport system in London is a safe, low crime environment. Significant reductions have been seen in both the rate and volume of crime – levels are less than half of what they were in 2005/06 when crime on TfL’s public transport system peaked. The volume of crime on London Underground (LU) / Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and the bus network has fallen by 52 per cent between 2005/6 and 2015/16, a reduction of around 30,000 offences. Despite the significant improvements made over the last ten years, there is more to be done (TfL, 2015f).

While levels of transport crime remain low, levels of recorded crime in 2015/16 increased by 6.6 per cent compared with 2014/15 which saw the lowest level of crime on record and nine consecutive years of crime reduction. The increases were anticipated and were largely driven by changes in the reporting and recording of certain offences – namely violence against the person (VAP) and sexual offences - reflecting wider increases seen across London and the UK generally, as well as the proactive efforts of TfL and the police to improve confidence in reporting of sexual offences. These crime types remain a key area of focus for TfL and its police partners (TfL, 2015f).

Crime is not evenly distributed across the network, in time and place, and it does not affect all passengers equally. Whilst the overall risk of being a victim is low, the risk can increase significantly depending on when and where passengers are travelling.

Sexual offences

Reports of violence and sexual offences have risen in recent years. On London’s buses between 2012-13 and 2014-15 sexual offences increased by 42% (483 to 684) and violence against the person offences increased by 16% or (4,994 to 5,801) (GLA, 2016c). On London’s trains (including the Underground and DLR) between 2012-13 and 2014-15 violence against the person offences increased from 2,173 offences to 2,556 offences (GLA, 2016c). The increase in the number of recorded sexual offences seen on the transport system was anticipated and is considered a positive result of Project Guardian, an initiative to reduce unwanted sexual behaviour on London’s public transport which has historically been underreported. Project Guardian which includes the ‘Report it to Stop it’ communications campaign which was launched last year, aims to increase confidence in reporting sexual offences on the Capital’s public transport, reduce the risk of becoming a victim, challenge unwanted sexual behaviour and target offenders. This important work continues.

VAP

The increase in VAP offences on the transport network reflects a wider increase in VAP being seen across London and other UK forces. The increase, particularly in low level VAP, has is in large part been driven by a change in the way VAP offences are recorded by the police due to changes in recording practices. Offences are more likely to occur during peak commuter times. Serious violence remains very rare on the network.

Theft

Theft remains the highest volume crime on public transport, with around 40 per cent of all offences.

As shown in Figure 5.19, rates of recorded crime on public transport have fallen over time with levels in 2013/14 at more than half (65.3% drop) what they were in 2005/06 when they peaked. On the Underground and DLR network the rate of crime has more than halved since 2005/06 with a fall from 17.4 to eight crimes per million passenger journeys (GLA, 2016c).

143

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: TfL, 2015a) Figure 5.19: Reported crime on TfL’s public transport networks, 2004/05-2014/15. Rate per million passenger journeys Efforts to improve the safety and security of travelling or working on TfL’s public transport networks have not been limited to reducing actual levels of crime. Reducing the fear of crime and improving confidence to travel has also been identified as a priority in The Right Direction strategy, and is essential in delivering modal shift.

Since the publication of the MTS, Independent research commissioned by TfL was enhanced was enhanced in line with the latest research on measuring fear of crime and to help distinguish between more generalised anxiety while travelling and specific episodes of concern and worry (GLA, 2016c). The research shows that the majority of Londoners feel safe whilst using public transport and round three-quarters of Londoners do not recall being worried while travelling on public transport. The 2015 annual report showed that 11 per cent of Londoners were very or quite worried about their personal security when using public transport in London in 2015 and 16 per cent recalled an incident in the last three months which made them feel worried about their personal safety. Despite this, the research shows that fear of crime and ASB is highly sensitive to location, time of day as well as an individual’s age, gender and ethnicity and can affect people’s willingness to travel and can affect their choice of transport mode. Women, BAME and disabled Londoners are significantly more likely to be generally worried (very or quite) and have experienced a specific incident of worry in the last three months. The most prevalent causes of worry are the threatening behaviour of other passengers, drunken passengers and busy environments/ large crowds (TfL, May 2015).

The latest survey findings show a significant increase in fear of a terrorist attack which has been rising year on year (1 per cent in 2014, 4 per cent in 2015 and 9 per cent in January/ April 2016). These results are unsurprising against the backdrop of the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and March 2016 attacks in Brussels and increased media coverage of the War on Terror. Londoners are significantly more likely to worry about the threat of terror attack on the Tube. The proportion of Londoners agreeing that fear of a terrorist attack acts as a deterrent to them using public transport more often has risen significantly to 18 per cent in January/ April 2016 from 12 per cent in 2013-2015 (TfL, May 2015).The current threat level for international terrorism in the UK is SEVERE which means an attack is highly likely. Crowded places such as transport hubs are seen as potential targets for terrorists. The MPS launched Operation Hercules in August 2016 to provide a more visible presence on London’s streets. There is an increase in the number of armed officers deployed at major stations and landmarks across the capital, working alongside the dedicated transport policing commands to help prevent or respond to any incidents.

144

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015. CONTEST is a national strategy and based around four main areas of work: Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare. There is also a new counter-extremism strategy which sits alongside the government's wider counter-terrorism activity. Collectively, these strategies set out how the government, with the boroughs and other statutory partners in London, work together to reduce the threat from terrorist or extremist activity.

London’s transport system faces some significant challenges going forward – global insecurity and the increased threat of terrorist attacks on the transport system, changing nature of crime and impacts of technology, effect of overcrowding and congested networks on passenger and road user behaviour, financial constraint and the increasing and competing demands for policing and enforcement resources.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Rising number of violent assaults and sexual offences on the public transport network

Anti-social behaviour on the transport network

Safety concerns are a barrier to active travel and contribute to inactivity which, in turn, has impacts on health and wellbeing

Opportunities Potential to improve transport related crime and anti-social behaviour through improved safety and security measures

Implications of the Mayor's Safer Streets for London Plan (2013) sets out challenging targets to Policy Review reduce the number of KSIs by 40 per cent by 2020

Suggested IIA To contribute to safety and security and the perceptions of safety Objectives

145

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Transport system’s role in supporting natural environment by contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.

Air quality

The condition of the air with respect to the presence (or absence) of pollutants in the air e.g. NOx, and PM

Air quality is defined as the condition of the air with respect to the presence (or absence) of pollutants in the air. Emissions from motor vehicle exhausts contain a number of air pollutants including nitrogen oxides15 (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). PM is the term used to describe condensed phase (solid or liquid) particles suspended in the atmosphere. Their potential for causing health problems is directly linked to the size of the particles. A growing body of research has pointed towards the smaller particles, in particular PM less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5), as a metric more closely associated with adverse health effects than other metrics such as PM10 (particles with a diameter less than 10 µm) (DEFRA, 2012). Exposure to small particulate can contribute to poor health including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancers and contributes to premature deaths worldwide. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions from transportation sources can reduce lung function, affect the respiratory immune defence system and increase the risk of respiratory problems (Rodrigue, 2016, Online).

Concentrations of air pollutants in London are influenced by local emissions and by London-wide and regional (including trans-boundary) sources. Emissions from transport are important on all of these spatial scales; emissions from non-transport sources also contribute to ambient concentrations. Emissions from road transport are influenced by trends in traffic activity levels and vehicle technology. Meteorology and street topography determine how the air pollutant emissions are dispersed and transported.

The 2013 London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) (2013) 16 provides projections of emissions of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 from transport and other non-road transport sources to 2020, 2025 and 2030. The LAEI 2013 projections incorporate assumptions around anticipated fleet composition resulting from the Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) As shown in Figure 5.20, emissions of NOx between 2013 and 2030 are projected to decrease by 60% in central London, 50% in inner London and 47% in outer London. Emissions of PM10 are projected to decrease by 20% in central London, 14% in inner London and 11% in outer London. Emissions of PM2.5 are projected to decrease by 39% in central London, 27% in inner London and 25% in outer London between 2013 and 2030.

(Source: GLA, 2016b)

15 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) constitute a group of different chemicals that are all formed by the reaction of nitrogen with oxygen. NOx comprises colourless nitric oxide (NO) and the reddish-brown, very toxic and reactive nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (European Environment Agency, 2016) 16 The LAEI 2013 is the latest version of the London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory and replaces the previous versions. Estimates of key pollutants are included for the base year 2013 and projected forward to 2020, 2025 and 2030. Emissions for previous years 2008 and 2010 are also provided, to allow comparison with previous versions of the LAEI. 146

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Figure 9.20: Annual emissions of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 by central, inner and outer London in 2013 and projected annual emissions for 2020, 2025 and 2030 from the LAEI 2013.

The LAEI (2013) estimates emissions of the key pollutants NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. It identified that in 2013 road transport is responsible for approximately:

• 51% NOx, 53% PM10 and 62% PM2.5 emissions in central London

• 53% NOx, 50% PM10 and 54% PM2.5 emissions in inner London

• 49% NOx, 50% PM10 and 54% PM2.5 emissions in outer London

The LAEI (2013) provides an estimate of the breakdown of emissions by vehicle type and other sources in 2013, 2020 2025 and 2030. The proportion of NOx emissions from road transport is forecast to decrease from 50% to 20% between 2013 and 2030 (across the GLA), while the proportion of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from road transport remain approximately constant at 50% and 54% respectively.

Figures 5.21, 5.22 and 5.23 present the proportion of road transport emission by vehicle type for the pollutants NOx, PM10 and PM2.5, respectively. Diesel cars make the greatest contribution to NOx emissions, with petrol cars and TfL buses and diesel LGVs also making a significant contribution. Petrol and diesel cars together make the greatest contribution to PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from road transport include contributions from exhaust emissions and contributions from brake and tyre wear for each vehicle type. Brake and tyre wear contributes approximately 50-70% PM10 and PM2.5 emissions attributed to diesel vehicles, approximately 90% for petrol vehicles and 100% of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions attributed to electric vehicles.

(Source: GLA, 2016b)

Figure 5.21: NOX emissions by vehicle type as a percentage of NOX emissions from road transport in 2013, 2020, 2025 and 2030 (GLA wide). The percentages above each bar indicate the percentage of total NOx emissions from road transport sources.

147

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: GLA, 2016b)

Figure 5.22: PM10 emissions by vehicle type as a percentage of PM10 emissions from road transport in 2013, 2020, 2025 and 2030 (GLA wide). The percentages above each bar indicate the percentage of total PM10 from road transport sources.

(Source: GLA, 2016b)

Figure 5.23: PM2.5 emissions by vehicle type as a percentage of PM2.5 emissions from road transport in 2013, 2020, 2025 and 2030 (GLA wide). The percentages above each bar indicate the total PM2.5 emissions from road transport sources.

148

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

The EU Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC) sets legally binding limit values for ambient concentrations of certain pollutants in the air. Compliance with these limit values is required as per the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.

The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 establish mandatory standards for air quality and set Air Quality Strategy Objectives for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), suspended particulate matter (PM) and lead in air. Some pollutants have objectives expressed as annual mean concentrations due to the chronic way in which they affect human health or the natural environment. Others have objectives expressed as a 24-hour or 1-hour mean concentration due to the acute way in which they affect human health or the natural environment. The objectives required to be met in London for NO2, PM10 and PM2.5 are shown in Table 5.2.

Table 5.1 : National air quality objectives

Pollutant Averaging Objective (limit value) Introduction of period limit value 3 st NO2 – for the protection of Annual Mean 40μg/m 1 January 2010 human health 1-hour mean 200µg/m3 (not to be exceeded more than 18 times a year) 3 st PM10 – for the protection Annual Mean 40µg/m 1 January 2005 of human health 24 Hour Mean 50μg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year 3 st PM2.5 – for the protection Annual Mean 25 µg/m 1 January 2015 of human health Annual Mean 20 µg/m3 1st January 2020 (Source: Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010)

Air quality in London has improved in recent years as a result of policies to reduce emissions, primarily from road transport. However, as per Figure 5.24, pollution concentrations in 2013 show exceedances of the annual average NO2 EU limit values (GLA, 2016h).

The Local Air Quality Network Summary Report 2014 (Environmental Research Group and King’s College London, 2016) details results of air pollution measurements made on the local air quality network (LAQN) during 2014 with specific reference to the UK Air Quality Strategy Objectives and EU limit values. In summary: • 39 out of 67 sites with a data capture of 90% or more did not achieve the annual

mean objective for NO2 and 8 sites measured recorded an annual mean of twice the legal limit or above • 14 out of 67 sites with a data capture of 90% or more exceeded the hourly mean objective

for NO2 • 1 out of 47 sites with a data capture of 90% or more did not meet the daily mean objective

for PM10. This site was Ealing Horn Lane TEOM and measured 55 days with a mean -3 concentration greater than 50µgm and presented in Figure 5.25.

• No sites with a data capture of 90% or more exceeded the annual mean objective for PM2.5 and presented in Figure 5.26.

149

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: LAEI, 2013) Figure 5.24: Map of roadside annual mean NO2 concentrations, 2013

(Source: LAEI, 2013)

150

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Figure 5.25: Map of roadside annual mean PM10 concentrations, 2013

(Source: LAEI, 2013)

Figure 5.26: Map of roadside annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, 2013

In addition to the UK Air Quality Strategy Objectives and EU limit values, WHO has set a guideline value for -3 PM2.5 of 10µgm although WHO does not set timeframes for when guidelines should be met. The 2014 Local Air Quality Network Summary Report reports that no sites achieved this WHO guidance value.

Figure 5.27 identifies the population exposed to levels of NO2 above the EU limit value. Although the number of people has declined over time, in 2020 500,000 people will still be exposed to levels of NO2 above the EU limit value. A more accurate estimate of the number of people projected to be exposed to level of NO2 above the EU limit value in 2020 and beyond will be able to be determined after the LAEI 2013 concentration data have been published. It is anticipated that these data will be available for the IIA.

There are inequalities in access to clean air in London. Exposure to air quality is unequal across the social spectrum, with the most deprived communities disproportionately exposed to the highest air pollution levels. Populations living in the most deprived areas are on average currently more exposed to poor air quality than those in less deprived areas. 51% of Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) within the most deprived 10% of London have concentrations above the NO2 EU limit value. This is in contrast to 1% above the NO2 EU limit value in the 10% least deprived areas (Aether, 2013).

Those in deprived areas are also much more likely to have pre-existing cardio-respiratory disease for other reasons. Thus they are both more exposed and also more susceptible to poor air quality effects. Therefore, reducing air pollution could reduce health inequalities. Figures from the British Lung Foundation suggest people who live in poorer London boroughs are up to twice as likely to die from lung diseases as people in wealthier areas.

151

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: Aether, 2013)

Figure 5.27: Estimate of population exposed to NO2 concentrations in exceedance of the EU Air Quality Objective, 2008- 2020

Newham, Brent, Redbridge, Hackney and Tower Hamlets are the boroughs that have the highest proportion of most deprived populations (30% most deprived) in London’s areas of worst air quality. Tower Hamlets, Camden, Southwark, Islington and City of Westminster are the boroughs that have the highest number of people living in London’s worst air quality areas. These boroughs in particular need targeted action to reduce inequalities in access to clean air.

The Air Quality Plan for NO2 in the UK (Defra, 2015) presents the government’s plan for reducing NO2 concentrations in UK towns and cities. The Air Quality Plan for the Greater London Urban Area (December 2015) states that the annual limit value of no more than 40 µgm-3 was exceeded in 2013 but as illustrated in Figure X is likely to be achieved before 2030 through the introduction of measures included in the baseline. When combined with the measures outlined in the overview document for the UK it is expected the Greater London Urban Area zone will be compliant by 2025. The plan further identifies that the hourly limit value of no more than 18 exceedances of 200 µgm-3 in a calendar year was exceeded in 2013 but is likely to be achieved before 2025 through the introduction of measures included in the baseline.

The baseline includes measures included in the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, committed measures to improve air quality (e.g. LEZ, congestion charge), measures implemented since 2008 (e.g. tighter LEZ standards, cleaner buses, investment in cycling) and measures confirmed or implemented since 2012 (e.g. ULEZ, encouraging smarter choices and sustainable travel and promoting technological change and cleaner vehicles). All measures are detailed in the Air Quality Plan.

152

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: Defra, 2015)

Figure 5.28: Background baseline projections of annual mean NO2 concentrations in 2020, 2025 and 2030

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues High levels of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from road transport

Little to no predicted reduction in proportion of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions from road transport between 2013 and 2030

Petrol and diesel cars together make the greatest contribution to NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions as a percentage of emissions from road transport

London is not compliant with legal limit values for NO2 and PM10

Large numbers of the population are exposed to levels of NO2 above the EU limit value

Exposure to poor air quality is unequal across London and some people and boroughs are more exposed to poor air quality than others

Opportunities Potential to help reduce air pollution through promotion of sustainable transport modes, park and ride sites, and deterrents to using the car

Implications of the Urgent need to meet mandatory standards for air quality and cut the annual number of premature deaths from air pollution-related diseases by almost 40 per 153

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Policy Review cent by 2020.

Suggested IIA To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants, Objectives particularly in areas of poorest air quality and reduce exposure

Natural Capital and Natural Environment

The variety of life on earth, including all living things and the places where they live

Biological diversity, or biodiversity, is the term given to the variety of life on Earth (TfL, 2010). It is the variety within and between all species of plants, animals and micro-organisms and the ecosystems within which they live and interact. It performs a number of important roles, from maintaining the function of the biosphere as a whole, to providing food and medicine ingredients and enhancing health and well-being.

Nature conservation is concerned with maintaining a viable population of the country’s fauna, flora and wildlife communities. Impacts on nature conservation are broadly split into two categories; habitats and species.

A number of classifications exist under which nature conservation sites are statutorily protected (refer Table 5.3). Some sites are not statutorily protected, but are still considered as sites of importance locally. Such sites are designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs), Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) or County Wildlife Sites (CWS).

Table 5.2: Nature Conservation Site Designations

Nature Conservation Site Details Designation Special Area of Conservation SACs are a legal designation for nature conservation at the (SAC) / Special Protection Area European level; sites are designated for a range of features, (SPA) including habitats or species. A SPA is an area of land, water or sea which has been identified as being of international importance for the breeding, feeding, wintering or the migration of rare and vulnerable species of birds found within the EU. Ramsar Ramsar sites are wetlands of international importance designated under the Ramsar Convention. Site of Special Scientific Interest SSSIs are a legal designation for nature conservation at the (SSSI) national level; sites are designated for a range of features, including habitats or species. National Nature Reserve (NNR) NNRs are designated by Natural England as key places for wildlife and natural features in England. NNRs were established to protect the most significant areas of habitat and of geological formations. Local Nature Reserve (LNR) LNRs are places with wildlife or geological features that are of special interest locally. Site of Importance for Nature SINCs are not necessarily legally protected sites, but still have the Conservation (SINC) potential to support a great diversity of plants and animals.

154

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2014)

Of the sites listed in Table 5.3, the HRA Stage 1 screening assessment will assess significant likely effects of the revised MTS on all European level sites including SAC/SPA and Ramsar sites. This assessment will be undertaken at the same time as the IIA and will use this baseline.

There are numerous statutorily designated nature conservation sites and priority habitats within the GLA administrative boundary. These are shown on Figure 5.29 and comprise: • Three SACS – these are Richmond Park in Richmond Upon Thames, Wimbledon Common in Merton and Epping Forest in the London borough of Waltham Forest; • Two SPAs – including the Lee Valley in Waltham Forest and South West London Waterbodies in Hounslow; • Two Ramsar Sites – including the Lee Valley in Waltham Forest and South West London Waterbodies in the London borough of Hounslow; • 38 SSSIs – six of which are in Hillingdon; five can be found in Bromley and three each in Havering, Croydon, Bexley and Waltham Forest. The area of land within SSSIs in London considered to be in favourable or recovering condition has increased from 73% in 2000 to 93% in 2012 (Mayor of London, 2015); • Three NNRs – these are Ashtead Common in Kingston-upon-Thames, Ruislip Woods in Hillingdon and Richmond Park in Richmond-upon-Thames; • 144 LNRs – present in all boroughs except for the City of London, Newham and Kensington and Chelsea; • Areas of Ancient and Semi-natural Woodland can be found in 17 London boroughs; • Areas of Ancient Replanted Woodland can be found in 10 London boroughs.

The HRA is required to consider SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites within a wider area of 15 km. These are shown on Figure 5.30. Twelve (sites were identified within a wider 15km area which are in addition to the five included within the GLA boundary (as identified above). Appendix B details the baseline situation for each of these 12 sites. The HRA Stage 1 screening assessment will provide further detail on these and will be published for consultation alongside the IIA.

In addition to nature conservation sites, London’s important wildlife sites are recognised by the GLA and London borough councils as SINCs (Mayor of London, 2015). In total, over 1,400 SINCs have been identified, covering nearly 20% of the capital (GLA, 2016a).

These SINCs have been divided into three categories: • Sites of Metropolitan Importance – includes the best sites in London. About 140 Metropolitan sites have been identified. They include nationally important wildlife sites such as Richmond Park, Epping Forest and Rainham Marshes, and places such as Sydenham Hill Woods, Eastbrookend Country Park and Hounslow Heath; • Sites of Borough Importance – there are almost 800 borough sites identified to date. They include woodlands, rivers, grasslands and parks where nature conservation is a primary objective of land management; • Sites of Local Importance – provide Londoners with access to nature in their local area. Includes parks and green spaces where there is some intrinsic nature conservation value. About 460 Local sites have been identified.

155

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Figure 5.29 : Statutorily designated sites within London

156

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Figure 5.30: The SACs, SPAs and Ramsar sites within a wider area of 15 km from GLA.

157

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

The need to maintain road and rail or to stabilize slope along transport facilities can result in restricting growth of certain plants or produce changes in plants with the introduction of new species different from those which originally grew in the areas. Many animal species are becoming endangered as a result of changes in their natural habitats and reduction of ranges (Rodrigue, 2016, Online).

Acidification, mainly caused by nitrogen oxides, can be traced to transport. It can lead to tangible changes in the conditions of life for plants, micro-flora and animals. It can affect soils and watercourses, and in some cases ground water sources.

Evidence on the status and trends of biodiversity in the UK suggests long-term declines, but there have been improvements recently for some species and habitats. Of the range of ecosystem services delivered in the UK by eight broad habitat types, about 30% have been assessed as declining since 1990 (UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011). Reductions in ecosystem services are associated with declines in habitat extent or condition and changes in biodiversity, though the exact relationships are not well-documented.

There is currently no assessment of spatial indicators of ecosystem health at a regional or local level. This makes it difficult to predict future changes in the baseline. What is clear from past trends is that transport can have both adverse and beneficial impacts on biodiversity, flora and fauna. Developments which increase road traffic can cause loss of and damage to nearby habitats, directly through land-take and indirectly through changes in air and water quality, but intelligent design and creation of green transport corridors can help to offset such impacts and even enhance biodiversity at a local level.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Healthy environments and consequently people’s health can be affected due to the loss of biodiversity as a result of increased pressure for transport infrastructure development to accommodate higher levels of traffic

Opportunities Opportunity to use transport infrastructure to provide wildlife corridors. Maintaining and enhancing green infrastructure as part of the transport network for its wide ranging contribution to biodiversity; geo-diversity; accessible recreation; reduction of areas of deficiencies with access to green spaces, and associated health benefits, adapting to climate change (e.g. carbon storage, drainage and water conservation).

Implications of the To enhance existing wildlife habitats and provide new areas for wildlife as opportunities Policy Review arise. Opportunity for transport infrastructure planning, design and operation to integrate biodiversity and the network of green spaces to provide a range of sustainability benefits, i.e. healthy living, improving air and water quality, cooling the urban environment, enhancing biodiversity and ecological resilience. Connectivity through green transport corridors and also consider green bridges to connect habitats severed by transport routes and provide walking/cycling routes.

Suggested IIA To protect, connect and enhance London’s natural capital (including important habitats, Objective species and landscapes) and the services and benefits it provides, delivering a net positive outcome for biodiversity

158

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Climate change adaptation and mitigation

Variation in meteorological factors such as temperature and precipitation over a period of decades

It can be due to natural processes or anthropogenic forcing through emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHGs)

Climate change is one of the key challenges facing the UK and the world today. It poses many environmental risks; including extended period of dryness and heat in the summer which could lead to drought; heightened flood risk due to more intensive and prolonged rainfall, particularly in winter months; and sea level rise and changes in wave patterns and strength which may result in increased erosion of coastal areas. Such environmental effects may also have significant socio-economic and health implications, particularly for nations and regions less able to mitigate or adapt to changes. The Mayor must have regard to climate change and its consequences when revising the MTS, including any appropriate mitigation and/ or adaptation (section 41(4) and (7), GLA Act).

Climate change also has a significant impact on transportation systems, particularly infrastructure (e.g. floods) and operations (changes in weather). Key risks to TfL and their assets and services as a result of climate change are documented in the Travel in London, Report 8 (2015) and include: • Higher summer temperatures; • Warmer winters; • More seasonable rainfall; • Wetter winters; • Sea level rise.

Current weather-related risks are more likely to include winter ice, rainfall and shorter periods of summer heat. These can occur throughout London and ‘hotspot’ locations for the different risks in all London’s businesses have been assessed as can be seen in Figure 5.31. In the short to medium term for flooding and high temperatures there is likely to be increased frequency and consequence, for example flooding from increased frequency and intensity of winter storms.

Figure 5.31: London Underground Combined Extreme Weather and Climate Risk Map

159

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

The Figure 5.30 shows that, in regard to London Underground, events of extreme hot weather and rain and flooding are increasingly likely and would have a ‘medium ‘impact on the service when they occur, such as temporary flooding of parts of the system. More serious, in terms of their impact, are events that impact on the integrity of the infrastructure, such as tracks and key infrastructure drainage.

Increases in extreme weather events due to climate change will damage the resilience for the transport network and increase the cost and complexity of maintaining operational performance standards.

Climate change is difficult to quantify and predict, approaches to addressing impacts tend to focus on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG) which have been shown to contribute to global warming, and thus may bring about climate change.

CO2 is considered the principal GHG related to climate change (TfL, 2014b) and is London’s principal GHG emission. Alongside wider national initiatives, the Mayor has committed to reducing emissions of CO2 in London by 60% overall, relative to 1990 levels and across all sectors, by 2025. New Mayor has committed to making London a “zero carbon city by 2050”.

As illustrated in Figure 5.32, road transport currently contributes significantly to emissions of CO2. Other forms of transport such as rail and river contribute only a small amount to CO2 emissions in comparison to road transport and other non-transport contributors such as non-road mobile machinery (NRMM)17, domestic and commercial gas and domestic and commercial other fuels. In 2013 road transport made up approximately 29% of total CO2 emissions in Greater London, compared with approximately 25% in 2008 and 26% in 2010 (LAEI, 2013).

Of transport’s contribution to CO2 emissions, cars make the greatest contribution followed by HGVs and buses. Figure 5.33 shows that cars will continue to make the greatest contribution to CO2 emissions, however their contribution in comparison to HGVs and buses decreases to 2030. CO2 emissions from HGVs and buses are expected to increase. LAEI forecasts bus CO2 to decrease between 2013 and 2020, before increasing slightly to 2030 – but still well below 2013 levels and prior.

London has a high concentration of vulnerable groups, which are likely to be disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, and are likely to increase existing inequalities (Climate UK, 2012).

(Source: Jacobs adapted from LAEI, 2013)

Figure 5.32: Road transport’s contribution to total CO2 emissions, Greater London, 2008 – 2030

1717 Non-road mobile machinery (NRMM) - efers to mobile machines, transportable industrial equipment or vehicles which are fitted with an internal combustion engine and not intended for transporting goods or passengers on roads. 160

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

(Source: Jacobs adapted from LAEI, 2013)

Figure 5.33: Road transport’s contribution to CO2 emissions by mode, Greater London, 2008 – 2030

As shown in Table 5.4 while total CO2 emissions from transport are expected to decrease over time, transport’s overall contribution to CO2 emissions remains around the same, falling by a total of 2% by 2030.

Table 5.3 : Total road transport CO2 emissions (tonnes), Greater London, 2008 – 2030

2008 20132013 2020 2030 Total road transport emissions for the GLA 7,337,105 6,651,511 6,106,822 5,728,930 (tonnes)

Road transport contribution to total CO2 25% 29% 30% 28% emissions for the GLA (%) (Source: LAEI, 2013)

TfL set medium term targets to assist with meeting the Mayor’s overall CO2 emission target. TfL’s target to 18 reduce normalised CO2 emissions from the main public transport modes is 20% in 2017/18 as measured against a 2005/2006 baseline. While progress is being made to be this target, the equivalent pace of reduction in absolute tonnage falls short of the wider Mayor’s reduction target (TfL, 2015a).

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Increases in extreme weather events due to climate change will damage the resilience for the transport network and increase the cost and complexity of maintaining operational performance standards Road transport will continue to contribute significantly to CO2 emissions HGVs and buses are expected to contribute more to CO2 emissions into the future London is not currently meeting the Mayor’s CO2 emission target i.e. a reduction in

18 Measured in grams CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per passenger kilometre 161

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

London’s CO2 emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by 2025 The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, and are likely to increase existing inequalities

Opportunities Making use of green infrastructure associated with transport networks for climate change adaptation, i.e. sustainable drainage, energy generation water conservation

Reducing carbon emissions by shifting to more sustainable modes of transport

Implications of the Need to encourage the use of renewable energy sources and low carbon technology Policy Review for transport infrastructure projects in the MTS. New transport development should be designed to adapt to climate change. Mayor’s commitment to reduce London’s CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2025.

To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to the impacts of climate change Suggested IIA and extreme weather events such as flood, drought and heat risks Objectives To help tackle climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a zero carbon London by 2050

Energy use and supply

The supply of and demand for energy by industry, transport and households

Transport remains one of the largest consuming sectors of energy accounting for 38% consumption across the UK with petroleum products being the dominant fuel accounting for 48% of all fuel (gas, biofuels, electricity and other) (DECC, 2014).

The London Energy and Greenhouse Gas Inventory (LEGGI) 2013 provides detail on London’s energy consumption and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from homes, workplaces and transport within the Greater London area. It is produced by the GLA on an annual basis to measure progress against the Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy. Results from LEGGI 2013 will be updated once final data on energy use is published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and TfL, expected in June 2016.

162

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Figure 5.34 illustrates that fuels from transport account for 21% of London’s energy sources. (GLA, 2015b)

(Source: LEGGI 2013 in GLA, 2015b) Figure 5.34: London’s energy use in 2013 by fuel

It is likely that over time the supply of oil, diesel and petrol will become scarcer, and as such, policy makers should look for ways to reduce transport’s demand and need for such fuels. They should also consider the effects of transport’s consumption of these fuels on climate change. Further, as transport’s reliance on electricity increases over time e.g. through increased use of electric vehicles, the transport sector will contribute towards the worsening of the UK’s forecast gap between energy demand and generation. Therefore a key issue for the MTS will be how it helps to reduce the overall demand for energy from public and private transport including through the promotion of more energy efficient vehicles.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues High use of oil, diesel and petrol by transport contributing towards climate change Contribution towards energy gap as transport shifts towards electric energy

Opportunities Reduce demand for energy use and achieve greater efficiency in transport

Implications of the Identified the importance of the issue of energy consumption by transport sector Policy Review contributing to supply demand gap. Importance of greater usage of renewable energy sources for transport.

Suggested IIA To manage and reduce demand for energy, achieve greater energy efficiency, Objective utilise new and existing energy sources effectively, and ensure a resilient smart and affordable energy system

163

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Flood risk

The probability of and the potential consequences of flooding from all sources Includes flooding from rivers and the sea, directly from rainfall on the ground surface and rising groundwater, overwhelmed sewers and drainage systems and from reservoirs, canals, lakes and other artificial sources

Flood risk is a combination of the probability and the potential consequences of flooding from all sources. This includes flooding from rivers and the sea, directly from rainfall on the ground surface and rising groundwater, overwhelmed sewers and drainage systems, and from reservoirs, canals and lakes and other artificial sources (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2015a).

Flood risk is a major issue for London and the probability of flooding is increasing with climate change (GLA, 2014b). As per the London Regional Flood Risk Appraisal – First Review (August 2014) 14% of London is at risk of tidal and fluvial flooding (extent of Flood Zones 2 and 3) and 3% of London is at risk of surface water flooding. Table 5.5 combines the extent of tidal/fluvial and surface water flooding for Greater London and Figure 5.35 illustrates the extent of flooding.

Table 5.4 : Extent of tidal / fluvial and surface water flooding for Greater London

Hectares in flood area Hectares out of flood Total hectares Portion at risk of area flooding

25,802 133,668 159,470 16% (Source: GLA, 2014b)

(Source: GLA, 2014b) Figure 5.35: Combined fluvial, tidal and surface water flood risk area

164

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Reducing the number of properties and people at risk from flooding is a key challenge for London. Many of London’s remaining large brownfield areas are either substantially or partially within Flood Zones 2 and 3. 37% of the area of Opportunity Areas and 28% of the area of Intensification Areas are within Flood Zones. However, alternative sites for large scale development within London do not exist without encroaching into Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or other protected space (GLA, 2014b).

Surface water flooding can be caused or exacerbated by blockages to the drainage network. New surface water drainage networks are normally designed to cope with storms of a 1 in 30 year intensity, however many existing systems may be constructed to different standards.

In central and inner London surface water flood risk tends to occur in lots of small, localised areas representing slightly lower ground than the surrounding land. Basement properties and entrances to sub surface car parks, servicing yards etc. can be at particular risk of ingress of water. In the rest of London, surface water flooding is often directed to the valleys of those streams which form the naturally lower land areas. Most of these areas are immediately adjacent to built development or even underneath buildings and in such cases those buildings may lie within risk areas. Buildings with large roof areas, such as mainline rail termini, hospitals, schools, retail warehouses are particularly prone to surface water risks under heavy rainfall situations.

There are 85 sites (57 no. Stations, 16 no. Shafts and 10 no. Tunnel Portals and 2 no. others) on the London Underground which are at high and rising risk of flooding (LUCRFR, 2016). Most threatened are some of the capital’s busiest stations, including Waterloo, King’s Cross and London Bridge, and the report warns of potential dangers to passengers.

The London tube network is one of the busiest in the world, with more than 3.5m passenger journeys a day between 270 stations across the city. As well as the risk to passengers, closures and delays result in multimillion-pound losses for the tube and the wider economy. The risk of flooding is rising due to climate change, and its findings reflect wider concerns about the UK’s preparedness for the impacts of global warming. London underground network is a valuable asset which is very vulnerable to flooding with risks of flooding are likely to increase. It is also essential to consider the impacts of climate change on transport infrastructure and users and how we can plan ahead to adapt in the context of these impacts: assessing the requirement and feasibility of cooling and ventilation in the various modes of transport used by Londoners as hotter summers become more frequent needs to be made a higher priority; damage to national rail and road infrastructure from hot weather.

There is a risk that individual transport components of the proposals are being developed in isolation from the rest of the transport network and general development. Because the development of many of the transport projects is still at an early stage, design adaptations to address climate risks can still be incorporated. The additional cost of design adaptations is considered by the infrastructure developers to be low, as a proportion of the total costs (although no figures have been calculated). However, the actual cost may still be significant and will have to be paid for as part of the development (GLA, 2015).

Between the evening of 22 through to the evening of 23 June 2016, London experienced an unprecedented level of rainfall, which represented something in the region of a 1 in 40 year storm. This resulted in high levels of surface water which overloaded both the surface water and sewer systems and ultimately multiple incidents of flooding and disruption to customers across London’s transport network.

LU experienced significant disruption at various points of the day, mainly on the Circle, District and Metropolitan lines, where surface water from street level has always ‘drained’ into tunnels. It points to the fact that the nature of transport infrastructure (below ground stations and tunnel sections) leaves it vulnerable to extreme weather conditions. Numerous sites on the road network were affected by localised flooding, leading to road/lane closures and numerous bus diversions. TfL’s highway drainage systems were not designed to cater for the high volumes of rainfall (TfL Briefing Note, June 2016).

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Increasing probability of flooding that could significantly affect transport in London

165

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Highway drainage systems were not designed to cater for the high volumes of rainfall London network of underground tunnels is extremely vulnerable to flooding

Opportunities Opportunity to ensure that transport system is resilient to climate change impacts, including extreme weather events

Implications of the Need to ensure that transport projects are designed not to increase flood risk and to Policy Review encourage the use of SUDS.

Suggested IIA To manage the risk of flooding from all sources and improve the resilience of people Objectives and property to flooding

Geology and soils

The natural and man-made geological footprint of land

Geology and geodiversity

Geology is the study of the Earth's structure and history. It underpins the provision of resources to the UK’s population and industry, delivers a wide range of essential services, and helps us understand how we can live more sustainably on our planet (The Geological Society of London, 2012).

It is often difficult to observe geology directly in a built environment such as London. However, in London there are a number of building stones, interesting cemeteries and geological collections which can help understand the principles of geology and the properties of the stones used in the buildings. (London Geodiversity Partnership, 2011) Both the natural and human aspects of the landscape make up London’s geodiversity. Geodiversity is defined in the London Plan (March 2015) as “the variety of rocks, fossils, minerals, landforms, soils and natural processes, such as weathering, erosion and sedimentation, that underlie and determine the character of our natural landscape and environment”.

Greater London has distinctive natural landscapes shaped by geological processes, such as undulating chalk downlands with dry valleys in south London, and river terraces forming long flat areas separated by steeper areas of terrace front slopes (GLA and London Geodiversity Partnership, 2012).

The best of the UK’s wildlife and geological sites enjoy legal protection through their designation as SSSIs. There are seven geological SSSIs in Greater London including Abbey Wood, Wansunt Pit, Elmstead Pit, Gilbert’s Pit, Harefield Pit, Harrow Weald and Hornchurch Cutting. Four are in favourable condition and three are in unfavourable condition. (GLA and London Geodiversity Partnership, 2012)

Additionally, geodiversity in London is protected through allocation of certain sites as Regionally Important Geological / geomorphological Sites (RIGS) or Locally Important Geological Sites (LIGS). RIGS complement the SSSI coverage and are the most important designated places for geology and geomorphology outside statutorily protected designations such as SSSIs. RIGS are selected according to their value for educational purposes in life-long learning, their value for study both by professional and amateur earth scientists, their historical value in terms of important advances in Earth science knowledge, events or human exploitation and their aesthetic value in the landscape, particularly in relation to promoting public awareness and appreciation of geodiversity.

166

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

As of 2009, there were 14 Regionally Important Geological / geomorphological Sites (RIGS) within eight boroughs. Five were within Bromley, three in Croydon and one each in Lewisham, Ealing, Greenwich, Harrow, Hillingdon and Bexley. Further, there were 13 Locally Important Geological Sites (LIGS) within nine boroughs. Three in Waltham Forest, two in Bromley and two in Islington and one each in Barnet, Lewisham, Redbridge, Wandsworth, Southwark and Sutton.

In 2010 and 2011 an additional 14 RIGS and 15 LIGS were recommended for further consideration and consultation by boroughs through the local plan development process. Existing RIGS and potential RIGS in London are shown in Figure 5.36.

Sustainable conservation, management and interpretation of geodiversity is critical to maintaining its many environmental and social functions. Where new infrastructure has the potential to impact a RIG or LIG, such impacts will be assessed and appropriately mitigated at a project level through the relevant approval process.

(Source: GLA and London Geodiversity Partnership, 2012) Figure 5.36: Regionally Important Geological and geomorphological Sites (RIGS), 2013

Soils

Soils link the underlying geology with surface habitats, biodiversity and land use.

Soil is a fundamental natural resource on which life depends. Soils play an important role in urban areas in supporting ecosystems, improving drainage and providing green space for communities. Soil degradation over time from erosion, organic matter decline, pollution and compaction can result in such important functions being lost. Pressure on soils and competition for land are likely to increase in the future with expected population growth. Demands and pressures on soils resulting from competing demands and pressures e.g. land use change, new development, intensification, infrastructure etc. need to be managed carefully during construction and development to avoid further soil degradation (Defra, 2009).

167

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Some soils in London have high levels of contamination from substances such as heavy metals, solvents and other hazardous hydrocarbons resulting from the industrial heritage of the UK and human activity as well as atmospheric deposition from industrial processes and agriculture. Contamination from industrial heritage is not relevant for the MTS as this relates to existing contamination e.g. industrial land such as old gas works, chemical plants, oil refineries, petrol stations, metal works and munitions factories as well as former landfills, waste handling and disposal facilities. Infrastructure development on existing contaminated land will be carefully considered and responded to during the relevant approval process required for the infrastructure (Defra, 2009).

Highway construction or lessening surface grades for port and airport developments can potentially lead to important loss of fertile land. Soil contamination can occur through the use of toxic materials by the transport industry. Fuel and oil spills from motor vehicles are washed on road sides and enter the soil. Chemicals used for the preservation of wooden railroad ties may enter into the soil. Hazardous materials and heavy metals can found in areas contiguous to railroads, ports and airports (Rodrigue, 2016, Online).

Risk of increased soil degradation is often highest during construction of new developments or infrastructure e.g. through compaction from machinery use and risk of erosion when left exposed to wind and rain. Soil degradation will be appropriately assessed and mitigated at project level through the relevant approval process (Defra, 2009).

The MTS can help to reduce atmospheric deposition through reducing pollution from transport (refer Section – Air quality). While atmospheric deposition of pollutants to soil has reduced over time, soils remain at risk of acidification and eutrophication caused by atmospheric deposition. Contaminated soil can pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. Regulation is in place under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and through the planning system to ensure that contaminated land is identified and remediated through market activity wherever possible (Defra, 2009).

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Some soils in London have high levels of contamination from substances such as heavy metals, lead, solvents and other hazardous hydrocarbons

Opportunities Focus on prevention and remediation of soil contamination

Implications of the Identified need to focus on prevention and remediation of environmental damage, Policy Review including land contamination. Need to increase efforts to reduce soil degradation and remediate contaminated sites.

Suggested IIA To conserve London’s geodiversity and protect soils from development and over Objective intensive use

168

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Historic Environment

The historic environment including listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials and historic views and settings.

Heritage refers to the historic environment and includes nationally and locally-listed buildings, registered historic parks and gardens and other natural historic landscapes, conservation areas, World Heritage Sites, registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, archaeological remains and memorials.

London’s heritage assets and historic environment make a significant contribution to the city’s culture by providing easy access to the history of the city and its places (GLA, 2015a).

Figure 5.37 illustrates the spatial distribution of designated heritage assets. Within the GLA authority boundary there are a number of cultural heritage sites with varying statutory designations. These include: • Four UNESCO World Heritage Sites, including the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Gardens, Maritime Greenwich, the Tower of London and the site which includes the Palace of Westminster, Westminster Abbey and St. Margaret’s Church; • 199 scheduled monuments, including over one quarter (57) in the City of London, 17 in Croydon and 16 in Harrow; • Over 150 registered parks and gardens; • 1 registered battlefield, in the London Borough of Barnet; • 18,912 listed buildings (591 Grade I, 1,394 Grade II* and 16,927 Grade II); and • Over 1,000 Conservation Areas.

Figure 5.37: Spatial distribution of designated assets in London, 2013

As illustrated in Figure 5.38 designated assets at risk from neglect, decay or inappropriate development in London in 2015 include 62 conservation areas, 492 listed buildings, 31 scheduled monuments and 9 registered

169

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

parks and gardens. This makes up 12.2% of the total 5,478 national designated assets at risk. The number of assets at risk in London has reduced since 2014 with 4 fewer designated assets at risk in 2015 than in 2014. This trend is expected to continue (Historic England, 2015).

(Source: Historic England, 2015) Figure 5.38: Comparison of designated assets at risk in 2014 versus 2015

Acidified air pollutants also accelerate the degradation of valuable buildings, especially cultural monuments such as older sandstone and limestone buildings. Other cultural monuments such as rune stones and rock carvings also display evidence of serious damage as a result of acidifying air pollutants.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Some designated assets are still at risk from neglect, decay or inappropriate development

Major infrastructure improvements, i.e. HS2, may have heritage implications, including demolition of old buildings of historic value

Improving capacity of underground may result in advancements to underground stations contributing to London’s heritage value

Opportunities Contribute to the social, cultural and economic life by promoting improved public access to London’s heritage assets and historic environment. Protect and enhance the built environment around key transport facilities.

Opportunities for pedestrianizing streets

Tree planting

Reducing damage to heritage assets from moto vehicles collision

Implications of the Identified need to protect and enhance the built environment around key transport Policy Review facilities.

170

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Suggested IIA To conserve and enhance the existing historic environment, including sites, Objective features, landscapes and areas of historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural value in relation to their significance and their settings

Water resources and quality

The supply of water and the quality of water within all waterbodies

The water environment provides a number of vital functions to support communities. From providing drinking supplies to serving as recreational facilities, water bodies of all types are fundamental for maintaining a healthy and active population. Maintaining water resources and quality, including reducing pollution and abstraction, is therefore a key consideration for local planning.

London’s water environment is largely reflected by the Blue Ribbon Network depicted in Figure 5.39 The Blue Ribbon Network is London’s strategic network of water spaces and covers the River Thames, canals, tributary rivers, lakes, reservoirs and docks alongside smaller waterbodies. Every London borough contains some element of the network – 17 border the Thames and 15 contain canals (GLA, 2016f).

(S ource: GLA, 2015a)

Figure 5.39: London’s Blue Ribbon Network

171

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Table 5.5: Percentage of assessed waterbodies by STATUS (2013-2016)

Percentage of assessed waterbodies by STATUS Year High Good Moderate Poor Bad

Biological quality elements 2013 9.56% 2.24% 41.91% 27.42% 18.88%

2014 1.55% 16.40% 24.41% 40.48% 17.16%

2015 0.00% 3.95% 27.73% 43.54% 24.78%

Physico-chemical quality elements 2013 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00%

2014 0.00% 0.75% 99.25% 0.00% 0.00%

2015 0.43% 4.64% 94.92% 0.00% 0.00%

(S ource: E nvironment Agency, 2016)

Table 5.5 shows the percentage change of assessed waterbodies by status for the period 2013-2015 in the Thames region. The table demonstrates signs of deterioration in the status of biological quality elements, with percentage of waterbodies of poor and bad status increasing from 27.42% to 43.54% and 18.88% to 24.78% respectively for the period 2013-2015.

The Environment Agency is responsible for water quality and resources. It is their responsibility to decide how much water can be taken from the environment for people and businesses to use, without damaging the environment or compromising existing lawful users. They deal with all aspects of water including managing abstraction and water quality (of relevance to this topic).

Water is abstracted for many purposes including public water supply, agriculture, industry and electricity generation. Water resources are already under pressure with reliable supplies of additional water for abstraction not available across much of England and in some places water resources are already being damaged by abstraction (Environment Agency, 2014)

Over 15 million people live in the Thames district with many entering daily to work or visit. In addition to Greater London, other urban centres in the river basin district include Luton, Reading and Guildford. (Environment Agency, 2013)

Significant water management issues are the main cause limiting sustainable uses and potential benefits of the water environment in the river basin district (Environment Agency, 2013) including (but not limited to): • Physical modifications affect 44% of water bodies in the Thames river basin district Pollution from waste water affects 45% of water bodies in the Thames river basin district; • Pollution from towns, cities and transport affect 17% of water bodies in the Thames river basin district; • Changes to the natural flow and level of water affects 12% of water bodies in the Thames river basin district. Climate change and population growth will increase the pressure on water availability making water resource availability in the future uncertain. At present, significant water management issues are the main cause limiting sustainable uses and potential benefits of managing the water environment in the Thames river basin district.

172

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Physical modifications to water bodies

Pollution from waste water on water bodies

Opportunities Improve the chemical and biological quality of surface water within the Thames

Improve the choices of chemicals used in transport development

Implications of the Identified need to focus on the protection, improvements and sustainable use of the Policy Review water environment.

Suggested IIA To protect and enhance London’s water bodies by ensuring that London has a Objectives sustainable water supply, drainage and sewerage system

Design

Landscape and townscape is the visual aesthetic of the natural or built environment The public realm refers to the quality (including the perception) of publically accessed spaces and places between buildings (streets, footpaths, cycle paths, roads, parks, open spaces etc.)

The landscape takes its character from a combination of elements, including topography, watercourses, land use and pattern, vegetation, open space and cultural heritage features. Landscapes vary considerably in character and quality, and are often considered a key component of the distinctiveness of any local area or region.

In an urban setting, landscape is often synonymous with the concept of the public realm. Perceptions of the local urban realm are most commonly related to the maintenance of pavements and roads, the cleanliness of open spaces and the quality of local parks. Other elements which influence perceptions include traffic congestion, road markings, signage directions and the extent to which streets are cluttered with signs and street furniture.

The transport network forms a large part of London’s landscape, townscape and public realm. Roads, streets and stations are all part of the urban landscape / townscape, and their design and maintenance affects the way in which London appears and is perceived. The Mayor has made improvements to London’s streetscape a priority and good progress has been made through the setup of the Roads Task Force and under the Mayor’s London Great Outdoors and Better Street programmes.

Landscape and townscape

London’s landscape and townscape is made up of its network of green infrastructure19 and its buildings. Figure 5.40 shows the spatial coverage of London’s open space network including Metropolitan Open Land (MOL),

19 Green infrastructure refers to the network of all green and open space which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, street trees, allotments, private gardens, streams, canals and other water bodies and features such as green roofs and walls. (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2016)

173

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Green Belt and parks. In addition to these open spaces, London’s landscape also includes22 Natural Landscape Areas (NLAs). A Natural Landscape Area is an area which is an original watercourse, contains vegetation typical of the soils and geology of its area and/or allows an appreciation of the wider geomorphology and natural topography of London. (Alan Baxter and Sheils Flynn, 2011)

London’s protected buildings are discussed in Section Error! Reference source not found. – Heritage. There are a number of designated assets at risk from neglect, decay or inappropriate development.

Intensification and development of London can impact the physical character of its landscape and townscape, and can result in loss of sense of place and civility.

Most of London’s open spaces and protected buildings are safeguarded from development through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the London Plan. Further strategic views and vistas to landscape and townscape features are protected under the London View Management Framework. Protected strategic views are constantly under review and include ‘London Panoramas’, ‘Linear Views’, ‘River Prospects’ and ‘Townscape Views’.

Any impact on London’s landscape and townscape as a result of new transport infrastructure will be assessed at a project level through the appropriate approval process once detail of the scheme is known.

(Source: GLA, 2015a)

Figure 9.40: Open space network

174

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Public realm

From an MTS perspective, the public realm refers to streets, footpaths, cycle paths, roads, railway lines, stations as well as associated cars, buses, trains, street furniture and landscaping etc.

Londoners' general satisfaction with the local urban realm (streets, pavements and public spaces) has generally remained reasonable over recent years. The mean satisfaction rating in 2012 was 65 out of 100 (TfL, 2012). The proportion of Londoners giving a good rating of seven or above was 61%; the highest it has been since 2009. However, at the same time, there has been an increase in the proportion of Londoners giving a very low rating; this has increased from 16% in 2011 to 19% in 2012 (TfL, 2012).

In common with previous surveys, the main aspects of the urban realm that Londoners are either most satisfied or most dissatisfied with are the quality and cleanliness of open spaces and pavements, and whether parks are well maintained and free of litter.

There has been a significant increase in the proportion of Londoners who think that the quality of their local area has got ‘a lot’ better over the past year, from 7% in 2011 to 11% in 2012. As a result, the proportion of Londoners who think that the quality of their local area has got better has increased from 22% to 29%. Inner Londoners are significantly more likely to say this than those living in outer London boroughs.

Londoners' satisfaction with the condition of the local urban realm remains relatively good, but the steady increases in mean satisfaction ratings since 2009 were much less evident in 2012. Only satisfaction with the level of general street clutter has continued to increase. The mean rating for this now stands at 74 out of 100.

The quality of the public realm plays a large role in the health of Londoners for the following reasons: • Attractive streets can encourage walking and cycling improving physical activity and reducing obesity; • Attractive streets can encourage people to socialise and play, building stronger social networks and reducing social isolation, both of which are important for physical and mental health; • Reduced traffic and traffic speed can help to reduce road traffic collisions and the severity of their consequences and therefore physical injuries and psychological distress; • Provision of shade, through trees for example, can help to protect people from sun damage and enables people to cool and regulate their body temperature; • Provision of resting places can include people who have mobility impairments and need places to stop and rest to break up a longer walking and/ or cycle distance.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Poor quality public realm in some parts of London which can discourage active travel

Deficiencies in open spaces in some parts of the city

Risk of poor design, lack of legible neighborhoods and sense of place

Opportunities To create and maintain a safe and attractive public realm which encourages people to walk and cycling, promoting a sense of place and reducing the need to travel.

Implications of the Importance of creating and maintain a safe and attractive public realm which Policy Review encourages people to walk and cycling, promoting a sense of place and reducing the need to travel.

175

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Suggested IIA To create attractive, mixed use neighbourhoods ensuring new buildings and spaces Objectives are appropriately designed that promote and enhance existing sense of place and distinctiveness, reducing the need to travel by motorized transport

Materials and waste

Materials, substances or objects which have no further use in their present form and are disposed of including primary raw materials such as aggregates and minerals as well as manufactured products

Material resources include primary raw materials such as aggregates and minerals, and secondary manufactured products. The production, sourcing, transport, handling, storage and use of materials, as well as the disposal of any surplus, have the potential to affect the environment. At the same time, the beneficial reuse of materials prevents them from becoming waste and reduces the need to use finite resources obtained from elsewhere.

Wastes are materials, substances or objects which have no further use and are disposed of, are intended to be disposed of, or are required to be disposed of by the provisions of national law. Waste affects the availability of materials and energy needed for growth as well as climate change and environmental objectives.

London produced about 15 million tonnes of waste in 2012. The three main producers of such waste included: households; commercial and industrial uses; and construction, excavation and demolition activities (GLA, 2016j).

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Reduce the use of materials and amount of waste produced, increase reuse, re- manufacturing and recycling in all construction and operational practices

Opportunities Opportunities to apply principles of circular economy during construction and operational practices in the transport system

Implications of the Need to apply principles of circular economy when aiming for waste reduction, reuse, Policy Review re-manufacturing and recycling in all construction and operational practices. Waste management to consider alongside transport planning.

Suggested IIA To keep materials at their highest value and use for as long as possible. To Objectives significantly reduce waste generated and achieve high reuse and recycling rates

176

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Noise and vibration

Unwanted sound and vibration that causes disturbance

The main source of ambient noise in London is road traffic, followed by rail. Vehicle noise is created by the tyres interacting with the road as well as the noise from engines, exhaust systems and brakes. In urban areas, most vehicle noise comes from engines because, at low speed, engine noise dominates over the noise generated by tyres and road surfaces.

Noise disturbance can be associated with health impacts such as sleep disturbance, stress, anxiety, high blood pressure, poor mental health in adults and school performance and cognitive impairment in children. A level of 57dB represents the ‘onset of significant community annoyance’ and in London alone two million people (42% of the population) are exposed to more than 55dBLden (GLA, 2016e). Further some groups e.g. younger people are differentially affected by noise, particularly at night, as they spend more time in bed than older people. Table 5.6 identifies the number of people exposed to roadside and railway noise above the threshold in Greater London in 2011.

Table 5.6 : Number of people exposed to roadside and railway noise above threshold in Greater London, 2011

Type >55dB >65dB >75dB

Roadside 2,378,200 1,027,200 99,200 Roadside – night 1,665,400 649,400 900 Railway 252,200 158,100 15,200 Railway – night 388,700 95,100 6,400

(Source: Defra in GLA, 2016e)

Aviation noise also affects many people in London. A 2013 report from TfL noted that 766,100 people lived within the ≥55 Lden contour of Heathrow and at least another 17,800 people living within the ≥55 Lden contour of London City airport. This indicates that aviation noise is a significant environmental issue in London (GLA, 2016e).

Alongside measurement and mapping of noise levels, it is also important to consider and understand noise as experienced by London’s residents. The Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy (2004) notes that 13% of people rate road transport as the greatest source of noise which is considered as a ‘serious problem’.

Respondents to the TfL Perceptions of the Travel Environment Survey (2012) were asked to consider noise generated from different transport modes in their area, the extent to which they are disturbed by transport- related noise and the impact this has on their quality of life. In general, satisfaction with the level of transport related noise has shown a steady increase over recent years; achieving a mean satisfaction rating of 76 out of 100 in 2012 (TfL, 2012). There has also been a significant increase in the proportion of Londoners giving a very high satisfaction rating; this is up from 31% in 2011 to 35% in 2012.

However, the most common cause of noise disturbance remains road traffic, with 41% of Londoners disturbed by this in 2012.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Parts of the population are exposed to roadside and railway noise that exceeds the threshold

Opportunities Reduce number of people exposed to high levels of noise from roads, railways and aircrafts

177

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Implications of the Need to minimise noise and vibration levels and the number of people exposed to high Policy Review levels of noise from roads and railways. Recognise benefit of tree and shrub planting to help reduce perception of noise.

Suggested IIA To minimise noise and vibration levels and disruption to people and communities Objective across London and reduce inequalities in exposure

Equality

Ensuring individuals or groups of individuals are treated fairly and equally and no less favorably, specific to their needs, including areas of race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation and age

This chapter summarises equality issues mainstreamed across different IIA topics and their impacts on equality outlined in previous chapters. Equality is an integral part of a sustainable society and is very pertinent in the context of MTS review as it touches on a number of sustainability issues including: of access to opportunities by all, social exclusion; poor environmental conditions caused by transport including noise and air quality; issues of affordability and fear of crime and safety.

The Equality Act 2010 requires TfL to have due regard for all of London’s communities when developing its services. The general equality duty requires public authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to: • Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act; • Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not share it; • Foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not share it.

These are often referred to as the three aims of the general equality duty. Therefore, it is important to use of relevant evidence to conduct a meaningful analysis of the risks (threats and opportunities) that MTS proposals may pose to people with protected characteristics.

Travel experiences are individual and will be influenced by a number of factors such as age, gender, income and education (TfL, 2015d).

A number of barriers have been identified to increased public transport use by people with protected characteristics: • Older and disabled people use public transport less than other groups; • Overcrowding is cited by all groups as a barrier. BAME, older, women, younger, disabled, low income and LGB Londoner’s all advised this impacted significantly on their journey or in choosing a mode of transport; • Walking is the top mode of transport used by all groups. Followed by using a bus and then a car either as a driver or passenger; • Women, older, disabled and BAME people less likely to walk or cycle; • Children, older and BAME people are more likely to be road traffic casualties; • Children, older people, people with some health issues are particularly vulnerable to air pollution;

178

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

• Older and disabled people are not confident about being able to cross safely at pedestrian crossings.

Figure 5.41 demonstrates that overcrowding, costs of tickets, anti-social behaviour and slow journey times are the main barriers to an increased public transport use by groups with protected characteristics.

(Source: TfL, 2015d)

Figure 5.41: Key information about London’s diverse communities

People in their twenties are at higher risk of becoming victims of crime. Results from a 2015 survey undertaken by Future Thinking on behalf of TfL show there is a disproportionate effect on young women who experience unwanted sexual behaviour while on, waiting for or travelling to or from public transport in London. BAME Londoners and women are most likely to say that their frequency of travel is affected ‘a lot’ because of concerns over ASB (GLA, 2016c).

179

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

alternative forms of communication (including travel information on how to undertake a fully accessible journey), supported by enhanced training for customer service staff, to make the network more legible and easier to use.

One of the consequences of a network which is not fully accessible is the differential in journey times between passengers with and without mobility or cognitive impairments.

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Some Londoners continue to face real or perceived barriers to using public transport

Exposure to poor air quality is unequal across London and some people and boroughs are more exposed to poor air quality than others

A disproportionate effect on young women who experience unwanted sexual behaviour while on, waiting for or travelling to or from public transport in London

The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, and are likely to increase existing inequalities

Not all public transport stations or stops are accessible, impairing access by those who are mobility impaired or travelling with heavy luggage or a buggy

Many people with sensory or cognitive impairments experience non-physical barriers to use of the transport network

Parts of the population are exposed to roadside and railway noise that exceeds the threshold

Opportunities Invest in infrastructure an vehicles can build in accessibility improvements

The positive role of transport in tackling social exclusion and wider disadvantage

Creation of an inclusive network

Deliver targeted fare concessions to reduce inequities in income

Implications of For transport system to play an active role to reduce inequalities in all its form the Policy Review

Suggested IIA To minimise noise and vibration levels and disruption to people and communities Objectives across London and reduce inequalities in exposure

To enhance and improve connectivity for all to and from and within and around London and increase the proportion of journeys made by sustainable and active transport modes

To maintain and strengthen London’s position as a leading, connected, knowledge based global city and to support a strong, diverse and resilient economic economy structure providing opportunities for all

180

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

To maximise accessibility for all in and around London

To contribute to safety and security and the perceptions of safety

To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the City and between communities

To make London a fair and inclusive city where every person is able to participate, reducing inequality and disadvantage and addressing the diverse needs of the population

To ensure London has socially integrated communities which are strong, resilient and free of prejudice

Health and health inequalities

The general health of Londoners and the differences in health between the population or social groups

Health and health inequalities is a cross cutting issue and this chapter summarises health issues mainstreamed across different IIA topics and their impacts on health and health inequalities presented in previous chapters. Health is an integral part of a sustainable society and is very pertinent in the context of MTS review as it touches on a number of sustainability issues including: poor environmental conditions caused by transport such as noise, air quality and fear of crime and safety.

Active travel is the main way in which Londoners get their physical activity and it has the biggest potential for increasing physical activity. It is estimated that 60,000 years of healthy life could be gained every year if Londoners swap motorised travel for active travel on short journeys.

Lack of physical activity is currently one of the biggest threats to the health of Londoners. Being physically active helps prevent a range of illnesses including heart disease and strokes, depression, type 2 diabetes, and breast and colon cancer. Most Londoners are currently not active enough to stay healthy. Being inactive is an issue for everyone but there are inequalities in physical activity such as:

• Age: Physical activity declines with age - by 75 years only 1 in 10 men and 1 in 20 women are sufficiently active for good health.

• Deprivation: 47% of boys and 49% of girls in the lowest economic group are inactive compared to 26% and 35% of girls in the highest group.

• Ethnicity: there are differences in physical activity levels among different ethnic groups for example only 11% of Bangladeshi women and 26% of Bangladeshi men are sufficiently active for good health, compared with 25% / 37% of the general population.

• Sex: Men are more active than women in virtually every age group.

• Disability: Disabled people are half as likely as non-disabled people to be active.

181

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

There are a number of factors influencing health and health inequalities: easy to cross; noise; air pollution; severance; shade and shelter; and people feel safe.

Easy to cross

Road deaths contribute significantly to health inequalities. Data for 2014 shows that vulnerable road users (pedestrians, pedal cyclists and powered two wheeler users) made up more than half (52%) of all casualties on London’s roads (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/pedestrian-casualties-in-greater-london- dec2010.pdf Casualties in Greater London). Vulnerable roads users made up 82% of fatalities and 80% Killed or seriously injured (KSI) casualties (TfL, 2015g). Pedestrians’ death rates nationally are highest in children and the elderly people. In London it is most pronounced in the youngest (under 16 years) and oldest (60 years and over) age bands.

Noise

Exposure to noise can have detrimental effects on human health. Noise is defined as audible sound that causes disturbance, impairment or health damage. Transport is a major cause of noise pollution in London. Noise is created by vehicles tyres interacting with the road, engines, exhaust systems, transmission and brakes. In vehicles travelling at higher speeds the main source of noise is tyres, at lower speeds it is engine noise. Engine noise has reduced over the past two decades but tyre noise has not reduced to the same extent (Mindell et all, 2011). The impact of noise on health can contribute to health inequalities:

• Deprivation

Areas with high levels of environmental noise are often socially deprived. Noise pollution from traffic are experienced more by those who cannot afford to live elsewhere (DHC, 1998).

• Mental health

People with existing mental or physical health problems are the most likely to be sensitive to traffic noise (Stansfeld SA and Haines M, ‘Environmental noise and health: A review of non-auditory effects’, IEH report on the nonauditory effects of noise (1997), Institute for Environment and Health).

Air pollution

In the UK around 40,000 deaths each year are attributable air pollution, specifically exposure to fine particulates from diesel engines and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2).Transport is a major source of air pollution. In the UK about half of cars, nearly all buses, vans and lorries, forms of water transport, and many trains, use diesel (Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, 2010). Air pollution is harmful to everyone. However, some people suffer more than others because they:

• live in deprived areas, which often have higher levels of air pollution

• live, learn or work near busy roads

• Are more vulnerable because of their age or existing medical conditions.

Our most deprived communities are exposed to some of the worst outdoor and indoor air quality, contributing to the gap in life expectancy between the most and the least affluent communities. Moving away from an area of high outdoor air pollution may be unaffordable for local residents. Those with health conditions aggravated by air pollution, having to stay indoors and limit their activity when pollution levels are high. This is not only unjust; it carries a cost to these individuals and the community from missed work and school, from more health problems due to lack of exercise, and from social isolation. Air pollution may be a barrier to active travel. Particularly in those who have underlying medical conditions that are exacerbated by air pollution. Many studies have underlined the public health benefits of increased active travel by both cycling and walking, with the benefits outweighing the

182

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

increased risks from accidents and air pollution exposure by a factor of at least ten (Rabl & Nazelle, 2012).

Severance

‘Community severance’ describes the effects of transport infrastructure or motorised traffic as a physical or psychological barrier separating one built up area from another built-up area or open space (Mindell et al., 2015). Severance may occur due to cross-ability of the road, road infrastructure such as carriage way width and number of lanes and traffic volume, composition and speed (Mindell et al., 2015). Severance is perceived by the public as a number of effects including pedestrian delay, trip diversion and suppression, noise, pollution, perceived danger and overall unpleasantness.” and proposed the wider definition of community severance as: “the sum of the divisive effects a road has on those in the locality”. It can affect any people in the area such as residents, workers and shoppers. Severance restricts the mobility of pedestrians and can also impact on cyclists.

Community severance can impact all people in a community but may especially impact (TfL, 2014):

• Older people

• People with mobility difficulties

• Children

• Certain ethnic groups that may have poorer community ties

• People with mental health conditions The biggest impact of London's roads on health is the extent to which they encourage or discourage people to walk and cycle. Areas of high severance contribute to reduced active travel due to their limited walkability and cyclability and increase in air pollution and noise pollution.

Shade and shelter

Some people have difficulty moderating their body temperature, and this can put their health at risk in hot weather. Shade is needed on streets to enable people to keep cool. Lack of shade and shelter from the sun can affect anyone but some people run a greater risk of serious harm from extreme heat exposure.

• Older people

In one hot spell in August 2003 in England, deaths in those aged 75 and over rose by 60%, with approximately 2000 total extra deaths than would normally be expected (Defra, 2013).

• Underlying medical conditions Those with heart, respiratory and serious health problems are more at risk and the heat can make these conditions worse (Defra, 2013).

• Younger people

Babies and young children are also especially at risk.

People feel safe

People need to feel safe and secure on the street, both in terms of safety from traffic, from crime and from other accidents. People may not feel safe due to perceived risk of crime and risk of danger from traffic. Perceived safety from crime may have larger effects among groups whom research shows feel

183

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

more vulnerable, such as girls, women, older people, and people living in low-income areas (Mindell et al., 2011).

Perceived safety from crime is associated with greater order and upkeep of a street, unobstructed views, lighting, and the presence of others on the street is associated with perceived safety from crime. Perceived safety from traffic is associated with the presence of sidewalks, footpaths, pedestrian infrastructure, street connectivity, controlled intersections, clearly marked street crossings, and reduced traffic speed and volume.

A review on the physical environment and physical activity among children ages 3–18 found that children’s participation in physical activity was associated with their parents’ perception of safety from either crime or traffic (Davison & Lawson, 2006). For people with visual or mobility impairments hazards on the street hamper the ability to walk safely. One study found that environmental hazards related to traffic and falls risks can be significant barriers to walking for seniors (Lockett et al., 2005).

Summary of key issues, opportunities, implications from the Policy review and IIA objectives

Key issues Inequalities in health outcomes and the overall physical and mental health and wellbeing of Londoners

Low levels of physical activity

Differentials in health determinants of different people

Increasing health inequalities across the population

Exposure to poor air quality is unequal across London and some people and boroughs are more exposed to poor air quality than others

A disproportionate effect on young women who experience unwanted sexual behaviour while on, waiting for or travelling to or from public transport in London

The impacts of climate change will not be equal or fair, and are likely to increase existing health inequalities

Londoners are not doing enough physical activity each day, impacting their overall health

Parts of the population are exposed to roadside and railway noise that exceeds the threshold

Opportunities Important role transport system plays in improving inequalities in health outcomes and overall physical and mental health and wellbeing of Londoners

Implications of the Importance for MTS to reduce inequalities in health outcomes and improve the Policy Review overall physical and mental health and wellbeing of Londoners.

To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful atmospheric pollutants, Suggested IIA particularly in areas of poorest air quality and reduce exposure Objective To minimise noise and vibration levels and disruption to people and communities

184

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

across London and reduce inequalities in exposure

To contribute to safety and security and the perceptions of safety

To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the City and between communities

185

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix G: IIA objectives and proposed indicators

Topic IIA objective Proposed IIA indicators

Environment: Transport system’s role in supporting natural environment by contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy Air quality 1. To reduce emissions and concentrations of harmful • Per capita emissions of “conventional” air pollutants (CO, atmospheric pollutants, particularly in areas of poorest air VOC, NOx, particulates, etc.) quality and reduce exposure • Frequency of air pollution standard violations • Human exposure to harmful pollutants • Number of schools exposed to dangerous air pollution • Number of deprived schools exposed to dangerous air pollution • Number of people with pre-existing health condition exposed to dangerous air pollution

Climate change 2. To ensure London adapts and becomes more resilient to • Change in number of incidences of road flooding adaptation and mitigation the impacts of climate change and extreme weather events • Flood risk damage change to transport infrastructure such as flood, drought and heat risks 3. To reduce the threat of climate change through reducing • Increase in the annual average daily traffic flow greenhouse gas emissions and moving towards a zero • Reduce per capita CO2 emissions carbon London by 2050 • Per capita fossil fuel consumption, and emissions of CO2 from transport and other • Climate change emissions • Reduction of London’s CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2025 • CO2 intensity of the transport sector (gCO2/vkm), and of new cars (gCO2/pkm) and trucks (tCO2tkm) Energy use and supply 4. To manage and reduce demand for energy, achieve greater • Transport final energy consumption and primary energy energy efficiency, utilise new and existing energy sources consumption, and share in total (fossil, nuclear, renewable) effectively, and ensure a resilient smart and affordable by mode energy system • Transport facility resource efficiency (such as use of

186

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Proposed IIA indicators renewable materials and energy efficient lighting) Flood risk 5. To manage the risk of flooding from all sources and improve the resilience of people and property to flooding • Flood risk damage to transport infrastructure

6. To conserve London’s geodiversity and protect soils from Geology and soils • development and over intensive use Change in soil contamination as a result of transport infrastructure

Historic Environment 7. To conserve and enhance the existing historic environment, including sites, features, landscapes and areas of historical, architectural, archaeological and cultural value in relation to • Damage/destruction of archaeological sites their significance and their settings. • Change in traffic flows in conservation areas

Materials and waste 8. To keep materials at their highest value and use for as long • Increase in recycled aggregate as possible. To significantly reduce waste generated and • Amount of materials and waste transported sustainably’ i.e. achieve high reuse and recycling rates river or rail. Natural Capital and 9. To protect and enhance London’s biodiversity, including • Loss of designated areas Natural Environment existing statutory and where practicable, non-statutory • Change in condition of SSSIs designated sites, notable and protected habitats and • Reduction in BAP species or habitats species • Infrastructure influence on ecosystems and habitats (“fragmentation”) and proximity of transport infrastructure to designated sites. • Habitat creation, biodiversity gain

Noise and vibration 10. To minimise noise and vibration levels and disruption to • Proportion of population exposed to high levels of traffic people and communities across London and reduce noise inequalities in exposure • Perception of transport-related noise in local area

Water resources and 11. To protect and enhance London’s water bodies by ensuring • Change in water quality in rivers and estuaries • quality that London has a sustainable water supply, drainage and Pollution from waste water on water bodies • Physical modifications to water bodies sewerage system

187

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Proposed IIA indicators

Economic: Transport system’s role in supporting a strong, sustainable and competitive economy, new homes and jobs by providing transport infrastructure for all Londoners Connectivity 12. To enhance and improve connectivity for all to and from and within and around London and increase the proportion of • Average number of basic services (schools, shops and journeys made by sustainable and active transport modes government offices) within walking distance of homes • Per capita traffic congestion delay • Proportion of travel to school and other local destinations by walking and cycling • Public transport capacity • Public transport reliability • Public transport crowding Infrastructure 13. To ensure that provision of environmental, social and • Access to education and employment opportunities • physical infrastructure is managed and delivered to meet Freight vehicle kilometres on the road network population and demographic change in line with sustainable • Assets condition development and to support economic competitiveness Economic 14. To maintain and strengthen London’s position as a leading, competitiveness and connected, knowledge based global city and to support a • Number of jobs within 45 minutes travel time employment strong, diverse and resilient economic economy structure • Growth in number of jobs providing opportunities for all • Quality (availability, speed, reliability, safety and prestige) of non-automobile modes (walking, cycling, ridesharing and public transit)

Sustainable Land Use 15. Make the best and most efficient use of land so as to • Development taken place on greenfield, greenbelt sites. support sustainable patterns and forms of development?

Housing Supply, Quality, Choice and 16. To provide a quantum, type, quality and tenure of housing

Affordability (including specialist and affordable provision) to better meet • Housing affordability in accessible locations demographic change and household demand • Number of houses built to meet the targets

188

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Proposed IIA indicators Culture 17. To safeguard and enhance the Capital’s rich cultural offer, • Degree cultural resources are considered in transport infrastructure, heritage, natural environment and talent to planning benefit all Londoners while delivering new activities that • Preservation of cultural resources and traditions maintain strengthen London’s global position • Responsiveness to traditional communities Social: Transport system’s role in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by delivering good public transport experience; safe and pleasant places; and creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being for all Londoners Accessibility 18. To maximise accessibility for all in and around London • Percentage travelling sustainably to work • % Population with access to GP / further education / primary school within 30mins by public transport • Proportion of household expenditures devoted to transport, particularly by lower-income households • Access to transport services e.g.: motor vehicles per household, portion of households located within 200m of public transport • Public transport fares levels • Real fares levels • Proportion of destinations accessible by people with disabilities and low incomes Crime, safety and security 19. To contribute to safety and security and the perceptions of • Number of killed and seriously injured road casualties safety • Deaths from respiratory diseases • Satisfaction with transportation options • Per capita traffic casualty (injury and death) rates • Number of violent assaults and sexual offences on the public transport network, particularly on young women • Anti-social behaviour on the transport network trends Health and health 20. To improve the mental and physical health and wellbeing of • Deaths from circulatory disease Inequalities Londoners and to reduce health inequalities across the City • Life expectancy and between communities • Healthy streets 10 indicators change • Exposure to harmful pollutants by most deprived populations

189

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic IIA objective Proposed IIA indicators Equality and Inclusion 21. To make London a fair and inclusive city where every • Per capita transit trips by income, disability, immigrant status, age, etc. person is able to participate , reducing inequality and disadvantage and addressing the diverse needs of the • Quality of transport for disadvantaged people (disabled, low

population incomes, children, etc.) • Affordability (portion of household budgets devoted to transport, or combined transport and housing). Social integration 22. To ensure London has socially integrated communities which are strong, resilient and free of prejudice • Overall transport system satisfaction rating (based on objective user surveys) • Quality of road and street environments • Transport system diversity

Design • Universal design (transport system quality for people with 23. To create attractive, mixed use neighbourhoods, ensuring disabilities and other special needs) new buildings and spaces are appropriately designed that • Loss of area covered by Conservation Area designations promote and enhance existing sense of place and • Perception and satisfaction with public realm distinctiveness, reducing the need to travel by motorized • Streets attractiveness surveys transport • Satisfaction with local area • Land take as a result of transport facilities

190

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix H: Testing compatibility of the IIA objectives IIA IIA 1 IIA 2 IIA 3 IIA 4 IIA 5 IIA 6 IIA 7 IIA 8 IIA 9 IIA 10 IIA 11 IIA 12 IIA 13 IIA 14 IIA 15 IIA 16 IIA 17 IIA 18 IIA 19 IIA 20 IIA 21 IIA 22 IIA 23 objecti ve

IIA 1

IIA 2

IIA 3

IIA 4

IIA 5

IIA 6

IIA 7

IIA 8

IIA 9

IIA 10

IIA 11

IIA 12

IIA 13

IIA 14 X X X X X X X X

191

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

IIA IIA 1 IIA 2 IIA 3 IIA 4 IIA 5 IIA 6 IIA 7 IIA 8 IIA 9 IIA 10 IIA 11 IIA 12 IIA 13 IIA 14 IIA 15 IIA 16 IIA 17 IIA 18 IIA 19 IIA 20 IIA 21 IIA 22 IIA 23 objecti ve

IIA 15 X X X X X X

IIA 16 X X X X X X X

IIA 17 X X X

IIA 18

IIA 19

IIA 20

IIA 21 X X X

IIA 22

IIA 23

Key

Compatible

Neutral

X Incompatible

192

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix I: Additional data sources used to inform baseline

Topic Literature

Accessibili • No additional sources ty Air quality • London Air Quality Network Summary Report 2014 • London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) (2013) • Analysing Air Pollution Exposure in London (Aether, 2013) Natural • No additional sources Capital and Natural Environme nt Climate • London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (LAEI) (2013) change and energy Crime, • The Right Direction: The Mayor’s Strategy for Improving Transport Safety, Security and Safety and Reliability in London 2014 -2017 (TfL, May 2015) security Equality • Equal Life Chances for All (GLA, 2014) and • Is Britain Fairer? he state of equality and human rights 2015( Equality and Human Rights Inclusion Commission, 2015) • Objectives and the Equality Duty: A Guide for Public Authorities (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2011) • Travel in London: understanding our diverse communities (TfL, 2015) Connectivi • WebCAT ty • Public transport accessibility level (PTAL) data Economic • MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5 competitiv eness Employme • GLA employment projections nt Flood risk • Environment Agency flood data • Impacts of recent weather events on London’s transport network, (TfL, June 2016) • London Underground Comprehensive Review of Flood Risk (LUCRFR) project (TfL 2016) Geology • British Geological Survey and soils • Natural England’s Agricultural Land Classification Maps 2010 Historic • London Heritage at Risk Register (Historic England, 2015) Environme nt Housing • MTS Challenges and Opportunities Evidence Base v.5 Supply, Quality, Choice and Affordabilit y Design • Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) Customer Satisfaction Survey Results, 2011

193

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Topic Literature

Materials • No additional sources and waste Noise and • No additional sources vibration Health and • Mindell JS, Watkins SJ and Cohen JM, Health on the Move 2 (2011) Transport and Health health Study Group, section 6.4. inequalitie • Paulo Rui Anciaes, Peter Jones & Jennifer S. Mindell (2015): Community Severance: Where s Is It Found and at What Cost? Transport Reviews, DOI:10.1080/01441647.2015.1077286). • Active People Survey, Sport England (Public Health Outcome Framework), available from: http://www.phoutcomes.info/search/physical%20activity#page/0/gid/1/pat/6/par/E12000007/at i/102/are/E09000003/iid/90275/age/164/sex/4, accessed on 30 September 2016. Population • ONS • GLA population projections • GLA (2016) GLA 2015 round trend-based projections – Results, available from: https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/2015-round-population-projections/2016-07- 19T13:06:46/2015%20trend%20projection%20results.pdf, accessed on 1 August 2016. • GLA (2015) 2014 Round Ethnic Group Population Projections, available from https://files.datapress.com/london/dataset/2014-round-ethnic-group-population- projections/2015-12-03T10:47:49/Update%2012- 2015%20R2014%20Ethnic%20Group%20Population%20Projections.pdf, accessed on 1 August 2016.

Water • Environment Agency flood risk maps resources and quality

194

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix J: IIA Objectives Workshop, 14 June 2016, GLA

Table discussion group members participated:

Environment Group:

Patrick Feehily – GLA

Annuete Figueiredo – GLA

Dr German Dector-Vega – Sustrans

Daniel Bicknell – Environment Agency

Jenny Bates – Friends of the Earth

Kathryn Fletcher – Historic England

Irina Davis – Jacobs

Lucy Hayward-Speight – TfL

Economic Group:

Amanda Decker – GLA

Graham Sounders – Historic England

Sion Eli Williams – Friends of the Earth

Harriet Finney – Creative Industries Federation

Rachael Rooney - GLA

Social Group

Fiona Wright – GLA

Ellen Clifford – Inclusion London

Claire Lesko – Equality and Human Rights Commission

Luke Burroughs – London Councils

Bryony Dyer – TfL

Laura Bradshaw – TfL

Robin Brown – Just Space

195

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix K: Abbreviations

AEI Assessment of Economic Impacts

BAME Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Groups

CAZ Central Activity Zone

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CSIA Community Safety Impact Assessment

DCO Development Consent Order

DfT Department for Transport

DLR Docklands Light Railway

DVS Direct Vision Standard

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EqIA Equality Impact Assessment

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GLA Greater London Authority

HIA Health Impact Assessment

HRA Habitats Regulations Assessment

HUDU Healthy Urban Design Unit

IIA Integrated Impact Assessment

KSI Killed or Seriously Injured

LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people

LGV Large Goods Vehicle

LIPs Local Implementation Plans

LTS London Transportation Studies

MPS Metropolitan Police Service

MTS Mayor's Transport Strategy

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

PM10 Particulate Matter (measuring 10µm or less)

PT Public Transport

196

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

PTAL Public Transport Accessibility Level

SA Sustainability Appraisal

SAC Special Areas of Conservation

SEA Strategic Environment Assessment

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

SPA Special Protection Area

SUDS Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems

TfL Transport for London

ULEV Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle

ULEZ Ultra-Low Emission Zone

WHO World Health Organization

ZEC Zero Emission Capable

197

Mayor’s Transport Strategy Integrated Impact Assessment: Scoping Report

Appendix L: QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST

To ensure that the requirements of Strategic Environmental Assessments (as required by European Directive EC/2001/42) are adhered to, the following quality assurance checklist has been completed. It identifies where in the IIA process the requirements of SEA will be undertaken. The checklist appears in the Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (September 2005, ODPM) and has been adapted for the purposes of this IIA. Those relevant to this stage have been highlighted below.

Section of the IIA Scoping Information requirement of the SEA Directive (defined by Annex I) Report Objectives and Context The plan’s or programme’s purpose and objectives are made clear. Part 2.1, 2.3

Environmental/Sustainability issues and constraints, including international and EC environmental protection objectives, are considered in developing Part 4.1, 4.2, Appendix A and objectives and targets. B

SEA objectives, where used, are clearly set out and linked to indicators and Part 7.1, Appendix G, Table targets where appropriate. 7.2

Links with other related plans, programmes and policies are identified and explained. Part 4.1, Appendix A

Conflicts that exist between SEA objectives, between SEA and plan objectives and between SEA objectives and other plan objectives are Part 4.1, Appendix H identified and described.

An outline of the contents and main objectives of the plan or programme, and its relationship with other relevant plans and programmes. Part 2.1, 2.3

Scoping Consultation Bodies are consulted in appropriate ways and at appropriate times on the content and scope of the Environmental Report. Part 1.3, 8.1.4, 8.2

The assessment focuses on significant issues. Table 5.2, Part 6, Appendix F Technical, procedural and other difficulties encountered are discussed; assumptions and uncertainties are made explicit. Part 3.12, 7.5

Reasons are given for eliminating issues from further consideration. Appendix F

Baseline Information Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and their likely Table 5.2, Appendix F, Table evolution without the plan or programme are described. 6.1

Environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected are described, including areas wider than the physical boundary of the plan area Appendix F, Appendix B where it is likely to be affected by the plan.

Difficulties such as deficiencies in information or methods are explained. Part 7.5

198