Delivering Strategies Wembley Masterplan Transport Strategy Review
Report for London Borough of Brent
November 2008
Document Control
Project Title: Wembley Masterplan Strategy Review
MVA Project Number: C3755100
Document Type: Final Report
Directory & File Name: C:\Documents And Settings\Administrator\Desktop\Wembley Masterplan Strategy Review Final Report 141108 JE.Doc
Document Approval
Primary Author: John Emslie
Other Author(s): Tim Cuthbert
Reviewer(s): Tim Cuthbert
Formatted by: SW
Distribution
Issue Date Distribution Comments
1 22/09/2008 Client Group Draft
2 17/11/2008 Client Group Final
Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 1.1 Background 1.1 1.2 Transport Assessment Model 1.2 1.3 Masterplan 1.2 1.4 Specific Issues for Consideration 1.3
2 Policy Context 2.1 2.1 Policy Review 2.1 2.2 The Masterplan and Prevailing Policy 2.8
3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives 3.1 3.1 Masterplan Phasing and Districts 3.1 3.2 Transport Infrastructure and Initiatives – by Masterplan District 3.1 3.3 Transport Infrastructure and Initiatives – General Masterplan Area 3.5 3.4 Transport Network, Event Day Management 3.6
4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing 4.1 4.1 Introduction 4.1 4.2 Existing Junction Assessment 4.1 4.3 Masterplan Road Network Proposals 4.6 4.4 Committed highway improvements 4.8 4.5 Servicing 4.8
5 Transport Network Baseline – Walk and Cycle 5.1 5.1 Introduction 5.1 5.2 Walking and Cycling 5.1
6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail 6.1 6.1 Introduction 6.1 6.2 Bus 6.1 6.3 Committed bus improvements 6.4 6.4 Mainline Rail 6.4 6.5 Tube 6.5 6.6 Committed Rail improvements 6.7 6.7 Overview 6.7
7 Travel Demand Forecasting 7.1 7.1 Introduction 7.1 7.2 Land Use Assumptions 7.2 7.3 Scenarios Tested 7.4 7.4 Transport Interventions 7.4
Transport Strategy Review 1 Contents
7.5 Model Outputs 7.5
8 Transport Assessment 8.1 8.1 Introduction 8.1 8.2 Junction Impacts 8.1 8.3 Link Flows 8.14 8.4 Public Transport Capacity Assessment 8.25 8.5 Summary 8.28
9 Study Findings and Conclusions 9.1 9.1 Introduction 9.1 9.2 Planning Policy Alignment 9.1 9.3 Traffic Impact and Highway Improvements 9.2 9.4 Parking 9.8
10 Next Steps 10.1 10.1 Introduction 10.1 10.2 Movement Strategy 10.1 10.3 Walk and cycle accessibility 10.2 10.4 Bus and rail network accessibility 10.2 10.5 Masterplan delivery reappraisal 10.4 10.6 Wider studies 10.4 10.7 Summary 10.5
Tables
Table 7.1 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘Do Minimum Scenario’ – AM peak... 7.8 Table 7.2 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘Do Minimum Scenario’ – PM peak ... 7.8 Table 7.3 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘With Transport Interventions Scenario’ – AM peak ...... 7.8 Table 7.4 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘With Transport Interventions Scenario’ – PM peak ...... 7.9 Table 8.1 Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road Junction – AM peak ...... 8.2 Table 8.2 Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road Junction – PM peak...... 8.3 Table 8.3 Wembley High Road/South Way – AM peak...... 8.4 Table 8.4 Wembley High Road/South Way – PM peak...... 8.4 Table 8.5 Empire Way/Engineers Way – AM peak ...... 8.5 Table 8.6 Empire Way/Engineers Way – PM peak...... 8.5 Table 8.7 Empire Way/Fulton Rd – AM peak...... 8.6 Table 8.8 Empire Way/Fulton Rd – PM peak...... 8.6 Table 8.9 North End Road/Bridge Road – AM peak ...... 8.7 Table 8.10 North End Road/Bridge Road – PM peak ...... 8.7 Table 8.11 Bridge Road/Forty Lane – AM peak ...... 8.8 Table 8.12 Bridge Road/Forty Lane – PM peak ...... 8.8 Table 8.13 Fulton Road/Fifth Way – AM peak ...... 8.9 Table 8.14 Fulton Road/Fifth Way – PM peak ...... 8.9
Transport Strategy Review 2 Contents
Table 8.15 Engineers Way/First Way – AM peak ...... 8.10 Table 8.16 Engineers Way/First Way – PM peak ...... 8.11 Table 8.17 Great Central Way/Fourth Way – AM peak ...... 8.12 Table 8.18 Great Central Way/Fourth Way – PM peak ...... 8.12
Table 8.19 Great Central Way/NCR – AM peak ...... 8.13 Table 8.20 Great Central Way/NCR – PM peak ...... 8.13 Table 8.21 Drury Way/North Circular Road – AM peak...... 8.14 Table 8.22 Drury Way/North Circular Raod – PM peak ...... 8.15
Figures
Figure 1.1 Wembley Masterplan 2008 Area...... 1.1 Figure 3.1 Masterplan – the New Wembley ...... 3.1 Figure 3.2 Masterplan Phasing ...... 3.2 Figure 3.3 Masterplan Districts ...... 3.2 Figure 4.1 Road Junction Appraisal Summary...... 4.2 Figure 4.2 Masterplan Transport Concept ...... 4.7 Figure 6.1 Buses routes from Wembley Central (including Masterplan area) ...... 6.1 Figure 6.2 Buses routes from Wembley Park (including Masterplan area) ...... 6.2 Figure 7.1 Total Generated and Attracted Trips - AM Peak - Do Minimum Conditions ... 7.5 Figure 7.2 Total Generated and Attracted Trips - PM Peak - Do Minimum Conditions.... 7.6 Figure 7.3 Total Generated and Attracted Trips - AM Peak - With Transport Interventions ...... 7.6 Figure 7.4 Total Generated and Attracted Trips - PM Peak - With Transport Interventions...... 7.7 Figure 7.5 AM Peak Base Traffic ...... 7.10 Figure 7.6 PM Peak Base Traffic ...... 7.11 Figure 7.7 AM Peak Reassigned Base Traffic...... 7.12 Figure 7.8 PM Peak Reassigned Base Traffic...... 7.13 Figure 7.9 Stage 1 Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM peak...... 7.14 Figure 7.10 Stage 1 Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM peak ...... 7.15 Figure 7.11 Stage 2 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM peak ...... 7.16 Figure 7.12 Stage 2 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - PM peak ...... 7.17 Figure 7.13 Stage 3 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM peak ...... 7.18 Figure 7.14 Stage 3 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - PM peak ...... 7.19 Figure 7.15 Stage 4 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM peak ...... 7.20 Figure 7.16 Stage 4 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - PM peak ...... 7.21 Figure 8.1 Traffic Flow Volume on Links - Base AM...... 8.19 Figure 8.2 Traffic Flow Volume on Links - Stage 1 Resultant AM...... 8.20 Figure 8.3 Traffic Flow Volume on Links - Stage 4 Resultant AM...... 8.21
Transport Strategy Review 3 Contents
Figure 8.4 Traffic Flow Volume on Links - Base PM...... 8.22 Figure 8.5 Traffic Flow Volume on Links - Stage 1 Resultant PM...... 8.23 Figure 8.6 Traffic Flow Volume on Links - Stage 4 Resultant PM...... 8.24
Transport Strategy Review 2
Executive Summary
This study was commissioned to examine the deliverability of the Draft Wembley Masterplan (masterplan) in terms of the various transport infrastructure and initiatives proposed to support the likely levels of movement generated by the masterplan’s development content. It was to examine the trigger points for transport intervention from the present day throughout the masterplan period and as appropriate, propose amendments to the nature and timing of infrastructure provision and the scale of development.
In order to derive a bottom-up assessment of the likely volume of movement generated by the masterplan across all transport modes, a bespoke spreadsheet-based Transport Assessment Model (the Wembley Model) has been developed. Through a broad-brush assessment of both the volume and pattern of movement, the application of the Wembley Model has provided a comprehensive and representative assessment of masterplan development impact based on the information available.
Masterplan Transport Assessment
The scale of development envisaged over the masterplan period is striking with over 650,000m2 of new build or replacement buildings planned together with some 8000 new dwellings. Regeneration on this scale is ambitious and delivery of the masterplan presents many challenges, not least those associated with transport, access and movement. At present, the transport strategy is in its infancy with detail lacking in many areas and much work needed to present a fully integrated approach.
Policy Alignment
The masterplan as presented is in general accordance with the prevailing policy imperative for development, supporting, promoting and reliant upon an integrated and sustainable transport network. It is aligned too with guiding principles such as the area’s location within convenient access of public transport opportunities and the promotion of high quality public realm to encourage walking and cycling. However, there are a number of evident issues and tensions between the stated intentions and aspirations, and the ability to deliver them.
Movement Impact
As to be expected, the impact of the masterplan in terms of generated movement is considerable, with the majority of that impact felt prior to completion of masterplan Stage 1 in which some 5000 new dwellings are planned together with over 300,000m2 of new/replacement floorspace. As Stages 2, 3 and 4 are delivered, the estimated movement increases are offset to a greater degree by the level of movement displaced through redevelopment. Owing to the scale of development, it’s related impact, and it’s occurrence in the short-term relative to subsequent Stages, there is an immediate need to address Stage 1.
Road Network
The road network in the surrounding area, and to a lesser extent within it, is already under pressure, particularly at peak times. As expected, the masterplan’s car-based movement adds to that substantially, both generally and at specific identified points on the network.
Transport Strategy Review i Summary
This assessment has demonstrated very significant traffic impacts, particularly during masterplan Stage 1.
Whilst detailed junction design and modelling are beyond the scope of this study, if the baseline conditions are considered together with the Stage 1 forecast traffic flows, our analysis points to a need for essential junction improvements at the following locations;
Empire Way/Engineers Way;
Wembley Hill Road/Empire Way;
Engineers Way/Olympic Way;
Wembley Hill Road/South Way;
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road,
(reconnection of) North End Road/Bridge Road,
North End Road/Albion Way,
Bridge Road/Forty Lane; and
Albion Way/Fulton Road.
These junction improvements are required not only to prevent undue traffic congestion but also to deliver essential bus priority measures and provide a more positive environment for pedestrians and cyclists
Improvements at the following junctions would be beneficial though not essential;
Empire Way/Wembley Park Drive;
Empire Way/Fulton Road, and
Drury Way/A406 North Circular Road (strategic scheme needed)
Of the road network improvements considered, the reconnection of North End Road offers a variety of benefits; a valuable east-west connection for residents and businesses on event days, enabling routes intersecting with Olympic Way to become less traffic dominated, providing a link into an area that currently suffering from problems of severance and poor quality public realm, and creating much improved pedestrian and cycle access onto Olympic Way. The reconnection is currently implied within Stage 2 of the masterplan, but there are demonstrable benefits in making the connection earlier, certainly prior to full completion of masterplan Stage 1.
The Section 106 Agreement reached with developer Quintain for its Stage 1 development identifies works to several of those junctions which will go some way in mitigating the effects of the forecast traffic flows. However, the consented Quintain development represents only about 60% of the total floorspace envisaged for Stage 1 of the masterplan. Unsurprisingly therefore, our analysis indicates that the Section 106 works package will be insufficient both in terms of the individual junction schemes and the geographical extent of the improvement measures to fully mitigate the full Stage 1 impacts.
Rail and Tube
The capacity of the tube and rail network to handle additional movement is generally good and delivered during the key masterplan Stage 1 period. However, the extent to which it
Transport Strategy Review ii Summary
should be deemed as truly accessible to those living and working in the masterplan area is questionable, as is its attractiveness to travellers in terms of geographical coverage. The network’s radial orientation limits the destinations served directly, and its function in serving medium to longer distance journeys limits its effectiveness in serving local destinations. These factors have tended to suppress the estimates made for tube and rail travel mode share within this assessment.
Bus Services
Bus services can help deliver passengers to local rail and tube stations, travelling orbitally as well as radially without necessarily costly infrastructure provision, serving destinations at a very local level. Improvements to bus services are generally more straightforward than rail in terms of infrastructure provision, but require careful planning and close attention in terms of routeing to optimise passenger loadings throughout their planned routes. Though some general and specific service improvements are indicated by the masterplan, a step-change in service provision would assist in increasing the bus travel mode share for this important part of the sustainable transport network. With bus services afforded clear priority and presence in internal and external road network planning, then bus services may play a full role in masterplan delivery.
Walking and Cycling
The anticipated numbers of additional walking and, to a lesser extent cyclist movements, are considerable but manageable within the context of a public realm designed to cater for the volumes related to stadium events. It is though important to focus on the provision of a high quality public realm with safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes throughout the area to encourage journeys on foot within and between masterplan districts, and to access public transport and local destinations in the wider Wembley area. This should include the provision of enhanced facilities for pedestrians and cyclists at the many signal controlled junctions within and around the masterplan area.
Replacement of the Pedway with a wide processional route that crosses Engineers Way at- grade is one of the key aspirations of the masterplan and appears feasible in terms of anticipated traffic flows and potential pedestrian conflict along Engineers Way. With the alternative traffic route offered by the reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road, and suitable traffic calming/public realm enhancements, the eastern end of Engineers Way may be sufficiently ‘de-trafficked’ for removal of the Pedway.
Travel Demand Management
New development, planned on contemporary principles, offers considerable potential to deliver on the promise offered by measures such as Travel Plans, car clubs and car sharing, personalised travel planning and tele-working. Reducing the need for travel in the first instance, and rationalising those movements made may make a substantial contribution to minimising demand on the transport network across all modes. This assessment has taken account of these factors in relation to the general undertakings made within the masterplan. A strengthening of those undertakings at the general and specific level, in terms of actions and travel mode share transfer targets may make a significant contribution in delivering the masterplan’s land use content.
Transport Strategy Review iii Summary
Parking
The level of parking proposed for residential parking across the site at 0.5 of a space per unit is consistent with the theme of restraining on-site parking to minimise associated vehicle movements and encourage use of alternative travel modes. Restraining the overall parking level remains important to minimise road network congestion and encourage travel by other modes. There is the opportunity to consider further parking restraint for those developments offering the best alternative mode access. Car-free developments are a growing feature in urban environments and a strategy to deliver dedicated car-free development areas within the masterplan area will deliver flexibility to provide needed spaces elsewhere. However, with a view to the wider sustainable travel imperative, then that provision should be given on the basis of an ongoing review and possible reduction of provision over time.
There are no proposals presented within the masterplan to address coach parking provision in light of its use on non-event days. A remote facility located external to the masterplan area with a passenger set-down area near the stadium, appears unsatisfactory given the distance to the stadium, the additional movements on local roads and possible problems of event day congestion. The potential reconnection of the North End Road to Bridge Road does though offer further road network flexibility and perhaps an opportunity to consider a coach parking site (or several smaller sites) in the Eastern Lands District. This would offer a direct convenient connection to both the strategic North Circular Road route, and indirectly via Forty Lane/Neasden Lane via Bridge Road.
Masterplan Deliverability
As presented, and taken at face value, the masterplan’s deliverability in transport terms is questionable. This study has examined only one possible development scenario, the current masterplan, with a set of ‘most likely’ transport interventions. The resultant traffic forecasts have proved to be significant and give cause for concern.
During the build-out of the masterplan Stage 1, the road network is anticipated to be substantially overloaded at key points and worsens with each subsequent masterplan Stage. Action to provide additional capacity on the road network has been demonstrated to assist in prolonging the road network’s life though whether is it desirable, practical or affordable to ‘build a way out’ of the potential problems associated with this scenario remains to be seen, particularly when considering the needs of other users and interests such as pedestrians, cyclists, bus movement and the wider needs and objectives of the masterplan. The answer will hinge on the scale of the schemes identified when they are worked up in detail, though experience would suggest that in most cases an appropriate solution can be found.
One course of action to address the anticipated transport network pressures would be to rethink the scale of the development, but that may be premature at this stage if traffic impact is the only issue. Instead, further masterplan development with much greater emphasis and identified credible action on minimising the need for travel and encouraging travel by non car modes may offer the way forward. The work undertaken suggests the effect of the masterplan’s transport interventions as presented in terms of encouraging mode shift away from the private car are modest, amounting to about a 4% change over the do- minimum scenario.
Transport Strategy Review iv Summary
Further Masterplan Development
The conclusions presented have been reached through application of the quite general indications given by the masterplan on numerous key matters such as; retail store type and catchment, employment type and catchment, vehicular site access and penetration (including bus), future funding expectations, and sustainable transport/eco-led aspirations (e.g. car-free development potential). Further and detailed information on such key matters would enable the assumptions on which this work has been based to be revisited and amended as appropriate. It would also enable due consideration of many matters affecting transport demand and use, such as the demand for medium to longer distance rail travel, the proportion of site residents likely to live and work on site, and the probable extent of the use of bus services based on a robust assessment of service accessibility.
The transport assessment modelling work has provided for the first time some quantification of the likely transport impacts of the masterplan proposals which has in turn provided an insight into the adequacy of the emerging transport strategy elements in delivering a sustainable access solution. Experience suggests however, that a truly integrated transport strategy cannot be developed ‘offline’ from an ongoing masterplanning process in a single pass. Instead an iterative approach is needed whereby outputs from the transport analysis are fed back into the design process to inform decisions on scale, access, parking provision, public transport accessibility, street hierarchy and so on. Such an approach is more likely to produce an optimum solution that will withstand scrutiny further downstream in the planning process.
A supporting Masterplan Movement Strategy covering matters including; accessibility, walk and cycle, bus, freight/servicing, event day management, parking (including coaches) travel demand management, and public realm could investigate and provide the needed additional detailed examination of each of those matters to optimise masterplan related movement. It could also provide a framework for the ongoing consideration of key questions, and assist with decision-making with regard to movement needs in the overall masterplanning context.
Transport Strategy Review v
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 This report presents a technical review of the transport elements of the Draft Wembley Masterplan 2008, an update of that first published in 2004. It examines the deliverability of the masterplan in transport terms, examining the various transport infrastructure proposals and related initiatives proposed to support movement associated with the masterplan’s development content and coverage.
1.1.2 Importantly, it also examines the trigger points for transport intervention in the form of infrastructure and initiatives from the present day throughout the masterplan period which runs until the year 2026. Those trigger points are considered in relation to the proposed four masterplan phases. A number of masterplan amendments are also proposed in terms of the nature and timing of infrastructure and initiatives along with an assessment of the appropriate scale of development proposed by the masterplan.
Figure 1.1 Wembley Masterplan Area 2008 (Source: Draft Masterplan 2008)
1.1.3 Clearly, the 18 years of the masterplan represents a very considerable period in planning terms. As with the masterplan itself, this work represents an attempt to forecast a wide range of possible events and occurrences over that period, including transport considerations such as travel mode transfer infrastructure delivery. In recognition of this, the client group have been consulted on them and have provided a valuable sounding board for the various assumptions and forecasts made concerning future land use and transport developments.
1.1.4 Our work has included a review of relevant recent transport studies in the Wembley area including a number of Transport Assessments for substantial development proposals. It has also considered relevant planning documents at the local, regional and national level.
Transport Strategy Review 1.1 1 Introduction
1.2 Transport Assessment Model
1.2.1 A central part of our assessment is the findings and conclusions resulting from our development of a spreadsheet-based Transport Assessment Model (TAM). TAM has been used to derive a ground-up assessment of the likely volume of movement generated by the masterplan development across all transport modes, along with the distribution of these movements on the surrounding road network. The model is based on the substantial land use schedule for the masterplan area and a number of informed assumptions regarding travel mode share and likely journey origins and destinations for example. Through a broad brush assessment, the TAM output represents a transparent and comprehensive transport assessment tool.
1.3 Masterplan
Status and background
1.3.1 The Draft Wembley Masterplan 2008 (the masterplan) anticipates a bold future for the area building on the national profile of the stadium and recent development. Over the next two decades, Wembley is to grow further becoming; “a world class destination, a beacon of sporting and architectural excellence and will boast a comprehensive range of high quality hotels, leisure, commercial, residential and retail activities all in a contemporary, lively and distinctive setting.”
1.3.2 It is intended to provide a guide for developers informing them of Brent Council’s aspirations and requirements for redevelopment in the masterplan area. It is intended as a flexible framework which can respond to changes in demand over the masterplan period and includes a strategy for transport infrastructure provision encouraging the promotion and use of sustainable travel modes.
1.3.3 The masterplan followed Brent Council’s Vision for a new Wembley in 2002, as updated in 2007, and a range of related documents including; Destination Wembley (development framework, 2004), and the Unitary Development Plan, 2004.
1.3.4 The ongoing development of the area is evidenced by the new stadium and the implementation of the Quintain Estates Stage 1 proposals wrapping around northern side of the stadium to the east and west.
1.3.5 The masterplan’s core objectives, as they relate to this review of the transport elements may be summarised as:
Creation of 10,000 new jobs and a range of employment opportunities;
To act as an exemplar of low-carbon living;
To provide a substantial and significant new shopping street linking to the existing Wembley High Road;
Providing a new civic focus;
Creating a pedestrian focussed environment whilst providing ‘easy’ circulation for cars;
Providing a permeable network of living streets into and throughout the area; and
Transport Strategy Review 1.2 1 Introduction
Promoting sustainable transport through limited parking, traffic management and the provision of convenient and comprehensive bus services.
1.3.6 The masterplan recognises the challenge to be faced in addressing an already congested network and develop a new framework that will provide for the further development in a sustainable way: “The aim of this masterplan is to develop a transportation strategy that will alleviate existing problems of congestion, enhance accessibility and connectivity for existing residents and provide a framework that will enable future residents and businesses to co- exist in a safe and sustainable environment”.
1.4 Specific Issues for Consideration
1.4.1 There are a number of specific issues to be explored by this study beyond that of the capacity of the present and proposed transport infrastructure to accommodate the anticipated volume of development related movements. Those issues are; removal of the Pedway, possible relocation of coach parking, servicing arrangements, the impact of movement on the public realm strategy, the appropriateness of applicable parking standards and the requirement for various road-based infrastructure proposals including the masterplan’s proposal to reconnect North End Road to Bridge Road.
1.4.2 In the following chapters we consider the policy context as it relates to the masterplan, noting in particular those transport related aspects with which the masterplan is to conform (Chapter 2). In the following Chapter 3, we present and discuss the various transport proposals and initiatives as they appear in each of the masterplan’s four Districts. Chapters 4-6 then consider the operation of the present local transport network across all of the travel modes along with an assessment of its present capacity and potential to deliver further capacity to accommodate additional development-related journeys.
1.4.3 Chapters 7 present the key findings of the Transport Assessment Model addressing the key questions relating to masterplan deliverability, transport infrastructure interventions and masterplan phasing. Chapter 8 summarises the studies key findings and conclusions.
Transport Strategy Review 1.3
2 Policy Context
2.1 Policy Review
2.1.1 It is important that the masterplan accords with prevailing planning policy at the strategic, subregional and local level. The following presents a brief review of relevant policy documents as they relate to the transport aspects of the masterplan. Particularly relevant policy statements (see italics) are commented upon.
National Planning Policy
Planning Policy Statement 13 – Transport (March 2001)
2.1.2 PPG13 – Transport was comprehensively revised in 2001 to take on board the new policy impetus. The objectives of the guidance are to integrate planning and transport at the national, regional, strategic and local levels to:
“promote more sustainable transport choices for the movements of people and freight;”
“promote accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services by public transport, walking and cycling;” and
“reduce the need to travel, especially by car.”
In order to meet the objectives of the guidance, development proposals would be expected to:
“ensure a realistic choice of access by public transport, walking and cycling is offered where new jobs, shopping, leisure and services are created;”
“reflect parking policies, alongside other planning and transport measures to promote sustainable transport choices and reduce reliance on the car for work and other journeys;” and
“where possible, give priority to people over ease of traffic movement and plan to provide more road space for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport”.
Guidance on Transport Assessment - Department for Transport (2007)
2.1.3 The Department for Transport (DfT), with Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), has published revised Guidance on Transport Assessment (March 2007). The guidance sets out a new approach to preparing Transport Assessments and identifies the following relevant considerations:
encouraging environmental sustainability;
− reducing the need to travel, especially by car;
− tackling the environmental impact of travel;
− the accessibility of the location;
− other measures which may assist in influencing travel behaviour;
managing the existing network; and
Transport Strategy Review 2.1 2 Policy Context
− making best possible use of existing transport infrastructure;
− managing access to the highway network;
mitigating residual impacts through
− demand management;
− improvements to the local public transport network, walking and cycling facilities;
− minor physical improvements to existing roads;
− provision of new or expanded roads.
London Plan, 2008
2.1.4 The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) is the current iteration of the London Plan, the strategic spatial planning document for London. The update was produced after a series of alterations to the London Plan originally published in 2004.
2.1.5 The document is highly relevant to masterplan delivery in describing the imperative for a sustainable and integrated approach to development delivery in London. The significant transport policy elements are summarised below:
Policy 3C.1 Integrating transport and development encouraging patterns and forms of development that reduce the need to travel, especially by car
in general, supporting high trip generating development only at locations with both high levels of public transport accessibility and capacity, sufficient to meet the transport requirements of the development. Parking provision should reflect levels of public transport accessibility (see Annex 4 on Parking Standards)
2.1.6 The masterplan performs well in this regard with the area located generally within convenient reach of existing public transport infrastructure. The London Plan notes that parking provision should reflect the levels of accessibility, suggesting that in relation to Wembley, provision may require capping.
Policy 3C.2 Matching development to transport capacity The Mayor will and boroughs should consider proposals for development in terms of existing transport capacity, both at a corridor and local level. Where existing transport capacity is not sufficient to allow for travel generated by proposed developments, and no firm plans exist for a sufficient increase in capacity to cater for this, boroughs should ensure that development proposals are appropriately phased until it is known these requirements can be met.
2.1.7 The masterplan makes provision for development phasing, though not explicitly in relation to transport infrastructure proposals and capacity.
Policy 3C.3 Sustainable transport in London The Mayor will and strategic partners should support:
measures that encourage shifts to more sustainable modes and appropriate demand management;
Transport Strategy Review 2.2 2 Policy Context
2 measures that promote greater use of low carbon technologies so that CO and other contributors to global warming are reduced; and
access improvements to and within town centres and their residential hinterlands by public transport – including by improved bus services, walking and cycling – and between town centres by improved bus services, more frequent rail services and, where appropriate, new tram and bus transit scheme.
2.1.8 A contemporary statement of sustainable transport policy and one with which the Masterplan accords in general terms. The role and potential use of sustainable modes is explored within this report.
Policy 3C.4 Land for transport Para. 3.199 Developments, and especially larger developments, that will generate large numbers of trips should be located at places accessible by public transport and with existing capacity or planned capacity coming on-stream in time to meet need.
Para. 3.199 (cont.) Matching demand to capacity is not a mechanistic exercise. The phasing of both development and transport improvements may be subject to some variation and this should be taken into account.
As with 3C.2, ‘Matching development to Transport Capacity’, the planned and timely provision of transport infrastructure is important and is examined within this masterplan transport strategy review.
Policy 3C.16 Road scheme proposals 2.1.9 The London Plan is clear in describing the policy approach toward providing road schemes, though clearly consideration needs to be given in weighing the interests of economic regeneration and development against the interests of the sustainable transport imperative.
All road schemes in London should: contribute to London’s economic regeneration and development;
not increase the net traffic capacity of the corridor unless essential to regeneration;
provide a net benefit to London’s environment;
improve safety for all users;
improve conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, public transport and business; and
integrate with local and strategic land use planning policies.
Policy 3C.20 Improving conditions for buses ensuring good bus access to and within town centres, major developments and residential areas;
ensuring that walking routes to bus stops from homes and workplaces are direct, secure, pleasant and safe; and
ensuring that bus layover and turning areas, driver facilities, bus stations and garages are available where needed.
2.1.10 These points addressed and provided for within the Masterplan and examined further within this report in terms of deliverability.
Transport Strategy Review 2.3 2 Policy Context
Policy 3C.22 Improving conditions for cycling identify and implement high quality, direct, cycling routes, where possible segregated from motorised traffic, giving access to public transport nodes, town centres and key land uses; and
encourage provision of sufficient, secure cycle parking facilities within developments, taking account of TfL’s Cycle Parking Standards.
Para. 3.242 Major new developments should provide new, high quality, segregated pedestrian and cycle routes, which are direct and provide good connections to the existing pattern of streets, and to bus stops and stations.
Para. 3.242 (cont.) Planning briefs and masterplans should include principles to encourage a high quality, connected pedestrian environment and facilities for cycling.
2.1.11 The provision of cycle facilities and routes is a key feature within the London Plan’s transport toolbox. The Masterplan makes reference to the role of cycling but provides little in the way of detailed description of routes, facilities, targets and design principles. The role and potential use of this mode is examined further within this report.
Policy 3C.23 Parking strategy The Mayor, in conjunction with boroughs, will seek to ensure that on-site car parking at new developments is the minimum necessary and that there is no over-provision that could undermine the use of more sustainable non-car modes. The only exception to this approach will be to ensure that developments are accessible for disabled people. DPD policies and Local Implementation Plans should:
adopt on- and off-street parking policies that encourage access by sustainable means of transport, assist in limiting the use of the car and contribute to minimising road traffic.
adopt the maximum parking standards set out in the annex on parking standards (Annex 4) where appropriate, taking account of local circumstances and allowing for reduced car parking provision in areas of good transport accessibility; and
provide adequate facilities for coaches that minimise impact on the road network capacity and are off-road wherever possible.
2.1.12 Aligned with national contemporary transport policy, the London Plan looks for the management of parking to play a key role in encouraging the use of sustainable travel modes whilst acknowledging the requirement for viable development. This matter is addressed within this report along with consideration of the appropriate level of parking supply and associated parking standards.
Para. 3.205 Parking space is often an inefficient and unattractive use of land. This plan sets out a parking restraint regime that balances the desirability of reducing car use with the need to provide for attractive, viable development in town centres, while recognising that many people will continue to use their cars for travel, particularly in the suburbs.
Brent Council – pre-Submission version of Core Strategy Development Plan Document– August 2008
2.1.13 This pre-submission version was prepared following agreement from the secretary for State for the council to withdraw the earlier Core Strategy in order to reflect revised Local
Transport Strategy Review 2.4 2 Policy Context
Development Framework guidance (PPS12). It includes more detail on the borough’s Growth and Opportunity Areas, with Park Royal and Wembley being designated as Opportunity Areas within the London Plan. The Core Strategy sets out the borough’s spatial vision, objectives and key policies for future development of the borough.
2.1.14 Relevant statements from the document are summarised below:
Infrastructure to Support Growth (5.3) - Transport infrastructure
Major trip generating activity to be located in areas most accessible by public transport, in particular, main transport interchanges, town centres and Opportunity/Growth Areas;
Support for orbital bus links linking Opportunity/Growth Areas, and in particular, the Fastbus proposal between Wembley and North Acton;
Development proposals not to be progressed in advance of necessary transport infrastructure;
Assessments of development transport impact to be considered cumulatively, pooling contributions within major growth areas to help mitigate impacts;
Car parking provision to be based on public transport accessibility and proximity to town centres with, accordingly, fewer spaces per dwelling / commercial floorspace within growth areas; and
Co-location of residential and work uses to be encouraged.
A Better Townscape – By Design (6.6) – Transport Corridors
2.1.15 This section draws attention to Planning Policy Statement 1 as informing the proposed spatial design approach:
“Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development. Design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted”
Brent Council - Unitary Development Plan (UDP) – 2004
UDP Chapter 6 - Transport
2.1.16 The UDP takes on board Government policy and guidance in Chapter 6 ‘Transport’ and describes the UDP’s objectives as:
To reduce the environmental by-products of traffic, such as noise, vehicle emissions and accidents;
To reduce the need to travel, especially by the private car. To promote social inclusion by planning for houses, jobs and local facilities in close proximity and ensuring access for the whole community to development, whilst minimising severance of communities by traffic;
To co-ordinate planning and regeneration to achieve transport improvements which enhance the attractiveness of regeneration areas, as well as ensuring that development in regeneration areas is designed and located so that it is attractive to access by public transport, where necessary by securing service improvements;
Transport Strategy Review 2.5 2 Policy Context
To ensure that the Borough’s residents, workforce and visitors have real choices in the means of transport they use, and that it is convenient, frequent and reliable, in a Borough free of excessive traffic volumes and congested parking. In particular to improve the quality of accessibility by public transport, walking and cycling;
To make better use of existing roadspace reducing the environmental impact of traffic by prioritising sustainable modes of transport - such as walking, cycling and buses - in managing traffic. Using this to minimise the amount of roadbuilding to principally that which essential to secure access to poorly accessed regeneration areas;
To ensure that the needs for freight transport and servicing are met - including a greater emphasis on non-road based freight transport; and
To ensure that planning decisions support the targets set in the Borough’s Air Quality Strategy, Traffic Reduction Plan and Road Safety Strategy.
2.1.17 More specifically, the UDP present a number of policies and proposals with direct relevance to issues related to development within the masterplan area:
Making Transport Impact Acceptable (6.6.9)
Not every development can be made acceptable in transport terms; sometimes it might just be the wrong use in the wrong location or it might require a thorough redesign or a reduction in scale.
2.1.18 The role of travel demand management measures is acknowledged, along with the need for annual car usage reduction targets and associated use and movement pattern monitoring.
2.1.19 Regarding developer contributions to public transport improvements, the UDP requires consideration of whether proposed improvements will make a meaningful contribution to modal shift from the car to alternative travel modes. It also requires consideration of the need for transport contributions longer-term and how contributions may pump-prime services to support services in the medium term.
2.1.20 For schemes linked to regeneration objectives but where transport objections may not otherwise be overcome, the following approach is indicated (6.6.16):
To grant permission subject to a condition linking the implementation of the development or phases of the development to specific improvements (subject to the requirements of relevant transport authorities); or
To secure from the developer a contribution to the cost of infrastructure improvements; or
To secure from the developer a contribution designed to enable a project which is already programmed to be brought forward; or
For a number of developers to contribute jointly to the improvements required, such as through an infrastructure accord.
2.1.21 Clearly, the approach above is particularly relevant to the Masterplan area given the development potential and the likely number and scale of contributions.
Transport Strategy Review 2.6 2 Policy Context
2.1.22 The importance of buses (6.7.10) in providing for access needs is recognised in relation to increasingly problematic car journeys and journeys not served conveniently by tube and rail services. TfL’s aspirational standard for bus service access being within 10 minutes walking distance (400m at most) of any property is acknowledged as desirable, though not always feasible.
2.1.23 At 6.8, the UDP notes the benefits offered through walking and cycling and the need for ‘walkable development’ to offer safe, convenient and direct routes for pedestrians (ref. also policy TRN10). At 6.8.14, the need for ‘more attention’ in addressing the needs of cyclists in the design and layout of new developments is noted, and subsequently at 6.8.15 the need for safe, secure and convenient cycle parking at all destinations.
UDP Chapter 14 - Wembley Regeneration Area
2.1.24 Chapter 14 includes within it ‘Transport in Wembley’ (14.7) describing the key importance of ‘good’ transport in delivering successful regeneration. Following a description of road network congestion the potential for unlocking the potential for greater use of the available public transport services, it concludes at 14.7.2, “A comprehensive upgrading of the infrastructure for the area is needed” To realise the major regeneration opportunities the following principles for action are identified:
For the Stadium to operate effectively, with an acceptable level of parking, there is a need to secure major public transport improvements;
Pedestrians using public transport to access the Stadium and major opportunity sites in the area should benefit from a radically upgraded pedestrian environment;
Segregation, as far as possible, of event and non-event traffic. An improved junction with the A406 North Circular Road will be sought if the scale of new development proposed warrants it (see policy TRN19);
Limitations on junction and highway capacity will also require controls on the total amount of car parking provided and the management of it;
To avoid unacceptable parking and traffic related impacts in residential areas, there needs to be an expansion of both event related and non-event related on-street parking controls, with a corresponding increase in other traffic restraint and calming programmes.
Three Stations Strategy
2.1.25 The Three Stations Strategy (14.7.5) is proposed to address shortcomings in terms of the stations themselves and the links between them and partner stations, in the interests of maximising the benefits in terms of increasing sustainable transport carrying capacity and travel mode choice. Action at all is identified in order to cater for peak event day visitors.
Parking
2.1.26 Section 14.7.9 describes the relationship between parking capacity and the surrounding road network. The supply needed to cater for event days needs to be shared with other uses on non-event days to reduce costs and make effective use of land in the area. Control of the sharing is though necessary in the interests of parking restraint. The section goes further to
Transport Strategy Review 2.7 2 Policy Context
explain that should capacity be reached, then the parking supply level should remain constant as development proceeds thereby achieving the desired shift from car use over time.
2.1.27 It goes on to describe a move to restricting temporary charged parking for events at new development and planning controls on the use of off-street contract parking.
Urban Design Quality
2.1.28 Paragraph 14.8.2 commences with the statement ‘Achieving urban quality and a high quality public realm is fundamental to turning the area round.’ Policy WEM16 describes this as:
Development within the Wembley Regeneration Area should contribute towards the creation of a world class environment. Development should help produce a distinctive and identifiable place, with a vital urban mixed-use character, where the pedestrian has priority, rather than one dominated by roads and cars.
2.2 The Masterplan and Prevailing Policy
2.2.1 The Masterplan 2008 is in generally accord with the foregoing policies in promoting sustainable and integrated transport land use planning and use of alternative modes to the car with the intention of reducing reliance on and use of the car. The Three Station Strategy and proposals for improved bus services and coverage supports these objectives. The masterplan also provides for the form of development to facilitate travel by sustainable modes, from walking and cycling through to bus and rail-based travel.
2.2.2 Clearly, as with any large-scale commercial development, there may be expected to be a tension between the demand for, and supply of, parking space. With parking supply directly linked to vehicle movements, then parking control and management are key tools in realising the sustainable and integrated transport policy imperative. This though must be balanced against the commercial development imperative, that is, providing sufficient parking will be provided to support planned development. With the road network presently reportedly experiencing frequent congestion, and with the prospect of additional development related vehicle movements, then close attention is required in striking an appropriate balance between parking demand and supply in the masterplan area.
2.2.3 The masterplan is divided into four phases related to distinct districts. Guidance suggest that development phasing needs to also linked to available/planned transport capacity and reviewed on an ongoing basis. The relationship between development phasing and transport capacity is examined further within this document.
2.2.4 The Council’s Unitary Development Plan 2004 urges consideration of development scale in recognition that in some cases, the scale may in inappropriate to the availability of adequate transport infrastructure and again, this aspect is considered in Chapter 8.
2.2.5 The importance of providing an environment conducive to walking and cycling is another common theme throughout the various policy documents, encouraging shorter distance trips by foot and cycle in favour of the car and in accessing public transport opportunities - in the context of delivering the masterplan, the more successful this plan is, then less is the pressure on the road network.
Transport Strategy Review 2.8 2 Policy Context
2.2.6 Overall, the masterplan may be viewed as in accordance with the prevailing policy imperative for development, supporting, promoting and reliant upon an integrated and sustainable transport network. Reference is made throughout to many of those guiding principles such as development location within convenient access of public transport, provision of high quality public realm to encourage walking, and managed parking to encourage travel by other modes.
2.2.7 However, there are a number of evident issues and tensions including; the extent to which the rail system will be deemed truly accessible those living and working in the masterplan area, the masterplan’s stated intention for convenient car access throughout the area, the appropriateness of the scale of the proposed development in an already congested road network, and the ability to deliver a high quality public realm given the volume of development-related movement.
2.2.8 The findings and conclusions presented within this document explore these issues and tensions and point the way to further development and successful delivery of the masterplan. Further exploration of the detail of the proposals related to further masterplan development may go far in presenting a closer and detailed examination of matters such as the accessibility to public transport opportunities from specific points within the masterplan area, and perhaps how careful and detailed design of the public realm may best accommodate the likely development related movement.
Transport Strategy Review 2.9
3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives
3.1 Masterplan Phasing and Districts
3.1.1 The masterplan development is to be delivered over four stages, with the masterplan period running until 2026. The aim is to create a single and unified Wembley and Figure 3.1 below shows the planned flow through from the Wembley High Road retail area linking to the new Boulevard within Stage 1. Though some of the consented Quintain Stage 1 scheme is under construction, much is still to be delivered, along with some of the planning obligations attached to the phased delivery of the development, see Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.1 Masterplan – the New Wembley (Source: Draft Masterplan 2008)
3.2 Transport Infrastructure and Initiatives – by Masterplan District
3.2.1 The masterplan does not present an infrastructure phasing plan to accompany the development’s land use phasing plan, see Figure 3.2. Instead, a number of infrastructure proposals are identified throughout the document and in particular, with reference to each of the identified masterplan Districts, though with no clear associated infrastructure implementation schedule (see Technical Appendix, supplied on request). The following presents a review of the proposals presented within those Districts.
Transport Strategy Review 3.1 3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives
Figure 3.2 Masterplan Phasing (Source: Draft Masterplan 2008)
Figure 3.3 Masterplan Districts (Source: Draft Masterplan 2008)
Transport Strategy Review 3.2 3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives
District One: North West District
Area Context
3.2.2 District One, the North West District, or Civic Quarter, will be centred round a new Civic Centre and public square with a range of new homes and green space. Proposals include a new (pedestrian only) retail street, multi-level car park, leisure and sports facilities, primary schools and a performance area off Olympic Way. The intended nature of the pedestrianised retail street will require a managed servicing environment to minimise conflict and maximise amenity.
3.2.3 Empire Way will remain as a primary access route with a new junction formed with Bridge Road and the shopping Street for limited access and servicing use, plus bus connections. Along with that is the proposed reconfiguration of the traffic island at Empire Way and Wembley Hill Road to ease traffic flows.
District Transport Initiatives Summary
Engineers Way and Fulton Way calmed at Olympic Way and closed on event days;
Reconfiguration of the gyratory system at Empire Way and Wembley Hill Road;
A multi-level car park, some on-street parking provided;
New pedestrian-only (shopping) street;
Shared surfaces to predominate; and
Servicing plan to be implemented.
District Two – Olympic Way
Area Context
3.2.4 Olympic Way is part of the visitor experience to Wembley Stadium and will be enhanced as part of the masterplan proposals. Replacing the Pedway, it will provide a key high volume 20 metre wide shared surface processional route from Wembley Park Station to the Stadium whilst providing an important route for everyday use, principally by pedestrians and cyclists. Some bus routes will run along it, but use by pedestrians and cyclists will predominate.
3.2.5 Engineers Way and Fulton Road will remain as east-west routes, but are to be calmed significantly at the Olympic Way junction. The masterplan includes the prospect of reconnecting North End Road to Bridge Road, with the intention of enhancing pedestrian and cycle access from Bridge Road.
District Transport Initiatives Summary
Replacement of Pedway;
Vehicular control provided through shared surfaces;
Olympic Way to be core section of Brent Cycle network; and
Reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road.
Transport Strategy Review 3.3 3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives
District Three – Wembley Park
Area Context
3.2.6 District Three, Wembley Park, will provide a green and open space of at least 1.2 hectares, more local in character and linking the new bustling mixed-use districts of Olympic Way and the Civic Quarter to the established residential properties at Danes and Empire Court. A local square will lie at the heart of the district providing intimate space with limited public access servicing adjacent residents and businesses.
3.2.7 Elsewhere a range of uses are proposed, including education, affordable workspace, localised retail, café/bars and community uses. The reconnection of North End Road is viewed as vital for this District’s lasting success, providing a strategic vehicular route via North End Road/Fulton Road/First Way. The present Fulton Road/Albion Way junction will be rationalised to ease traffic movement along the new route to North End Road/Bridge Road.
District Transport Initiatives Summary
Newly created local distributor road;
Rationalised junction at First Road/Fulton Road/Albion Way;
Speed limits introduced and formation of shared surfaces;
Parking to be mostly provided in basements;
Limited surface car parking; and
Buildings on Rutherford Way must be serviced off street.
District Four – First Way
Area Context
3.2.8 District Four, First Way, is south east of the stadium and is currently home to the majority of coach parking at the stadium. It is intended to develop into a sustainable mixed-use community; a Village/Campus with an efficient road system and green routes and spaces. The First Way district will feature a mix of residential and workspace land uses, with a village character.
3.2.9 The District is to interconnect with the pedestrian environment in Wembley Park and Olympic Way to improve connections to rail transport. Improved road circulation is intended to assist bus service penetration. The North End Way connection is viewed as the means to maintain access by road to the north and east on event days, whilst harmonisation with the developing road system at Wembley Park will assist general vehicular access.
3.2.10 The added distance to rail service connections means that parking levels may be greater in this district than others enjoying more convenient access.
3.2.11 Any proposed relocation eastwards of the present coach parking located within this area is acknowledged as requiring careful management with regard to access movements through the District.
Transport Strategy Review 3.4 3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives
District Transport Initiatives Summary
Creation of a safe pedestrian focussed environment, tolerant of heavy vehicles;
Improved connections with rail transport;
Creation of a link across the railway to Sherrins Farm;
Relocation of coach parking; and
Broader East/West street to improve circulation.
District Five – Eastern Lands
Area Context
3.2.12 Working and Industry is the theme of the Eastern Lands district. The district is already home to many jobs and workers, and the council intends to build on that. For many visitors to the area, the journey through it will provide their first impressions of it, and the council is keen to present an active working environment with attractive, green and legible public realm.
3.2.13 The road system is to be reconfigured from the present one-way to two-way operation, improving accessibility to individual sites and helping vehicular circulation throughout the masterplan area.
3.2.14 The possible relocation of coach parking to this District is viewed as a possibility, though the challenge in providing adequate pedestrian access to/from the Stadium is acknowledged.
District Transport Initiatives Summary
Reconfigured street network;
Improved one way gyratory system with conversion to two-way operation;
Improved public transport, re-routing existing services 92 and PR2 through the District; and
Possible relocation of coach parking facilities within the District.
3.3 Transport Infrastructure and Initiatives – General Masterplan Area
3.3.1 Complementing and informing the specific District-related transport initiatives are a number of general area-wide initiatives and principles as summarised below. Those appearing in the District descriptions and summaries above are not repeated here.
Stadium Access Corridor (SAC)
3.3.2 Originally intended as a key access element between the Stadium and North Circular Road, security concerns have meant that the extension of the recently completed stretch of two- way tidal flow highway to Fourth Way may not now happen (see also 3.4.3).
Walking and Cycling
Pedestrians to predominate over vehicles in the masterplan area;
Transport Strategy Review 3.5 3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives
Journey between Wembley Park and Wembley Central to be a pedestrian focussed route with efficient circulation between the three stations;
The natural environment of Wealdstone Brook and River Brent to be enhanced to provide walk and cycle routes;
Full integration with the wider Brent Cycle Network with all routes focussed on the Stadium; and
High quality cycle facilities throughout the masterplan area in terms of cycle parking, signage, bridge links etc.
Vehicular Movement
North End Road and South Way to become the principal strategic routes permitting the calming of Fulton Road and Engineers Way at their junctions with Olympic Way; and
Removal of the current dog-leg at junction of First Way/ Fulton Road to create a rationalised north-south route.
Street Hierarchy
Primary Routes - vehicle circulation to be maintained during event days on Primary routes on Empire Way, North End Road through to First Way, and when possible, South Way;
Secondary Level – on Fulton Road and Engineers Way; and
Tertiary Level – via the new street network.
Car Parking
Adoption of the three car park strategy with two multi-storey car parks within Stage 1 and another close to the new retail street close to Empire Way; and
Access to car and coach parking to be eased though junction improvements at the Drury Road junction with the North Circular road.
Public Transport
Three station strategy to ensure efficient arrival and departure;
Further improvement to platforms and ticketing areas at Wembley Central and a new ticket hall at Wembley Stadium Station; and
Dedicated limited stop bus service between Wembley Park, Park Royal and Acton, running to a 10 minute frequency and linking eight underground stations; running along the Boulevard and then Olympic Way.
3.4 Transport Network, Event Day Management
Existing
3.4.1 The masterplan provides for the maintenance of vehicular circulation on event days by the designated primary routes along Empire Way, North End Road through to First Way. The re- connection of North End Road to Bridge Road is proposed to provide an operational east-west route on event days and improved circulation in and out of the area.
Transport Strategy Review 3.6 3 Masterplan – Key Transport Initiatives
3.4.2 On stadium event days, both South Way and Fulton Road are closed, along with the partial closure of Engineers Way, constraining east-west vehicular movement. However, the impact of these closures is relatively low as the majority of events are held on weekends or midweek evenings when industrial estate activity is low.
3.4.3 The Stadium Access Corridor (SAC) scheme has been partially completed. The length between Fourth Way and the North Circular Road now provides a new two-way tidal highway linking the stadium with the North Circular Road, easing traffic flows on event days. However, the further and planned extensions of the SAC, stages 2 and 3, towards the Stadium are being reconsidered owing to significant security concerns over stadium access.
3.4.4 The Eastern Access Corridor (EAC) has though been completed, wrapping around the industrial estate along its northern boundary offering improved access to the Wembley Park Industrial Estate on non-event days and an alternative route for business traffic to/from the North Circular Road on event days.
Masterplan proposals
3.4.5 Reflecting the council’s concern over the anticipated growth in stadium events and development area activity and movements, the masterplan includes for the reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road providing an alternative east-west route largely unaffected by stadium related traffic movements.
3.4.6 The removal of the Pedway means that the very effective grade separation of pedestrians and vehicles will be lost and pedestrians moving along Olympic Way will need to cross Fulton Road and Engineers way at surface level. The masterplan keeps the event day closures of these two roads to accommodate that movement. Outside of event days, will remain routes for east-west vehicular movement and will be calmed at their intersections with Olympic Way.
Transport Strategy Review 3.7
4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
4.1 Introduction
4.1.1 This chapter assesses the operation and performance of the existing road network, based on site observations by our staff and a review of the various technical reports supplied by the council at the commencement of this study. It then presents an overview of the masterplan’s road network proposals before lastly considering present servicing arrangements and conditions within the area, as well as the proposals for servicing as described within the masterplan.
4.1.2 Our review of exiting conditions is informed by the various planning and technical studies prepared in recent years including a number of Transport Assessment documents for key developments, including the substantial Quintain Stage 1 development.
4.1.3 Those documents have provided beneficial technical assessments of prevailing transport conditions at the time of writing along with estimations of likely transport impact for their related development proposals. We have supplemented that information with our own site observations and professional judgement concerning likely transport impact. This assessment study’s remit does not include undertaking any new and additional technical modelling of the road or public transport network performance.
4.2 Existing Junction Assessment
4.2.1 The junction appraisals presented here are based on site visits from a review of relevant technical documents including the various supplied Transport Assessments and related studies prepared for proposed developments in the masterplan area.
4.2.2 We have used a Red, Amber and Green rating system to summarise junction performance, whereby Red indicates that the junction is over capacity, has significant queuing and has other serious issues. Amber indicates that the junction is approaching capacity was generally observed not to present capacity concerns but may have other issues that need addressing. A green rating indicates that the junction was observed to be operating satisfactorily with any queues dissipating in the green phase provided, with no other real issues requiring attention.
4.2.3 Figure 4.1 presents a diagrammatic summary of the findings discussed in the following.
Transport Strategy Review 4.1 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
Figure 4.1 Road Junction Appraisal Summary
Transport Strategy Review 4.2 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill (The Triangle) Junction
4.2.4 This junction has complex movements and a total of six pedestrian crossings which link to a large central triangular traffic island. It was observed that drivers who were clearly not from the locality were confused by the markings and the traffic signal layout. Our observations revealed that this junction was overcapacity and the queues on Wembley Hill blocked back to affect other junctions to the north of this junction. The two sets of stop lines on each of the approaches were observed to make the queues worse than they would have been had only one stop line been provided.
Findings
4.2.5 There are proposals to convert this junction to a signalled T-junction which would significantly simplify the vehicular movements, provide improved pedestrian facilities, and better address the desire line for pedestrians heading to Wembley Stadium. Converting this junction to a signalled T-junction would also significantly reduce the number of stop lines and traffic signals at this junction.
4.2.6 We have given this junction a red rating due to the amount of congestion and the layout issues that need resolving to improve movement by all modes.
Wembley Hill/South Way/Mostyn Avenue Junction
4.2.7 Our site observations found that only South Way had pedestrian facilities and that traffic was blocking back from the Triangle Junction. It was observed that this junction was busier in the AM peak than in the PM Peak but not over capacity on any of the approach arms. There were roadworks to the south of this junction during the site visit which was observed to be hindering the traffic.
Findings
4.2.8 We would propose that pedestrian facilities are added to those arms which currently have none and minor geometric improvements to improve the layout of this junction which would have beneficial results on vehicular and pedestrian movements.
4.2.9 We have given this junction an amber rating because most of the observed queuing was a result of the blocking back from the Triangle junction and some improvements are also required to provide pedestrian facilities.
Wembley Hill Road/Empire Way Gyratory
4.2.10 Our site observations found that the gyratory had queuing southbound traffic but this is thought to be a result of road works to the south, near the Triangle junction. This junction was observed to be free-flowing in the PM peak.
Findings
4.2.11 In the long term it may be beneficial to remove the gyratory system and reinstate two-way working. Adding pedestrian crossings would improve pedestrian facilities in this area as at present there are none and pedestrians need to negotiate two wide lanes of fast moving traffic. However, the effect of adding the facilities would in all likelihood adversely affect overall junction performance and alter the green rating given below to a red rating.
Transport Strategy Review 4.3 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
4.2.12 We have given this gyratory system a green rating as it was observed and reported to operate satisfactorily.
Masterplan proposal
Reconfiguration and rationalisation of traffic island at Wembley Hill Road/Empire Way junction.
Empire Way/Engineers Way Junction
4.2.13 No pedestrian facilities are provided at the stop lines on Empire Way though a pedestrian crossing was provided to the south of this junction. This could result in blocking back to the Empire Way/Engineers Way junction if the two sets of signals are not linked. Again it was observed that the junction was busier in the AM peak than in the PM Peak.
Findings
4.2.14 A beneficial improvement may result from adding pedestrian crossing facilities on the northbound and southbound Empire Way approaches and, either linking the additional pedestrian crossing to the south of this junction, or removing it, thereby reducing the number of traffic signals in this area, possibly improving traffic flow.
4.2.15 This junction was given an amber rating because some congestion was observed and because of the lack of pedestrian facilities on two of the three approach arms.
Empire Way/Fulton Road Junction
4.2.16 Our site observations reported that there were no congestion issues in either of the peaks and a lack of pedestrian crossings at this junction.
Findings
4.2.17 This junction may benefit from having all movements reinstated along with comprehensive pedestrian crossings on all arms. This could be tied-in with the proposed removal of the gyratory to the north of this junction. However, this may require some localised road widening and the benefits of offering a right-turn into Fulton Road are questionable, particularly in light of the intention to calm traffic flows on Fulton Way.
4.2.18 We have given this junction a green rating as no congestion issues were observed although significant improvements to pedestrian facilities appear feasible and beneficial.
Forty Lane/Forty Avenue/Bridge Road Junction
4.2.19 Our site observations during the AM and PM peaks recorded that the westbound Forty Lane arm was the busiest with the majority of the traffic turning left into Bridge Road. The on- street parking on the north side of Forty Avenue effectively reduced the two lane approach to the junction to one lane. This junction was observed to be busiest in the AM Peak although still busy in the PM peak. It was also observed that none of the arms have simple pedestrian crossings with Bridge Road requiring four different staggered crossings to get from one side to the other. Forty Lane and Forty Avenue have three staggered crossings to get pedestrians from one side to the other.
Transport Strategy Review 4.4 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
Findings
4.2.20 We conclude that this junction would benefit from significant improvement, particularly in terms of simplifying the pedestrian crossings which should have two staggers at the most and preferably with none though capacity restraints may dictate otherwise. The waiting and loading arrangements on the north side of Forty Avenue would benefit from a review of their operational efficiency along with the possible widening of the roads stated earlier.
4.2.21 This junction was given a red rating due to the capacity and pedestrian crossing issues.
Forty Lane/Salmon Street/Blackbird Hill Junctions
4.2.22 Our site observations recorded that the longest queues were on Salmon Street. The signal junction to the east of this roundabout caused traffic to block back into this roundabout which adversely affected its operation. The roundabout also becomes blocked as the central island is too small for the number of approach lanes and vehicles waiting on the roundabout frequently block other movements.
Findings
4.2.23 From our site visits and literature review we can conclude that significant improvements are required in this area to improve capacity and hence traffic flow. Our findings concur with the R182 study, that is, that these two roundabouts should be signalled and interlinked with other signal junctions/crossings in this area to promote continuity of traffic flow.
4.2.24 We have given these junctions a red rating due to the traffic congestion and in particular its adverse affect on the bus routes.
Drury Way/North Circular Junction
4.2.25 Our site visits found the junction to be operating satisfactorily with no evident queues in joining the North Circular during the PM Peak, with traffic flows at the junction similarly uncongested.
Findings
4.2.26 From our examination of a recent development-related study and discussions with officers during research for this study, we conclude that this junction is prone to congestion at peak times and in particular, at times associated with high IKEA-related activity (such as promotional sales) and Friday evenings and Saturday lunchtimes. The junction with Brentfield Road is prone to congestion (red rating), with sporadic congestion also present on the Great Central Way slip roads (green rating).
4.2.27 Clearly, these junctions operate in tandem and should be considered as such in terms of any appropriate action to address congestion. Given the reported congestion, the volume of traffic handled, and strategic importance of the A406 North Circular Road, we have combined their junction ratings and awarded a combined red rating.
Masterplan proposal Improved junction at Drury Way and the North Circular Road to enable enhanced strategic access to the wider area.
Transport Strategy Review 4.5 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
Harrow Road/North Circular Junction
4.2.28 Our site observations during the PM peak recorded vehicles queuing to leave the North Circular but the queues cleared on the next green phase of this signals for this arm. Traffic was observed to be queuing on the North Circular but this did not affect the operation of the junction.
Findings
4.2.29 We can conclude from our site visits that there are no major problems or issues at this junction in general although we expect it to be busy when there are events at Wembley Stadium and also at certain times of the year. As a result we have given this junction an amber rating.
Junctions within the Wembley Park Estate
4.2.30 Our site observations during the AM and PM peaks recorded no capacity issues at any of the junctions within this area. The masterplan’s proposals relate to a fundamental reorganisation of the road network related to the development proposals rather than reflecting present operation or capacity issues. These junctions have therefore been given a green rating.
Masterplan Proposals Rationalised junction at Fulton Road/Albion Way;
Engineers Way and Fulton Way calmed at Olympic Way and closed on event days; and
Removal of the current dog-leg at junction of First Way/ Fulton Road to create a rationalised north-south route.
4.3 Masterplan Road Network Proposals
4.3.1 As described within Chapter 3 for each of the masterplan Districts, the masterplan proposes a number of fundamental changes to the present road network to rationalise and integrate vehicular circulation and these are identified as (extract from Masterplan pg. 34):
The re-connection of North End Road to Bridge Road to allow improved circulation in and out of the area, and providing an operational east-west route on event days;
Removal of the current ‘dog leg’ at junction of First Way/Fulton Road to create a rationalised north-south route;
Rationalisation of First Way/Fulton Road/Albion Way;
The re-introduction of two-way traffic into the First Way/Fifth Way/Fourth Way gyratory system and improvements to circulation routes through the First Way area;
Improved junction at Drury Way and the North Circular Road to enable enhanced strategic access to the wider area; and
North End Road and South Way to become the main strategic routes, allowing calming of Fulton Road and Engineers Way at their intersections with Olympic Way.
Transport Strategy Review 4.6 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
Figure 4.1 Masterplan Transport Concept (Source: Draft Masterplan 2008)
4.3.2 The reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road is an established aspiration of the council in that it is held to provide a vital additional access to the Masterplan area unconstrained by stadium events. The benefits of reconnection are described within the masterplan as including:
Allowing east-west connection on event days, thus enabling existing and future residents and businesses to gain access to areas that are currently blocked for significant amounts of time;
Enabling routes intersecting with Olympic Way to become less traffic dominated;
Creating an actual and perceptual link into an area that currently suffers from problems of severance and poor quality public realm; and
Creating much improved pedestrian and cycle access onto Olympic Way.
4.3.3 No firm or detailed proposals are though presented within the masterplan indicating the type, form or operation of the road network amendments.
4.3.4 The masterplan also introduces a strategic Street Hierarchy concept. Vehicle circulation will be maintained during event days on the Primary routes on Empire Way, North End Road through to First Way, and where possible, South Way. Fulton Road and Engineers Way provide Secondary level circulation, with localised access made by way of the masterplan’s new street network of Tertiary routes.
Transport Strategy Review 4.7 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
4.4 Committed highway improvements
4.4.1 The section 106 Agreement of September 2004 for the Quintain the Stage 1 development includes for works to be carried out by Quintain, and approved by the council, at the following locations:
Wembley Hill Road/Royal Route;
Empire Way/Engineers Way;
Empire Way/Stadium Way;
Empire Way/Lakeside Way;
Wembley Hill Road/Site 09;
Engineers Way/Wembley Park Boulevard;
Engineers Way/Olympic Way;
First Way;
Engineers Way/Site E01; and
Wembley Hill Road/Empire Way.
4.4.2 Works included a commitment to provide traffic signal linking on the Wembley Hill Road corridor. In addition, a contribution of £550,000 was identified as payable to transport for London as a contribution to works at the A406 prior to occupation of the western non- residential car parking, along with £100,000 payable to the council as a traffic calming contribution in residential roads affected by the development works no later than six months after occupation of 20,000 m2 of retail and/or leisure floorspace.
4.4.3 A separate S106 Agreement covers works in connection to the LDA Lands for an improvement of the Wembley Hill Road/South Way junction with an intention for improvement of the Wembley Hill Road/High Road junction.
4.5 Servicing
Servicing - Activity
4.5.1 There are three industrial estates to the east of Wembley stadium mostly home to light industrial firms, storage and distribution as well as cash and carry. These industries create different traffic patterns and have different operating hours. The estates include over 80 plots with approximately 150 users. The general environment is poor and congestion is a significant issue during stadium events
4.5.2 Most of the units have at least some servicing provision with most of the larger units have sufficient space for HGVs at the front of their premises. The mid and small sized units often have some space at the front of their buildings with access to areas behind the premises.
4.5.3 The WIERS site survey (2004) identified the various types of industry at work within the site, and though this is likely to have altered in subsequent years, it represents a useful indication of the spread of industrial activity in the estate, with approximately 25% of the total Gross
Transport Strategy Review 4.8 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
Floor Area (GFA) is used for storage and distribution, 22% of GFA for general industry, 17% for light industry/administration, 15% for wholesale warehousing, less than 10% for retailing and the remainder of the GFA is vacant (21,500m2) with more than 50% (13,500m2) of this area being in a vast central building.
Servicing - Access
4.5.4 The area within the on-way gyratory system is mixed in terms of its industrial use. There are some small clusters of general industry but otherwise there are no areas of singular industry clusters within the estate. In the area north of the stadium there is more retailing, with two retail parks and there are also more vacant sites and some office space.
4.5.5 The estates are difficult to navigate due to lack of planning, lack of open space, the one-way system and poor signage. This makes it difficult to find specific addresses and the one-way system compounds the problem. Most of the businesses within the industrial estate can only be accessed via South Way which is often subject to severe congestion during events.
4.5.6 Data collected in support of the Quintain Stage 1 development identifies the North Circular and Drury Way/Great Central Way as the most common route into the development site for HGVs. This route is also the most popular for cars and LGVs too, so there may also be more servicing trips using this route to the site classified as LGVs. A secondary route appears to be Engineers Way with just less than half as many HGVs using this route to enter and exit the site. The AM peak contained the most HGV trips compared to the PM peak. There were, unsurprisingly, very few HGV trips made during the Saturday inter-peak hour.
4.5.7 Once vehicles were on the site most used the one-way gyratory system to move around the site which fits with the fact that currently 85% of the units have to use this system to access their units (WIERS, 2004).
Servicing - Masterplan proposals
4.5.8 The masterplan states that that the various individual development districts should have servicing facilities that are generally off-road to avoid creating disruption to traffic flows. It also recommends that servicing must be considered alongside improvements to the road network in order to allow the vehicles access within the site with the minimum of disruption to other users. The masterplan also notes that event day parking restrictions will apply to the area along with controlled parking zone (CPZ) restrictions as the area develops in order for the stadium to be properly serviced and disturbance to local people minimised.
4.5.9 More specifically, and in relation to the masterplan Districts:
North West District - carefully managed servicing strategy appropriate to the nature of the pedestrian retail street;
North West District - a new junction on Empire Way/Bridge Road with the new shopping street; limited access only and servicing and bus connections;
Olympic Way - limited servicing for hotels will be allowed on Olympic Way, and a strict management regime;
Transport Strategy Review 4.9 4 Transport Network Baseline – Roads and Servicing
Olympic Way & Wembley Park - the buildings on Rutherford Way addressing Olympic Way to be serviced off street; and
First Way - all servicing to be made off-road on the premises.
Transport for London – London Freight Plan
4.5.10 Though lacking in a specific servicing strategy and to an extent, specific proposals and/or guidelines, the masterplan is in general accord with Transport for London’s Freight Plan which sets out guiding principles for sustainable freight delivery for major development, building in sustainable serving capability to new buildings in the masterplan area including:
Planned freight arrivals;
Planned overnight delivery schedules;
Buildings designed to minimise bad neighbour servicing activity; and
Plan for strategic approach to delivery – e.g. freight consolidation centre(s) – minimise ‘white noise’ of delivery process.
Servicing summary
4.5.11 In general terms, despite problems relating to the one-way system, poor signage, and congestion on event days, the servicing arrangements for the industrial estate and the remainder of the masterplan area to the west appear to operate satisfactorily. There is an evident reliance on access via the A406 North Circular Road via Drury Way - South Way and to a lesser extent, Engineers Way.
4.5.12 With the anticipated intensification of use and associated increase in servicing movements, then the fundamental re-planning of the present industrial site area offers the potential for more efficient navigation and movement to, and around the area. The reconnection of North End Road offers the potential to provide a dedicated alternative route for service traffic on event days which may be of considerable benefit at those times.
4.5.13 The adoption and ongoing maintenance of contemporary sustainable delivery principles for masterplan implementation are important in protecting the local and wider environment, but also in promoting efficient movement throughout the area, for example in encouraging service vehicle movements at non-peak times for general traffic movements, and in providing freight consolidation facilities to minimise the need for service vehicle movements.
Transport Strategy Review 4.10
5 Transport Network Baseline – Walk and Cycle
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This chapter continues the review of present conditions and issues and reviews walk and cycle elements of the transport network as it relates to the masterplan area.
5.2 Walking and Cycling
Existing - Walking
5.2.1 In general, current conditions for pedestrians are uninviting within the masterplan area, with inconsistent route signing of variable quality, footways sometimes found in poor condition, priority ceded to vehicles in most locations and often unfavourable conditions to be faced by those in wheelchairs or pushing buggies.
5.2.2 The route from Wembley Central Station is sign posted at the station at the station entrance, but no further signs are provided from that point until reaching Wembley Stadium station. The crossing facilities at Wembley High Road at the Triangle junction are unhelpful in not providing for clearly identifiable pedestrian desire lines and presenting an intimidating vehicular dominated crossing environment. Crossing from the south side of the High Road involves walking past Wembley Hill Road and crossing at the Triangle junction. The north side of High Road leads directly on to Wembley Hill Road, but pedestrians need to cross this road to access the Masterplan area. To access White Horse Bridge the pedestrian desire line falls straight across the busy Wembley Hill Road.
5.2.3 From Wembley Park Station at the very north point of the Masterplan area, station access can be gained directly from Olympic Way, via a flight stairs. Lifts are provided for disabled users and pushchairs. A short length of subway has been provided to separate pedestrians on Olympic Way and Bridge Road, though this could become uninviting during nighttime hours. Small pedestrian refuges are provided along Bridge Road adjacent to the station to enable pedestrians to access the station at Bridge Road level.
5.2.4 Priority is mostly afforded to vehicles at various points around the site such as at the Fulton Way/Olympic Way crossing. Before pedestrians continue on their journey along Olympic Way they have to give way to vehicles travelling along Fulton Way.
5.2.5 The Pedway looks dated and creates uninviting areas underneath its structure. However, it does very successfully separate the flow of pedestrians on Olympic Way from vehicles on Engineers Way very effectively.
Transport Strategy Review 5.1 5 Transport Network Baseline – Walk and Cycle
Existing - Cycling
5.2.6 In a similar vein to the walking environment, the study area is unfriendly for cyclists with no dedicated cycle parking found and no directional signage or maps found to help navigate cyclists around the site.
5.2.7 The area currently generates and attracts a large number of HGVs to the roads around the site. Cycling amongst these vehicles is intimidating, especially when being overtaken. A large number of vehicles within the site seem to be travelling at an unsafe speed. Although some speed reduction measures are in place, this doesn’t seem to stop vehicles speeding past cyclists.
5.2.8 In a number of places poor drainage causes rain water to sit on the edge of the roads meaning that cyclists have to steer around it, or have to stop because vehicles have overtaken and have not given the cyclist enough room to manoeuvre. Around the more industrial areas of the site a great amount of dirt seems to be present on the road. This means, especially when wet, a cyclist and their cycle is covered in this when they pass over it.
5.2.9 Speed humps along South Way reduce the speed of passing vehicles, but also makes it uncomfortable for the cyclist. Similarly, the table on Engineers Way causes discomfort.
5.2.10 On-street parking along Hannah Way, and other locations, cause cyclists to pull out into the middle of the road to overtake. This is undesirable, especially when HGVs are approaching from the other direction. Manhole covers on various roads around the area are located on cycling desire lines and create an uncomfortable ride.
5.2.11 No cycle parking is present at Wembley Central Station and the railings along High Road may encourage cyclists to lock their cycles up against them. The railings also make it difficult for cyclists to stop and start their journey from the station.
5.2.12 Cycle routes around the area link poorly to the surrounding area, with much of the area completely severed by the railway tracks. Wembley High Road is part of Cycle Route 45. However, facilities on this stretch of road are limited to cycle stop advanced lines, sharing bus lanes and cycle paint markings. The High Road is very congested, with a high number of HGVs, and together with illegal unloading makes the trip along High Road very difficult for cyclists.
Masterplan proposals
5.2.13 The masterplan proposals promise much in general terms, undertaking to provide a high quality walking and cycling environment. Within the ‘build area’ of the masterplan area then there is a clear opportunity for this offered by the substantial re-planning and re-prioritising of the road network and the public realm. Such measures will go some way to encouraging cycle use.
5.2.14 However, on the external road network, then there remain a number of challenges in addressing what appear to be long-standing issues caused by the vehicle dominated
Transport Strategy Review 5.2 5 Transport Network Baseline – Walk and Cycle
environment. The challenge is to provide a safe and cyclist-friendly environment with relevant links to cycle routes, road crossing facilities, and key destinations in the context of an already pressured road network and masterplan proposals which may add to that pressure at several junctions and road links.
Transport Strategy Review 5.3
6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This section of the Report provides an overview of the current public transport provision in/around the masterplan area along with an assessment of future spare capacity for each transport mode and line/service, and an appreciation of the masterplan proposals for public transport. Each transport mode, bus, rail, and tube, is considered in turn with conclusions presented at the end of the chapter.
6.2 Bus
Existing provision
6.2.1 The Masterplan site is served by 12 bus routes which provide interchange access to Wembley Park, Wembley Stadium, and Wembley Central stations as well as direct connections to many destinations within Brent and adjoining boroughs. These destinations include: Harrow, Kenton, Brent Cross, Neasden, Willesden, Park Royal, Ealing, Perivale, Alperton, and Sudbury.
Figure 6.1 Buses routes from Wembley Central (including Masterplan area)
Transport Strategy Review 6.1 6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail
Figure 6.2 Buses routes from Wembley Park (including Masterplan area)
6.2.2 Overall the bus services provide a good range of connections although there is limited penetration by services within the current Masterplan site. Only two services (92 and PR2) operate within the masterplan site, operating on a 12-minute and 20-minute frequency respectively.
6.2.3 There has been considerable investment in operating stock in recent years which means that, in general, the quality of buses is high. The quality of stops is more variable but as a minimum there is the standard TfL level of service information.
Bus capacity estimates
6.2.4 A previous study by Buro Happold on behalf of Quintain Estates indicated that there was spare capacity on the local bus network. This analysis has been updated to reflect changes to bus routes and increased bus patronage in recent years.
6.2.5 There is, in general, available capacity on all bus routes in the area. The estimated overall capacity on bus services is 66%, that is to say, two out of every three spaces on each bus are not occupied. There is however little to no capacity on routes 182 and 297 which is borne out by qualitative evidence provided by LBB. Capacity on route 18 is also believed to be
Transport Strategy Review 6.2 6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail
lower than shown due a more rapid increase in demand due to the service's recent conversion to articulated 'bendy' bus stock.
6.2.6 In absolute terms there is present-day spare capacity for a significant number of people to travel to/from the masterplan area in the busiest morning and evening peak hour periods. The available capacities are in the order of 5000 people per hour on all services. Future year capacities will be lower due to general patronage growth and by 2027 it is estimated to be in the region of 2500 people per hour on all services.
Future changes to the bus network
6.2.7 There is the possibility of a new dedicated and limited stop service being introduced running from Wembley to Acton via Park Royal. Running orbitally it would provide links between a wide range of existing radial underground and heavy rail lines. However, there are concerns regarding the likelihood of this service being realised.
6.2.8 There are also plans to improve Route 182 with c. £24m of investment for a '3G' study. This will fund a variety of infrastructure schemes between Harrow Weald and Brent Cross as well as complementary measures. The proposals are at a 'draft feasibility level' and therefore no increase to future total bus capacity has been assumed for the purposes of this study.
6.2.9 Other potential changes include some localised extensions and re-routings to a number of services. The likelihood and overall impact of these changes is unknown at the present time and has been assumed as neutral in impact terms.
Masterplan proposals for bus
6.2.10 The key improvements identified in the masterplan are in providing the dedicated limited stop bus service from Wembley to Acton via Park Royal, and in establishing an agreed movement structure for buses that provides a spread and penetration of bus services into the masterplan area.
6.2.11 The masterplan proposes a diversion of bus routes 92 and 182 up a newly created boulevard into the core of the Masterplan area (as part of Stage 1 development). Additionally, the routing of the dedicated limited stop bus service up the Boulevard and into Olympic Way could create an active and accessible area whilst maintaining pedestrian-oriented public realm.
6.2.12 Additional to the re-routed services specified above there is the clear need to enhance bus penetration into the site as a whole. This particularly includes the central and eastern parts of the masterplan site which currently experience a poor offering with low service frequencies.
6.2.13 As will be discussed in subsequent sections, there is also the clear need for bus services to integrate fully with the rail and tube services. Without good interchange facilities it will not be possible to achieve desired modal shifts away from the private car to sustainable transport modes.
Transport Strategy Review 6.3 6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail
6.3 Committed bus improvements
6.3.1 The section 106 Agreement of September 2004 for the Quintain the Stage 1 development included for a staged contribution of £1,750,000 for bus route or other public transport measures, with mention of possible contribution towards subsidising the provision of bus routes or other measures that may benefit the development. Note was also made of works to the value of £50,000 resulting from an approved bus infrastructure strategy, The Boulevard works were not to commence prior to submission and approval of that strategy.
6.4 Mainline Rail
Existing provision
6.4.1 There are two mainline rail stations in close proximity to the masterplan site. Immediately to the south of the site is Wembley Stadium and further to the south west is Wembley Central.
6.4.2 From the eastern area of the masterplan site neither station is within direct walking distance of either rail station. Indeed accessing Wembley Central from the most south-westerly portion of the masterplan site is still a 1200m (c. 15 minute) walk. This limits the likely numbers of those prepared to undertake this journey by foot, though some may choose to do so by bus. As a result of this mainline rail service availability, there may be less demand for rail services than for bus (and tube).
Wembley Stadium
6.4.3 This station is served solely by Chiltern Railways with the current service frequency being two trains per hour running between London Marylebone and High Wycombe. Trains are usually formed of two cars although there is platform capacity for eight cars (on event days). There has been considerable investment in the station and it is unlikely to be significantly improved within masterplan period.
6.4.4 Services are generally less crowded than other London routes with c.35% available capacity (LBB estimate). Estimated actual 'spare' capacity is in the order of at least 1,000 people per peak hour in both directions (northbound and southbound). There are no known improvements planned for the Chiltern services in the coming years.
Wembley Central
6.4.5 This station is served by London Overground (LOROL) and Southern services. LOROL runs 3 trains per hour in each direction using a three car service; Southern runs one train per hour at peak times only.
6.4.6 Known improvements to the LOROL services include a 20% capacity uplift arising from new rolling stock and a 33% uplift arising from changing from a 3 to 4 car service. The Southern service is being altered from 2009 so that it will stop at Wembley Central throughout the day, providing an all-day service rather than just at peak hours.
Transport Strategy Review 6.4 6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail
Capacity estimates
6.4.7 Estimates of current 'spare' capacity on the LOROL and Southern services is c.20% (i.e. approximately half that of the Chiltern services). By 2027 a conservative assumption of 5% spare capacity is being assumed. This reflects a situation where there is only limited capacity available on services during peak hours. Such a situation may arise as there is no significant improvement in rolling stock, signalling, and scheduling planned but with continued background passenger growth.
6.4.8 LOROL services are estimated to have spare capacity of approximately 300 people per hour in each direction; Southern services are estimated to have spare capacity of approximately 50 to 100 per hour dependent on direction of travel.
6.4.9 Whilst these available capacities are low, the relatively long walking distances from the masterplan site to each of the stations suggests that the overall mainline rail travel demand will be low too, leading to comparatively few mainline rail journeys being made.
Masterplan Rail Proposals
6.4.10 The masterplan refers to LBB's three-station strategy that ensures that all visitors are able to arrive and depart from each of Wembley's three stations (Park, Stadium, and Central) quickly and comfortably. The only future rail improvements referred to are improvements to platforms / ticketing areas at Wembley Central station and a new ticket hall at Wembley Stadium station. Given the recent, significant investment in the station there are no plans to improve it further within masterplan period.
6.4.11 There are substantial portions of the masterplan area from which convenient access by foot cannot be made to either rail station. As such, rail usage will be constrained unless good interchange connections can be made using local bus services. Improved bus service penetration into the masterplan site is essential for this to occur.
6.5 Tube
Existing provision
6.5.1 There are two underground stations in close proximity to the masterplan site. Immediately to the north of the site is Wembley Park and to the south west is Wembley Central.
6.5.2 Wembley Central station is served by the Bakerloo line (Harrow & Wealdstone to Elephant & Castle, via Baker St, Oxford Circus, and Waterloo). Wembley Park station is served by the Jubilee line (Stanmore to Stratford, via Baker St, Green Park, Waterloo, and Canary Wharf) and the Metropolitan line (suburban NW London to Aldgate, via Harrow-on-the-Hill, Baker St, Kings Cross, and Liverpool St).
6.5.3 From the eastern area of the masterplan site neither station is within convenient walking distance of a rail station. Accessing Wembley Central from the most south-westerly portion of the masterplan site is still a 1200m (15 minute) walk. Few people are likely to undertake this journey by foot but may do so using bus. Accessing Wembley Park station from the stadium area (Stage 1) is an 800m (10 minute) walk and may represent a substantial journey on foot for many.
Transport Strategy Review 6.5 6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail
6.5.4 As a result of these potentially long walking distances, there may be less demand for tube services from eastern (and southern) parts of the masterplan site compared to northern and western parts.
Future improvements to the tube network
6.5.5 Improvements are planned for all three tube lines:
Metropolitan line upgrading should lead to a 20% increase in capacity;
Jubilee line frequency improvements should lead to at least a 20% increase in capacity; and
Bakerloo line upgrading should lead to a 10% increase in capacity.
6.5.6 Of all the planned improvements to public transport in the Wembley area, these tube-based schemes are the most developed and most likely to happen and also will offer the greatest increases in operating capacity.
Tube capacity estimates
6.5.7 A conservative assumption of 10% spare capacity on tube services has been assumed to be available for use at the end of the masterplan period. This reflects a situation where there is only limited capacity available on services during peak hours. Such a situation may arise given the continued background passenger growth between now and 2027.
6.5.8 Broad capacity estimates for by line for 2027 are as follows:
Bakerloo (Central) - 1200 people per peak hour in both directions;
Jubilee (Park) – 2300 people per peak hour in both directions; and
Metropolitan (Park) – 5200 people per peak hour in both directions.
6.5.9 Therefore there is significant capacity on the tube services, particularly for Wembley Park. The capacity available is far in excess of that for rail and, to a lesser extent, bus services. Exactly how much of this spare tube capacity can be utilised is a complex question. It is influenced in part by accessibility of the tube stations from within the masterplan area and also by the range of destinations that the tube lines serve.
Masterplan tube proposals
6.5.10 As discussed above for the rail mode, the masterplan refers to LBB's three-station strategy. Future tube improvements referred to are a new ticket hall at Wembley Stadium station and improvements to platforms / ticketing areas at Wembley Central station (benefiting Bakerloo services).
6.5.11 The proposal for a new ticket hall at Wembley Stadium station is influenced by the pressures of event-day passenger demand. However, improved facilities at the station should encourage continued growth in patronage all year round. Similarly, improvements to Wembley Central should also encourage more use of this station by local residents, workers, and visitors.
Transport Strategy Review 6.6 6 Transport Network Baseline – Bus and Rail
6.5.12 However there are large portions of the masterplan site that cannot directly access either tube station. As such, tube usage may be constrained unless good interchange connections can be made using local bus services. Improved bus service penetration into the masterplan site is essential for this to occur.
6.6 Committed Rail improvements
6.6.1 The section 106 Agreement of September 2004 for the Quintain the Stage 1 development included for a contribution of £100,000 towards improvement works at Wembley Central Station, along with a contribution of £1,615,000 to Transport for London for Wembley Park Station improvement works.
6.7 Overview
6.7.1 Available capacity and patronage data has been reviewed and updated for the present 2008 base year and then extrapolated to represent the capacity at the time of masterplan full completion. Cautious assumptions have been made in estimating future capacity reflecting many years of background passenger growth compounded with uncertainty over the delivery of improvements to public transport services.
6.7.2 Of the estimated capacity available, the following split by mode is; 18% for bus, 6% for rail, and 76% for tube, For the rail and tube services, that breaks down by location as; Wembley Stadium, approximately 5%; Wembley Central 20%; and Wembley Park, 75%. Our research has also identified that the majority of the likely rail capacity increases will be in place by the completion of the masterplan Stage 1 development.
Transport Strategy Review 6.7
7 Travel Demand Forecasting
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 As we have described earlier, the masterplan provides a vision for transformational change of the area surrounding the new Wembley stadium over a period of some 20 years. It represents a significant undertaking for all those involved in its delivery and not surprisingly there are risks and uncertainties associated with some elements of the plan including the timing and implementation of the proposed transport improvements.
7.1.2 Predicting the amount and nature of travel associated with a development of this scale and complexity is then, technically challenging.
7.1.3 This is particularly the case in light of the potential local and national policy changes during the plan period and given the ongoing volatility of the world economy. Further complexity arises from the current fluidity of the Wembley proposals and a lack of detail in some areas of the emerging plan.
7.1.4 Taking these points together it is concluded that the only reliable way of estimating travel demand is through the development and use of a transport model that can readily test any number of possible development scenarios, transport interventions and policy changes that could arise between now and the end of the masterplan period.
7.1.5 The answers to a number of key questions also rest with the ability to reliably forecast future travel demands for example:
What are the transport impacts at a given point in time?
Are the proposed transport improvements sufficient?
When are the improvements needed?
How much additional traffic does a particular element of the development produce?
7.1.6 It would not be unusual in these circumstances to invest in a major model based around extensive travel surveys and highly sophisticated forecasting techniques. However, such an approach has been ruled out on the grounds of cost and timescale (a major model would take around 6 months to develop).
The Wembley Model
7.1.7 As an alternative ‘fast-track’ approach MVA has developed a spreadsheet based transport model to test the Wembley masterplan. The bespoke Wembley Model is derived from MVA’s Transport Assessment Model; an in-house software package developed specifically for the purpose of enabling rapid and cost effective assessment of major mixed use developments.
7.1.8 The Wembley Model incorporates all of the elements of a major model i.e.
Forecasts of movements to/from each individual land use (Trip Generation);
A representation of where trips are coming from and going to (Trip Distribution);
A forecast of the number of trips by transport mode; car, bus, rail, tube, walk and cycle (Mode Share); and
Transport Strategy Review 7.1 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
A representation of car based trips on the local road network (Traffic Assignment)
7.1.9 The model also makes provision for internal trips (i.e. trips that start and finish within the masterplan area); linked trips (i.e. trips that serve more than one purpose, for example dropping the kids off at school on the way to work) and parking restraint. It has also been adjusted to more accurately represent some of the unique travel behaviour that is likely to be associated with the large proportion of hotels, bars and restaurants envisaged in the Wembley area.
7.1.10 It has been set up to provide robust forecasts based on readily available data sources and a set of model assumptions that can be adapted over time. In its current form the Wembley Model can be thought of as the first stage in the development of a major model. The inbuilt model flexibility will allow future enhancements if and when more detailed information or new data sources become available.
7.1.11 Further details of the model can be found in the Technical Appendix (supplied on request).
7.1.12 What follows in the remainder of this chapter are details of the scenarios tested with the Wembley Model and a summary of the key model outputs.
7.2 Land Use Assumptions
7.2.1 The masterplan is described in four stages with Stage 1 incorporating the consented Quintain development that is currently under construction in the south west sector of the site. Of the masterplan Stage 1 land use schedule, approximately 75% of the residential units lie within the Quintain development area, a similar proportion of the office and 60% of the retail use located within that area too. The total masterplan hotel use as measured by GFA is split 50:50. The further balance is made up by leisure and health developments.
7.2.2 Notwithstanding the ongoing fluidity of the proposals it was necessary to agree and ‘freeze’ a most likely development schedule by stage for testing purposes. The land use schedule tabulated below was frozen on 1st November 2008.
Transport Strategy Review 7.2 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Land Use Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Total (incl. Quintain and LDA lands)
Residential (no. of 4813 963 1893 0 7669 dwellings)
Retail (GFA) 56287 28160 1535 0 85982
Office Workspace 51671 44587 8421 0 104679 (GFA)
Market Workspace 16204 45982 34630 50899 147715 (GFA)
Affordable Workspace 3488 4540 18306 0 26334 (GFA)
Bar/Restaurant etc 14500 4622 1383 0 20505 (GFA)
Hotel (GFA) - 15127 9108 0 123424
Hotel (rooms) 3684 - - - 3684
Work Live (GFA) 0 2282 2361 0 4643
Res Institutions (GFA) 5000 0 0 0 5000
Non res institutions 8200 0 0 0 8200 (health) (GFA)
Assembly and Leisure 41461 0 0 0 41461 (GFA)
Student 16600 0 0 0 16600 Accommodation (GFA)
Wave Centre (GFA) 15649 0 0 0 15649
Community/Civic 23644 6182 4002 0 33828 (GFA)
Education (GFA) 10314 6012 0 0 16326 (Secondary) (Primary)
7.2.3 Based on the envisaged number, size and tenure of the residential properties the total number of persons accommodated by development stage is summarised below.
Transport Strategy Review 7.3 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Residential Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Total Summary
Total Number of 4813 963 1893 0 7669 Units
Total Number of 11572 2346 4610 0 18528 Persons Accommodated
7.3 Scenarios Tested
7.3.1 The Wembley Model has been used to test a total of 64 scenarios. These can be summarised as follows:
For each of the Masterplan Stages 1 to 4
Individual and Cumulative Impacts at 2014, 2020, 2025 and 2027, under
Do–Minimum Conditions and With Transport Interventions for both
AM and PM peak periods
7.3.2 The key model outputs for each scenario include:
Trips by public transport, on foot and by bicycle;
AM and PM peak traffic flows
7.4 Transport Interventions
7.4.1 The transport interventions that are explicitly dealt with by the model are taken from various background documents prepared in support of the masterplan. They include:
Reversion of one-way system around Second Way, Fourth Way and Great Central Way to two–way operation;
Reconfiguration of the gyratory system at Empire Way and Wembley Hill Road;
Empire Way/Wembley Park Drive;
Linkage of North End Road with Empire Way/Bridge Road;
Traffic calming along Engineers Way;
Improvement of the Drury Way junction with A406 North Circular Road;
Pedway removal; and
Traffic Calming along Fulton Road.
7.4.2 Additionally a set of less clearly defined interventions are dealt with implicitly through changes in the model assumptions over time. These include:
Transport Strategy Review 7.4 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Gradual improvement to local bus services over masterplan period;
Enhanced local environment for walking and cycling;
Local junction improvements; and
Gradual tightening of parking standards over time
7.5 Model Outputs
Generated and Attracted Trips
7.5.1 Presented in the tables and graphs below is a summary of the number of trips by transport mode for each stage of the development. The overall number of trips is immediately striking with some 10500 new movements envisaged in the morning peak hour by the end of the masterplan period. The corresponding figure for the evening peak hour is just under 8000 new trips.
7.5.2 Of particular significance is the proportion of new trips forecast to occur by the end of Stage 1 of the masterplan (2014). Over 7000 new movements are likely in both peak hours reflecting the intensity of development planned over the next 6 years which includes the construction of almost 5000 new dwellings.
Figure 7.1 Total Generated and Attracted Trips – AM Peak – Do Minimum Conditions 11000 11000
10000 10000
9000 9000
8000 8000
7000 7000 Walk Cycle 6000 6000 Bus Rail 5000 5000 Tube Car 4000 4000 TOTAL
3000 3000 Total trips by mode (AM Peak Hour) 2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0 1234 Stage
Transport Strategy Review 7.5 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Figure 7.2 Total Generated and Attracted Trips – PM Peak – Do Minimum Conditions
9000 9000
8000 8000
7000 7000
6000 6000 Walk
Cycle 5000 5000 Bus Rail Tube 4000 4000 Car
TOTAL 3000 3000
2000 2000 Total trips by mode(PM PeakHour)
1000 1000
0 0 1234 Stage
Figure 7.3 Total Generated and Attracted Trips – AM Peak – With Transport Interventions
11000 11000
10000 10000
9000 9000
8000 8000
7000 7000 Walk Cycle 6000 6000 Bus Rail 5000 5000 Tube Car 4000 4000 TOTAL
3000 3000 Total trips by mode (AM Peak Hour) 2000 2000
1000 1000
0 0 1234 Stage
Transport Strategy Review 7.6 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Figure 7.4 Total Generated and Attracted Trips – PM Peak - With Transport Interventions
9000 9000
8000 8000
7000 7000
6000 6000 Walk Cycle 5000 5000 Bus Rail Tube 4000 4000 Car TOTAL 3000 3000
2000 2000 Total trips by mode (PM Peak Hour)
1000 1000
0 0 1234 Stage
Mode Shares
7.5.3 Demand forecasts by mode are presented for both ‘do minimum’ and ‘with transport interventions’ scenarios. The precise mode shares vary by time of day and by stage of development but taking the figures in the round, even in the do minimum scenario, the car/ non-car modal split is forecast to be relatively good at around 37:63. This is to be expected given the relatively good access to public transport and the potential for a significant number of trips to be made locally on foot or by bicycle.
7.5.4 The Wembley model indicates that the effect of the transport interventions is to improve the car/ non-car modal split to around 33:67 which is largely accounted for by more trips switching to bus or tube.
7.5.5 The number of trips made on foot is noteworthy, potentially rising to almost 3000 in a single hour by the end of the masterplan period. This forecast underlines the importance of designing the public realm with a strong focus on pedestrian accessibility and safety.
Transport Strategy Review 7.7 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Table 7.1 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘Do Minimum Scenario’ – AM peak
AM Peak Hour
Rail Tube Bus Total Walk Cycle Car TOTAL Public Transport
Cumulative Stage 1 279 792 1694 2765 1690 270 2517 7242
Cumulative Stage 2 336 956 2214 3506 2367 361 3164 9398
Cumulative Stage 3 342 957 2485 3784 2915 439 3200 10338
Cumulative Stage 4 346 967 2499 3812 2941 442 3236 10431
Table 7.2 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘Do Minimum Scenario’ – PM peak
PM Peak Hour
Rail Tube Bus Total Walk Cycle Car TOTAL
Cumulative Stage 1 356 1019 1417 2792 1054 155 3165 7166
Cumulative Stage 2 407 1159 1666 3232 1329 191 3546 8298
Cumulative Stage 3 378 1049 1611 3038 1489 207 3044 7778
Cumulative Stage 4 381 1058 1625 3064 1516 210 3080 7870
Table 7.3 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘With Transport Interventions Scenario’ – AM peak
AM Peak Hour
Rail Tube Bus Total Walk Cycle Car TOTAL Public Transport
Cumulative Stage 1 315 890 1827 3032 1690 270 2277 7269
Cumulative Stage 2 378 1068 2366 3812 2367 361 2888 9428
Cumulative Stage 3 382 1058 2629 4069 2915 439 2943 10366
Cumulative Stage 4 386 1071 2647 4104 2941 442 2973 10460
Transport Strategy Review 7.8 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Table 7.4 Number of trips by mode of transport – ‘With Transport Interventions Scenario’ – PM peak
PM Peak Hour
Rail Tube Bus Total Walk Cycle Car TOTAL
Cumulative Stage 1 411 1168 1616 3195 1054 155 2803 7207
Cumulative Stage 2 467 1320 1883 3670 1329 191 3152 8342
Cumulative Stage 3 424 1163 1776 3363 1489 207 2752 7811
Cumulative Stage 4 428 1175 1793 3396 1516 210 2781 7903
Vehicular Traffic
7.5.6 Notwithstanding the encouraging mode share forecasts, the volume of vehicular additional traffic will be significant, ranging between 2200 and 3500 new movements depending on time of day, stage of development and scenario considered.
The most significant increases in traffic flow will be felt in the first stage of the masterplan with the largest impacts experienced on the Wembley Hill Road-Empire Way corridor and at the following junctions in particular:
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road;
Wembley Hill Road/South Way, and
Empire Way/Engineers Way
7.5.7 Individual link and junction impacts are discussed further in the following chapter of this report in the context of the highway improvement schemes identified in the Section 106 Agreement for the consented Quintain development and other schemes currently being progressed by the Borough.
Assignment
7.5.8 The results of the traffic assignment process are presented in Figures 7.5 to 7.16, shown at the end of this Chapter for the base and cumulative resultant traffic (base and development traffic) in each stage for the ‘Do Minimum’ scenario and the ‘With Transport Interventions’ scenarios in the AM and PM peak periods. Again, the implications of the forecast traffic movements are discussed in the next chapter.
Transport Strategy Review 7.9 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Traffic Flow Data for 8am - 9am (AM Peak) Fryent Way Provided in PCU Values
Salmon Street 609 441
The Paddocks
90 7 00 Forty Avenue 077 Forty Lane 0 0 67 479 40 0 93 854 0 Bridge Road
556 960 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 0 00 North End Road Fourth Way 0 00 115 Albion y Fulton Road599 Wa Atlas Wembley 337 599 Road Park 445 323 15 177 Rutherford Way 516 36 337 Empire Way 177 11 00 Fifth Way 459 0 63 Engineers Way 59 91 373 857 0 261 25 305 262 55 0 24 22 242 529 Hannah 00 Close 000 Wembley Hill 395 280 200Olympic Way 300 290 Fourth Way Road 184 616 121 00North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way 473 527 Dagmar Avenue 45 Wembley 153 387 Stadium 582 0115 587 32 106 516Great Central Way 377 785 621 205 407 399 Mostyn Avenue 359 6 504 South Way 99 700 466 836 7 33 183 695 377 285 Wembley Hill Road Drury Way Great Central Way Wembley High 766 281 144 Road 97 156 866 556 Oakington Manor Drive Besant Way 336 73 177 516 331 720 0 St Raphael's Way 350 141 236 755 549 1 682 424 539 422 1146 10 41 234 693 28 169 817 25 18 24 24 Brentfield Road 3487 56 4 29 557 13 70 Harrow Road A404 3301 1 331 0
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
00 0 0 Figure 7.5 AM Peak Base Traffic 0 0 00 000 Transport Strategy Review 7.10 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way Traffic Flow Data for 5pm - 6pm (PM Peak) Provided in PCU Values
Salmon Street
660 527
The Paddocks
40 23 00 Forty Avenue 055 Forty Lane 0 0 69 682 33 0 102Bridge 575 Road 0
556 960 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 0 00 North End Road Fourth Way 0 Albion 00 423 Fulton Road Way Atlas 185 Road Wembley 539 185 Park
269 Rutherford Way 354 10 433 336 16 223 Empire Way 292Fifth Way 44 00 279 0 0 Engineers Way 24 85 297 680 0
354 36 152 210 53 Hannah 0 79 39 407 502 Close 00 000 Olympic Way Fourth Way Wembley Hill 354 116 384 206 436 Road 215 540 215 00North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way 242
Dagmar Avenue 482 192 Wembley 55 208 Stadium 601 0103 Great Central Way 794 79 59 725 446 766 Mostyn Avenue 656 250 320 336 7102 South Way 15 310 59 726 467 Drury Way Wembley678 Hill Road 17 25 243 700 446 326 Great Central Way Wembley High 10 34 456 238 Road 156 258 Oakington Manor Drive 803 641 Besant Way
335 141 182 518 St Raphael's Way750 616 0 240 73 277 599 239 7 471 511 406 435 1313 110 91 225 509 20 236 Brentfield Road 1035 34 92 48 48 4230 98 122 22 Harrow Road A404 355 14 161 3380 12 546 7
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.6 PM Peak Base Traffic 00 0 0 0 0 00 000 Transport Strategy Review 7.11 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Traffic Flow Data for 8am - 9am (AM Peak) Fryent Way Provided in PCU Values
Salmon Street 609 441
The Paddocks 90 7 00 077 Forty Avenue Forty Lane 0 0 67 479 40 0 333 213 93 854 0 Bridge Road
499 499 0 448 455 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 0 70 0 0 North End Road 220 Fourth Way 0 Fourth Way 00 23 Albion FultonFulton Road Road120 Way Atlas Wembley 317 120 0 Road Park 189 Fifth Way 425 11 291 15 38Rutherford Way 536 36 337 Empire Way 177 0 25 00 440 0 0 50 107 315 59 91 18 315 170 0 Engineers Way Fifth Way 241 25 249 68 126 55 0 24 22 113 35 170 Hannah 00 189 Close 000 Wembley Hill 375 224 200Olympic Way 300 Fourth Way Road Engineers171 Way 102 107 596 121 00North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way 473 517 DagmarDagmar AvenueAvenue 45 Wembley 153 0 Stadium 562 315 25 0 115 567 32 106 224Great Central Way 170 785 621 230 407 399 Mostyn Avenue 3 39 66 156 6 504 South Way 135 106 385 207 466 836 7 13 196 695 377 285 Wembley Hill Road DruryDrury WayWay Great Central Way Wembley High 7122 866 281 144 97 136 Drury Way 556 Road Oakington Manor Drive BesantBesant Way Way 336 73 177 516 331 720 0 StStSt Raphael's Raphael'sRaphael's Way WayWay 350 141 236 755 549 1 682 424 539 422 1146 10 41 234 693 28 169 24 817 25 18 24 Brentfield Road 3487 56 4 29 557 13 70 Harrow Road A404 3301 1 331 0
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
00 0 00 Figure 7.7 AM Peak Reassigned Base Traffic 0 000
0
Transport Strategy Review 7.12 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Traffic Flow Data for 5pm - 6pm (PM Peak) Fryent Way Provided in PCU Values
Salmon Street 660 527
The Paddocks 40 23 00 055 Forty Avenue Forty Lane 0 0 69 682 33 0 343 341 102 575 0 Bridge Road
205 205 0 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane 462 466 North End Road 0 40 0 0 North End Road 345 Fourth Way 0 Fourth Way 00 85 Albion y FultonFulton Road Road37 Wa Atlas Wembley 485 37 0 Road Park 196 Fifth Way 208 44 310 10 95Rutherford Way 403 16 223 Empire Way 292 0 15 00 218 0 0 23 5 327 24 85 80 327Fifth 201 Way 0 287 36 152 80 131 53 0 79 39 88 0 201 Hannah 00 Close 196 000 Wembley Hill 287 116 384Olympic Way 206 Fourth Way Road Engineers238 Way 120 5 473 215 00North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way 242 415 DagmarDagmar AvenueAvenue 192 Wembley 55 0 Stadium 534 327 15 0 103 794 79 59 196Great Central Way 201 766 656 250 320 336 Mostyn Avenue 7 35 44 120 15 310 South Way 156 125 399 245 467 Wembley678 Hill Road 17 5 293 700 446DruryDruryDrury Way WayWay 326 Great Central Way Wembley High 10 151 803 456 238 Road 156 191 Oakington Manor Drive 641 BesantBesant Way Way 335 140 182 518 757 616 0 StStSt Raphael's Raphael'sRaphael's Way WayWay 240 73 277 599 242 7 470 510 406 435 1329 110 91 227 514 21 236 49 Brentfield Road 1047 35 92 49 4270 98 122 22 355 14 161 Harrow Road A404 3412 12 546 7
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
00 0 Figure 7.8 PM Peak Reassigned Base Traffic 0 000
0 0 00 Transport Strategy Review 7.13 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 609 441
The Paddocks 90 7 Forty Avenue 077 Forty Lane
212 619 40 532 300 200 972 Bridge Road
617 592 658 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane 595 1212 North End Road
725 North End Road 307 Fourth Way Albion 23 Way Fulton Road126 Atlas Road Wembley 635 126 0 Park 213 Fifth Way 581 11 Rutherford Way 608 15 38 536 36 337 Empire Way 265 0 25 596 0 224 142 353 60 91 21 353 170 384 97 406 68 140 55 Hannah 24 22 127 125 170 Close 270 Olympic Wembley Hill 453 309 231 363 Fourth Way Way Road Engineers622 Way 103 142 824 398 North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way 473 841 Dagmar Avenue 46 Wembley 153 487 Stadium 924 353 25 0 115 894 32 140 358Great Central Way 232 1015 Mostyn Avenue 786 230 407 517 3 228South Way 259 279 6 596 324 213 559 375 561 Wembley1017 Hill Road 7 105 236 928 607DruryDrury WayWay 285 Great Central Way Wembley High 7 219 1077 419 144 Road 316 543 Oakington Manor Drive 674 Besant Way 719 350 262 693 470 812 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 0 456 336 349 1067 549 1 264 155 539 422 1321 10 41 328 693 28 169 24 Brentfield Road 1128 25 18 24 3487 56 4 29 Harrow Road A404 651 13 70 3301 1 423 0
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.9 Stage 1 Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.14 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 660 527
The Paddocks 40 23 055 Forty Avenue Forty Lane
279 885 33 630 467 297 763 Bridge Road
322 322 1029 728 1092 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 40 471 North End Road 85 Fourth Way 37 Albion 944 37 Fulton Road Way 0 Atlas Wembley 196 Road Park 517 Fifth Way 44 768 10 95 403 16 223 Rutherford Way 418 0 15 527 0 Empire Way 274 126 327 24 85 80 327 201 494 232 646 80 131 53 80 39 88 126 201 197 Hannah 398 413 385 209 Close 796 122 126 972 521 Olympic Wembley Hill Fourth Way Road Way 242 Engineers Way North Circular Road A406 Park Lane 908 First Way 194 55 209 956 327 Dagmar Avenue Wembley 15 0 103 1292 79Stadium 256 330 288 1059 837 250 320 519 7 408 285 277 15 408 591 262Great Central Way 675 451 560 Mostyn Avenue 871 17 209 434 1004 739 326 10 382 South Way 1079 652 238 402 810 824 Wembley Hill Road DruryDrury WayWay Great Central Way 514 240Wembley High 334 813 945 714 Road 0 557 335 442 911 239 Oakington Manor Drive 7 Besant Way 251 305 406 435 1604 110 91 317 509 20 236 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 48 1343 34 92 48 4230 98 122 22 447 14 161 Brentfield Road 3380 12 644 7 Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.10 Stage 1 Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - PM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.15 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 609 441
The Paddocks 90 7 077 Forty Avenue Forty Lane
218 657 40 544 333 209 1032 Bridge Road
670 644 671 615 1281 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 725 North End Road 340 Fourth Way 24 Albion Way Fulton Road127 Atlas Wembley 647 127 0 Road Park 254 Fifth Way 600 11 619 15 39Rutherford Way 547 36 337 281 0 25 Empire Way 615 0 235 161 394 66 92 21 394 181 385 113 495 69 140 55 32 22 128 141 181 Hannah 274 Close 455 381 659 233Olympic 365 Wembley Hill Engineers Way Fourth Way Way 107 161 Road 897 424 North Circular Park Lane 473 First Way 914 46 Dagmar Avenue 153 487 Wembley 949 Stadium 395 25 0 115 967 32 146 372 244 1041 859 Great Central Way230 407 528 Mostyn Avenue 3 229 263 296 6 614 South Way 371 253 598 389 630 1043 7 107 257 1009 634 1159 285 Wembley Hill Road7264 DruryDrury427 WayWay 144 Great Central Way Wembley High 339 568 685 Road Oakington Manor Drive 723 350 285 787 Besant Way 478 830 0 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 459 336 364 1101 549 1 279 180 539 422 1414 10 41 398 693 28 169 24 1161 25 18 24 Brentfield Road 3487 56 4 29 721 13 70 3301 Harrow Road A404 1 431 0
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.11 Stage 2 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.16 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 660 527
The Paddocks 40 23 055 Forty Avenue Forty Lane
286 937 33 647 513 301 791 Bridge Road
347 347 1046 737 1125 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 40 517 North End Road 86 Fourth Way 38 Albion Way 960 38Fulton Road C 0 Atlas Wembley 203 Road Park 526 Fifth Way 44 783 10 96 413 16 223 Rutherford Way 433 0 15 536 0 Empire Way 289 139 334 31 85 80 334 211 494 241 671 80 131 53 85 39 89 141 211 200 398 431 838 386 210 Hannah 124 139 Close 990 549 Olympic Wembley Hill Engineers Way Fourth Way Road Way Second 242 North Circular Road A406 926 Way Park Lane First Way 194 55 209 984 335 Dagmar Avenue Wembley 15 0 103 1309 79Stadium 260 344 299 1087 855 250 320 526 7 408 291 286 15 425 609 276Great Central Way 685 468 571 Mostyn Avenue 899 17 210 460 1022 767 1097 326 10 400 South Way 662 238 434 842 831 Wembley Hill Road DruryDrury WayWay Great Central Way 516 240Wembley High 345 837 956 731 Road 0 Oakington Manor Drive 561 335 462 949 239 7 Besant Way 273 316 406 435 1628 110 91 329 509 20 236 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 48 1381 34 92 48 4230 98 122 22 459 14 161 Brentfield Road 3380 12 655 7 Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.12 Stage 2 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - PM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.17 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 609 441
The Paddocks 91 7 073 Forty Avenue Forty Lane
218 662 40 544 339 203 1001 Bridge Road
628 603 671 615 1244 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 725 346 North End Road 25 Fourth Way 124 Albion 647 124 Fulton Road Way 0 Atlas Wembley 260 Road Park 600 Fifth Way 11 619 15 39 538 36 337 Rutherford Way 272 0 25 615 0 Empire Way 235 174 395 66 92 23 395 183 385 113 495 69 148 55 32 22 133 133 183 276 Hannah 455 381 659 236 366 Close 108 177 897 424 Olympic Wembley Hill Engineers Way Fourth Way Way Road 473 North Circular Road A406 Park Lane 917 First Way 46 153 491 949 390 Dagmar Avenue Wembley 26 0 115 970 32Stadium 134 371 248 1051 859 232 407 522 3 232 292 292 6 620 342 236Great Central Way 593 394 626 Mostyn Avenue 1043 7 108 266 999 644 1148 285 7234South Way 431 144 372 603 679
Wembley Hill Road DruryDrury WayWay Great Central Way 719 350Wembley High 271 770 481 837 Road 0 459 336 366 1131 549 Oakington Manor Drive 1 282 167 539 422 1398 10 41Besant Way 394 693 28 169 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 24 1191 25 18 24 3487 56 4 29 717 13 70 Brentfield Road 3301 1 438 0 Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.13 Stage 3 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.18 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 660 527
The Paddocks 4-10 23 055 Forty Avenue Forty Lane
274 867 33 647 419 292 739 Bridge Road
285 285 1038 737 1064 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 40 423 North End Road 78 Fourth Way 33 Albion 960 33 Fulton Road Way 0 Atlas Wembley 176 Road Park 526 Fifth Way 44 783 10 89 395 16 223 Rutherford Way 387 0 15 536 0 Empire Way 289 87 334 31 85 80 334 211 494 241 671 80 125 53 85 39 87 94 211 200 Hannah 398 431 838 386 211 Close 125 82 Engineers Way 990 549 Olympic Wembley Hill Fourth Way Way Road 242 North Circular Road A406 Park Lane 926 First Way 194 55 209 984 327 Dagmar Avenue Wembley 16 0 103 1310 79Stadium 235 331 285 1060 855 251 320 518 7 408 249 275 15 412 558 249Great Central Way 677 454 563 Mostyn Avenue 899 17 210 420 1006 740 1081 326 10 348 South Way 648 238 349 758 823
Wembley Hill Road DruryDrury WayWay Great Central Way 511 240Wembley High 324 806 942 718 Road 0 553 335 430 896 239 Oakington Manor Drive 7 241 296 406 435 1598 110 91Besant Way 321 509 20 236 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 48 1329 34 92 48 4230 98 122 22 451 14 161 Brentfield Road 3380 12 642 7 Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.14 Stage 3 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - PM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.19 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 609 441
The Paddocks 91 7 073 Forty Avenue Forty Lane
218 662 40 544 340 204 1005 Bridge Road
634 609 671 615 1249 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 725 347 North End Road 25 Fourth Way 124 Albion 647 124 Fulton Road Way 0 Atlas Wembley 261 Road Park 600 Fifth Way 11 619 15 39 544 36 340 Rutherford Way 272 0 26 615 0 Empire Way 235 174 395 66 92 23 396 189 385 113 495 69 148 55 32 22 133 133 186 276 Hannah 455 381 659 236 366 Close 108 177 897 424 Wembley Hill Engineers Way Olympic Fourth Way Way Road 473 North Circular Road A406 Park Lane 917 First Way 46 153 491 949 390 Dagmar Avenue Wembley 28 0 121 970 32Stadium 134 371 248 1053 859 233 408 528 3 232 292 292 6 620 345 240Great Central Way 593 396 633 Mostyn Avenue 1043 7 108 267 1004 645 1161 285 7 237 South Way 431 144 372 604 684 Wembley Hill Road DruryDrury WayWay Great Central Way 719 350Wembley High 275 770 481 837 Road 0 459 336 367 1131 549 Oakington Manor Drive 1 282 170 539 422 1398 10 41Besant Way 401 693 28 169 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 24 1191 25 18 24 3487 56 4 29 723 13 70 Brentfield Road 3301 1 439 0 Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404 AM Peak In and Out combined
Figure 7.15 Stage 4 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - AM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.20 7 Travel Demand Forecasting
Fryent Way
Salmon Street 660 527
The Paddocks 4-10 23 055 Forty Avenue Forty Lane
275 871 33 647 425 292 739 Bridge Road
286 286 1038 737 1064 Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road 40 429 North End Road 78 Fourth Way 33 Albion 960 33 Fulton Road Way 0 Atlas Wembley 181 Road Park 526 Fifth Way 44 783 10 89 396 16 223 Rutherford Way 387 0 18 536 0 Empire Way 289 87 338 31 85 80 340 212 494 241 671 80 125 53 85 39 87 95 211 200 Hannah 398 431 838 386 211 Close 125 83 990 549 Olympic Wembley Hill Fourth Way Way Road Engineers Way 242 North Circular Road A406 Park Lane 927 First Way 194 55 209 984 327 Dagmar Avenue Wembley 16 0 104 1310 79Stadium 235 331 285 1071 855 253 326 523 7 409 249 275 15 412 559 250Great Central Way 679 454 570 Mostyn Avenue 899 17 210 424 1006 745 1093 326 10 348 South Way 648 238 353 761 828 Wembley Hill Road DruryDrury WayWay Great Central Way 511 240Wembley High 325 806 942 718 Road 0 553 335 434 896 239 Oakington Manor Drive 7 245 296 406 435 1598 110 91Besant Way 328 509 20 236 StSt Raphael'sRaphael's WayWay 48 1329 34 92 48 4230 98 122 22 451 14 161 Brentfield Road 3380 12 648 7 Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Figure 7.16 Stage 4 Cumulative Resultant with Transport Interventions Traffic Flows Model - PM Peak
Transport Strategy Review 7.21
8 Transport Assessment
8.1 Introduction
8.1.1 In this Chapter we consider how the forecast travel demands summarised in Chapter 7 might impact on the local transport networks, as the masterplan is built-out. Our analysis considers:
Traffic impacts at individual junctions and on key links;
Capacity of the public transport network to accommodate new trips
8.2 Junction Impacts
8.2.1 Whilst detailed junction modelling is beyond the scope of this study we have been able to quantify the traffic flow increases on the approaches to the key junctions within, and on the periphery of the development area.
8.2.2 The analysis provides a useful indication of increased traffic loading and when considered against our observations of present day (baseline) conditions provides some insight into the timing and potential scale of any improvements that might be necessary.
8.2.3 Tables 8.1 to 8.22 show the traffic impacts at the following junctions:
Wembley Hill Road/Wembley High Road;
Wembley Hill Road/South Way;
Empire Way/Engineers Way;
Empire Way/Fulton Road;
Empire Way/Wembley Park Drive;
Bridge Road/North End Road;
Bridge Road/Forty Lane;
Fulton Road/Fifth Way;
Engineers Way/First Way/Fifth Way;
Great Central Way/Fourth Way;
Great Central Way/NCR; and
Drury Way/North Circular Road.
8.2.4 In each case the results are presented for the with transport interventions scenario. Forecast AM and PM peak hour flows are compared with the baseline conditions and a short commentary is provided on the results.
Transport Strategy Review 8.1 8 Transport Assessment
Wembley Hill Road/Wembley High Road;
8.2.5 Our observations on the results are as follows
Junction is congested in the base (red rating);
Significant traffic impacts forecast by 2014;
Proposed T Junction should simplify operation but will require detailed capacity testing;
Bus priority and pedestrian improvements should be integral to any improvement proposals;
Interaction with Wembley Hill Road/South Way junction will be important;
Major upgrade necessary during Stage 1;
Potential requirement to widen railway bridge over Chiltern line in order to deliver a comprehensive scheme
Table 8.1 Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road Junction (AM Peak)
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Wembley High Rd (E) 1056 1233 17% 1326 26% 1309 24% 1309 24%
Wembley High Rd (W) 599 683 14% 707 18% 693 16% 697 16%
Wembley Hill Rd 991 1416 43% 1465 48% 1497 51% 1498 51%
Transport Strategy Review 8.2 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.2 Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road Junction (PM Peak)
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Wembley High Rd (E) 924 1219 32% 1243 34% 1212 31% 1212 31%
Wembley High Rd (W) 617 769 25% 780 26% 760 23% 760 23%
Wembley Hill Rd 877 1352 54% 1411 61% 1327 51% 1330 52%
Wembley Hill Road/South Way;
8.2.6 Our observations on the results are as follows
Junction close to capacity in the base (amber rating);
Significant traffic impacts forecast by 2014;
Largest traffic increases forecast on South Way approach;
Upgrade likely to require land beyond immediate highway boundary;
Bus priority and pedestrian improvements should be integral to any improvement proposals – in particular the requirement to assist bus movements along South Way between the Boulevard and Wembley Hill Road;
Interaction with Wembley Hill Road/ Wembley High Road junction will be important;
Major upgrade necessary during Stage 1;
Potential requirement to widen railway bridge over Chiltern line in order to deliver a comprehensive scheme
Transport Strategy Review 8.3 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.3 Wembley High Road/ South Way (AM Peak)
Wembley Hill Road/South Way (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
South Way 159 546 243% 571 259% 606 281% 607 282%
Wembley Hill Rd (S) 694 1011 46% 1130 63% 1099 58% 1103 59%
Wembley Hill Rd (N) 875 1130 29% 1157 32% 1158 32% 158 -82%
Table 8.4 Wembley High Road/ South Way (PM Peak)
Wembley Hill Road/South Way (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
South Way 265 817 208% 849 220% 765 189% 768 190%
Wembley Hill Rd (S) 700 1229 76% 1265 81% 1213 73% 1214 73%
Wembley Hill Rd (N) 720 1097 52% 1126 56% 1127 57% 1127 57%
Empire Way/Engineers Way;
8.2.7 Our observations on the results are as follows:
Junction close to capacity in the base (amber rating);
Traffic increases on Engineers Way arise from access arrangements for development blocks immediately north and south of road
Largest traffic increases on Engineers Way are west of Pedway;
Upgrade likely to require land beyond immediate highway boundary;
Transport Strategy Review 8.4 8 Transport Assessment
Bus priority and pedestrian improvements should be integral to any improvement proposals;
Upgrade necessary during Stage 1;
Enhancement of the improvement scheme indicated in the Quintain Section 106 Agreement will be required.
Table 8.5 Empire Way/Engineers Way (AM Peak)
Empire Way/Engineers Way (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Engineers Way 184 622 238% 659 258% 659 258% 659 258%
Empire Way (S) 540 693 28% 766 42% 766 42% 766 42%
Empire Way (N) 420 550 31% 568 35% 568 35% 568 35%
Table 8.6 Empire Way/Engineers Way (PM Peak)
Empire Way/Engineers Way (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Engineers Way 215 796 270% 838 290% 838 290% 838 290%
Empire Way (S) 470 907 93% 925 97% 925 97% 925 97%
Empire Way (N) 389 631 62% 639 64% 639 64% 639 64%
Empire Way/Fulton Road
8.2.8 Our observations on the results are as follows:
Junction operates within capacity in the base (green rating);
Transport Strategy Review 8.5 8 Transport Assessment
The operation of this junction is influenced by the arrangements at the Wembley Park Drive/Empire Way gyratory for which there are plans to convert into a T-Junction;
Pedestrian flows at this location are likely to increase significantly as the masterplan is built out. If pedestrian phases are called more regularly then junction capacity could be adversely affected leading to a requirement for staggering of the crossing on Empire Way to facilitate ‘walk with traffic’ phasing arrangements;
Fulton Road will benefit significantly from reconnection of North End Road, as will the Empire Way (N) approach; and
Increased loading on Empire Way (S) will need to be considered alongside any plans to introduce a right turn into Fulton Road (to compensate for the potential loss of the U- turn around the gyratory at the Wembley Park Road junction)
Table 8.7 Empire Way/Fulton Rd (AM Peak)
Empire Way/Fulton Rd (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Fulton Road 130 38 -71% 39 -70% 39 -70% 39 -70%
Empire Way (S) 337 635 88% 647 92% 647 92% 647 92%
Empire Way (N) 1044 707 -32% 728 -30% 724 -31% 724 -31%
Table 8.8 Empire Way/Fulton Rd (PM Peak)
Empire Way/Fulton Rd (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Fulton Road 433 95 -78% 96 -78% 89 -79% 89 -79%
Empire Way (S) 539 944 75% 960 78% 960 78% 960 78%
Empire Way (N) 454 554 22% 564 24% 559 23% 559 23%
Transport Strategy Review 8.6 8 Transport Assessment
Empire Way/Wembley Park Drive
8.2.9 We have only limited baseline data for this junction and so do not present the results in tabular form. However, our observations on the model outputs are as follows:
Junction operates close to capacity in the base (amber rating);
Empire Road southbound benefits from traffic reassignment associated with reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road but Empire Way northbound sees significant traffic increases; and
The proposed removal of the gyratory system and conversion to a T–Junction will require signalisation and should incorporate positive facilities for pedestrians, buses and cyclists.
Bridge Road/North End Road
8.2.10 Our observations on the results are as follows:
In this case ‘base’ represents reassignment of existing traffic
North End Road is seen to attract significant base traffic and an increasing amount of development traffic over time; and
There are benefits in reconnecting North End Road before the end of Stage 1 – see Section 9.3
Table 8.9 North End Road/Bridge Road (AM Peak)
North End Road/Bridge Road (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Bridge Rd (S) 333 557 67% 569 71% 569 71% 570 71%
Bridge Rd (N) 947 1187 25% 1259 33% 1218 29% 1224 29%
North End Rd 220 307 40% 340 54% 346 57% 347 58%
Transport Strategy Review 8.7 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.10 North End Road/Bridge Road (PM Peak)
North End Road/Bridge Road (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Bridge Rd (S) 343 630 84% 647 89% 647 89% 647 89%
Bridge Rd (N) 667 1050 57% 1084 63% 1023 53% 1023 53%
North End Rd 345 471 36% 517 50% 423 23% 429 24%
Bridge Road/Forty Lane
8.2.11 Our observations on the results are as follows
Junction is congested in the base and has sub-standard pedestrian provision (red rating);
Significant traffic increases but lower traffic impacts on most critical westbound Forty Lane approach;
Detailed junction modelling required to confirm feasibility, scale and timing of improvement measures.
Table 8.11 Bridge Road/Forty Lane (AM Peak)
Bridge Road/Forty Lane (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Forty Lane (E) 1463 1580 8% 1640 12% 1610 10% 1614 10%
Bridge Rd (S) 552 838 52% 881 60% 886 60% 887 61%
Forty Lane (W) 544 650 20% 659 21% 654 20% 655 20%
Bridge Rd (N) No data
Transport Strategy Review 8.8 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.12 Bridge Road/Forty Lane (PM Peak)
Bridge Road/Forty Lane (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Forty Lane (E) 1235 1423 15% 1452 18% 1388 12% 1389 12%
Bridge Rd (S) 774 1186 53% 1247 61% 1163 50% 1169 51%
Forty Lane (W) 633 828 31% 832 31% 823 30% 823 30%
Bridge Rd (N) No data
Fulton Road/ Fifth Way
8.2.12 Our observations on the results are as follows:
Junction operates within capacity in the base (green rating);
Junction experiences a rebalancing of flows between Fifth Way and First Way as a result of the removal of the one-way system;
East end of Fulton Road sees moderate traffic growth;
Proposed reconfiguration of Fulton Road/First Road and Albion Way should be tied in with the reconnection of North End Road and should include capacity enhancements together with improved pedestrian facilities.
Table 8.13 Fulton Road/Fifth Way (AM Peak)
Fulton Road/Fifth Way (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Fifth Way 0 353 394 408 409
First Way 550 286 -48% 302 -45% 295 -46% 295 -46%
Fulton Road 516 678 31% 707 37% 712 38% 718 39%
Transport Strategy Review 8.9 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.14 Fulton Road/Fifth Way (PM Peak)
Fulton Road/Fifth Way (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Fifth Way 0 327 334 301 307
First Way 589 498 -15% 513 -13% 467 -21% 467 -21%
Fulton Road 336 529 57% 552 64% 482 44% 483 44%
Engineers Way/First Way
8.2.13 Our observations on the results are as follows:
Junction operates within capacity in the base (green rating);
The effects of the proposed traffic calming measures are evident at the eastern end of Engineers Way (east of the development access points and east of the Pedway);
Junction experiences a rebalancing of flows between Engineers Way and First Way as a result of the removal of the one-way system;
Reconfiguration will be required to support the proposed removal of the one-way system. Layout changes should include provision for improved pedestrian facilities;
Table 8.15 Engineers Way/First Way (AM Peak)
Engineers Way/First Way (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Engineers Way 262 171 -35% 176 -33% 177 -32% 177 -32%
First Way (N) 0 270 268 310 310
First Way (S) 532 395 -26% 414 -22% 409 -23% 409 -23%
Transport Strategy Review 8.10 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.16 Engineers Way/First Way (PM Peak)
Engineers Way/First Way (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Engineers Way 210 202 -4% 205 -2% 205 -2% 205 -2%
First Way (N) 0 214 227 169 170
First Way (S) 843 323 -62% 341 -60% 295 -65% 295 -65%
Great Central Way/Fourth Way
8.2.14 Our observations on the results are as follows:
Junction operates within capacity in the base (green rating);
Junction experiences a rebalancing of flows between Great Central Way (W) and Fourth Way as a result of the removal of the one-way system;
Moderate traffic growth is forecast for the Great Central Way (E) approach;
Reconfiguration will be required to support the proposed removal of the one-way system. Layout changes should include capacity enhancements and the provision for improved pedestrian facilities;
Bus priority measures should be considered for this junction.
Table 8.17 Great Central Way/Fourth Way (AM Peak)
Great Central Way/Fourth Way (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Great Central Way (E) 700 912 30% 993 42% 983 40% 983 40%
Great Central Way (W) 0 400 414 420 424
Fourth Way 583 462 -21% 474 -19% 481 -18% 481 -17%
Transport Strategy Review 8.11 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.18 Great Central Way/Fourth Way (PM Peak)
Great Central Way/Fourth Way (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Great Central Way (E) 726 1002 38% 1020 40% 1004 38% 1006 39%
Great Central Way (W) 0 466 483 470 470
Fourth Way 696 538 -23% 549 -21% 436 -37% 538 -23%
Great Central Way/North Circular Road
8.2.15 Our observations on the results are as follows:
Prone to queuing on the NCR on-slip in the base (green rating);
Regular queuing on the NCR southbound in peak periods (red rating)
Moderate traffic increases but likely to push the current merge/diverge arrangements to their limits with increasing occurrence of queuing
Table 8.19 Great Central Way/NCR (AM Peak)
Great Central Way/NCR (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Great Central Way to NCR (W) 720 812 13% 830 15% 837 16% 837 16%
NCR to Great Central Way 556 674 21% 685 23% 679 22% 684 23%
Transport Strategy Review 8.12 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.20 Great Central Way/NCR (PM Peak)
Great Central Way/NCR (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Great Central Way to NCR (W) 616 714 16% 731 19% 718 17% 718 17%
NCR to Great Central Way 641 824 29% 831 30% 823 28% 828 29%
Drury Way/North Circular Road
8.2.16 Our observations on the results are as follows:
Drury Way approach prone to congestion in the base (red/amber rating);
North Circular Road experiences significant peak period congestion in the base (red rating);
Modest traffic impacts only on NCR but Drury Way impacts are significant enough to exacerbate current problems;
Strategic (perhaps grade-separated) solution needed to address all of the known impacts at this junction;
Bus priority measures should be considered for this junction.
Table 8.21 Drury Way/North Circular Road (AM Peak)
Drury Way/North Circular Road (AM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
NCR (E) 3994 3994 0% 3994 0% 3994 0% 3994 0%
Brentfield Rd No data
NCR (W) 3720 3815 3% 3884 4% 3880 4% 3888 5%
Drury Way 332 471 42% 479 44% 482 45% 482 45%
Transport Strategy Review 8.13 8 Transport Assessment
Table 8.22 Drury Way/North Circular Road (PM Peak)
Drury Way/North Circular Road (PM Peak)
Approach Base 2014 2020 2025 2027
No. % No. % No. % No. %
NCR (E) 3889 3889 0% 3889 0% 3889 0% 3889 0%
Brentfield Rd No data
NCR (W) 4455 4548 2% 4559 2% 4551 2% 4558 2%
Drury Way 757 953 26% 964 27% 949 25% 949 25%
8.3 Link Flows
8.3.1 Tables 8.23 to 8.26 show the traffic impacts at key links on the highway network. This analysis serves to confirm that the forecast link flows are generally within capacity and that no major road widening schemes are necessary to support the masterplan proposals.
8.3.2 Figures 8.1 to 8.6 provide a graphical illustration of how traffic flows on the key links change as the masterplan is built out. The figures enable a quick comparison to be made between base traffic conditions and those forecast for the end of Stage 1 and the end of Stage 4. Attention is drawn to the fact that all flows represented are two-way and that for simplicity, a relatively coarse flow banding has been adopted.
We note that reversion of the First/Fifth/Fourth Way gyratory system to two-way operation has the effect of reducing the number of lanes serving each movement from two to one. With the associated redistribution of traffic this does not present any immediate link capacity problems (although, clearly the junctions will need to be reconfigured).
However we have observed regular HGV parking and manoeuvring on First Way in particular that would need to be more closely regulated in the event of there being only one lane in each direction.
Transport Strategy Review 8.14 8 Transport Assessment
Link - AM Peak Base 2014 2020
E/B and W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B
Engineers Way 305 184 406 622 33% 238% 495 659 62% 258%
Empire Way 323 459 608 596 88% 30% 619 615 92% 34%
Great Central 785 866 1015 1077 29% 24% 1041 1159 33% 34% Way (East)
Great Central 906 0 492 789 -46% 0% 548 828 -40% 0% Way (West)
Fulton Rd 599 177 126 38 -79% -79% 127 39 -79% -78%
North End Road 499 220 617 307 24% 40% 670 340 34% 55%
Fourth Way 0 583 378 462 0% -21% 420 474 0% -19%
Wembley High 566 775 491 889 -13% 15% 516 903 -9% 17% Road
Harrow Road 842 1146 1153 1349 92% 18% 1186 1442 41% 26%
Bridge Road 552 987 838 1212 68% 23% 881 1281 60% 30%
Transport Strategy Review 8.15 8 Transport Assessment
Link - AM Peak Base 2025 2027
E/B and W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B
Engineers Way 305 184 495 659 62% 258% 495 659 62% 258%
Empire Way 323 459 619 615 92% 34% 619 615 92% 34%
Great Central 785 866 1051 1148 34% 33% 1053 1161 34% 34% Way (East)
Great Central 906 0 758 825 -16% 0% 532 826 -41% 0% Way (West)
Fulton Rd 599 177 124 39 -79% -78% 124 39 -79% -78%
North End Road 499 220 628 346 26% 57% 634 347 27% 58%
Fourth Way 0 583 416 543 0% -7% 418 481 0% -17%
Wembley High 566 775 502 1019 -11% 31% 506 906 -11% 17% Road
Harrow Road 842 1146 1426 1527 69% 33% 1216 1426 103% 24%
Bridge Road 552 987 1172 1244 112% 26% 887 1249 78% 27%
Transport Strategy Review 8.16 8 Transport Assessment
Link - PM Peak Base 2014 2020
E/B and W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B
Engineers Way 185 433 646 796 249% 84% 671 838 263% 94%
Empire Way 354 279 768 527 117% 89% 850 597 140% 114%
Great Central 766 803 1059 1079 38% 34% 1087 1097 42% 37% Way (East)
Great Central 0 976 538 925 0% -5% 562 935 0% -4% Way (West)
Fulton Rd 185 433 37 95 -80% -78% 38 96 -79% -78%
North End Road 205 345 322 471 57% 37% 347 517 69% 50%
Fourth Way 0 696 342 538 0% -23% 350 549 0% -21%
Wembley High 584 683 640 848 10% 24% 652 868 12% 27% Road
Harrow Road 1069 1313 1378 1625 29% 24% 1415 1648 32% 26%
Bridge Road 774 710 1186 1092 53% 54% 1247 1125 61% 58%
Transport Strategy Review 8.17 8 Transport Assessment
Link - PM Peak Base 2025 2027
E/B and W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or E/B and W/B or % E/B or % W/B or N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B N/B S/B
Engineers Way 185 433 671 838 263% 94% 671 838 263% 94%
Empire Way 354 279 783 536 121% 92% 783 536 121% 92%
Great Central 766 803 1060 1081 38% 35% 1071 1091 40% 36% Way (East)
Great Central 0 976 524 928 0% -5% 525 932 0% -5% Way (West)
Fulton Rd 185 433 33 89 -82% -79% 33 89 -82% -79%
North End Road 205 345 285 423 39% 23% 286 429 40% 24%
Fourth Way 0 696 342 536 0% -23% 343 538 0% -23%
Wembley High 584 683 631 837 8% 23% 632 840 8% 23% Road
Harrow Road 1069 1313 1363 1618 28% 23% 1363 1618 28% 23%
Bridge Road 774 710 1163 1064 50% 50% 1169 1064 51% 50%
Transport Strategy Review 8.18 8 Transport Assessment
Fryent Way
Key Salmon Street
Two-way Traffic volume 0-600 The Paddocks 601-1750 1751 + Forty Avenue Forty Lane
Bridge Road
Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road North End Road Fourth Way Albion Way Fulton Road Atlas Wembley Road Park Rutherford Way Empire Fifth Way Way Engineers Way
Hannah Close Fourth Way Wembley Hill Road North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way
Dagmar Avenue Wembley Stadium
Great Central Way
South Way Drury Way Wembley Hill Road Great Central Oakington Manor Drive Besant Way Way Wembley High Road St Raphael's Way
Brentfield Road
Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Base AM
Figure 8.1 Traffic flow volume on links
Transport Strategy Review 8.19 8 Transport Assessment
Fryent Way
Key Salmon Street Two-way Traffic volume 0-600 The Paddocks 601-1750 1751 + Forty Avenue Fort y Lane
Bridge
Blackbird Hill/Neasden North End Road Lane North End Road Fourth Albion Wa y Fulton Road Wa y Atlas Wembley Road Park Rutherford Empire Fifth Way Way Engineers Way
Hannah Close Fourth Wembley Wa y Hill Road North Circular Road Park Lane First Way Dagmar Wembley Stadium
Great Central Mostyn Avenue South Wa y Drury Way Wembley Hill Great Central Wembley Road Way gh Road Hi Oakington Manor Drive Besant Way
St Raphael's Way
Brentfield Road
Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road
Harrow Road A404
Stage 1 Resultant AM
Figure 8.2 Traffic flow volume on links
Transport Strategy Review 8.20 8 Transport Assessment
Fryent Way
Key
Two-way Traffic volume Salmon Street 0-600 601-1750 1751 + The Paddocks
Forty Lane Forty Avenue
Bridge Road Bridge Road
North End Road Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane
North End Road
Fulton Road Albion Fourth Way Way Atlas Fifth Way Wembley Park Road
Rutherford Way Empire Way
Hannah Close Wembley Engineers Way Olympic Way Fourth Way Hill Road North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way
Dagmar Avenue Wembley Stadium
Great Central Way
South Way Wembley Hill Road Drury Way Wembley High Great Central Way Road Oakington Manor Drive Besant Way
St Raphael's Way Brentfield Road
Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Stage 4 Resultant AM
Figure 8.3 Traffic Volume Flows on Links
Transport Strategy Review 8.21 8 Transport Assessment
Fryent Way
Key Salmon Street
Two-way Traffic volume 0-600 The Paddocks 601-1750 1751 + Forty Avenue Forty Lane
Bridge Road
Blackbird Hill/Neasden Lane North End Road North End Road Fourth Albion Way Fulton Road Way Atlas Wembley Road Park Rutherford Way
Empire Fifth Way Way Engineers Way
Hannah Close Fourth Wembley Way Hill Road North Circular Road A406 Park Lane First Way
Dagmar Avenue Wembley Stadium
Great Central Way
South Way Drury Way Wembley Hill Great Central Road Way Oakington Manor Drive Besant Way
Wembley High St Raphael's Way Road
Brentfield Road
Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road A406
Harrow Road A404
Base PM
Figure 8.4 Traffic flow volume on links
Transport Strategy Review 8.22 8 Transport Assessment
Fryent Way
Key Salmon Street Two-way Traffic volume 0-600 The Paddocks 601-1750 1751 +
Forty Avenue Forty Lane
Bridge
Blackbird Hill/Neasden North End Road Lane North End Road Fourth Albion Way Fulton Road Wa y Atlas Wembley Road Park Rutherford W Empire Fifth Way Way Engineers Way
Hannah Close Fourth Wembley Way Hill Road North Circular Road Park First Lane Way Dagmar Wembley Stadium
Great Central W South Way
Wembley Hill Drury Way Great Central Wembley Road Way High Road Oakington Manor Drive Besant Way St Raphael's Way
Brentfield Road
Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road
Harrow Road A404
Stage 1 Resultant PM Figure 8.5 Traffic flow volume on links
Transport Strategy Review 8.23 8 Transport Assessment
Fryent Way
Key Salmon Two-way Traffic volume 0-600 Street 601-1750 1751 + The Paddocks
Forty Avenue Forty Lane
Bridge Road
Blackbird Hill/Neasden North End Road Lane North End Road Albion Way Fourth Way Fulton Road Atlas Wembley Road Park Fifth Way Rutherford Empire Way Way
Hannah Close Wembley Engineers Fourth Hill Road Wa y Way North Circular Road Park First Lane Way Dagmar Avenue Wembley Stadium
Great Central Way
South Wa y
Wembley Hill Drury Great Central Road Way Way Oakington Manor Drive Besant Way
Wembley High St Raphael's Way Road
Brentfield Road
Harrow Road A404
North Circular Road
Harrow Road A404
Stage 4 Resultant PM
Figure 8.6 Traffic Volume Flows on Links
Transport Strategy Review 8.24 8 Transport Assessment
8.4 Public Transport Capacity Assessment
8.4.1 A public transport viability analysis has been conducted assessing the level of demand generated by the masterplan development relative to available capacity on local bus, rail, and tube services.
8.4.2 Present-day patronage data by mode/service has been growthed-up for future year scenarios to create future 'background' demand. Meanwhile present day service provision by mode/service has been calculated and increased where known improvements are planned. This future year capacity (minus future background demand) can then be compared to the predicted development-related demand. An assessment can then be made whether each transport mode/service can accommodate the proposed masterplan development.
8.4.3 Each of the charts below illustrates how transport capacity is utilised by mode (bus, rail, and tube) and service (operators and lines). There are four individual charts representing: Base AM peak hour, Base PM peak hour, Stage 1 AM peak hour, and Stage 1 PM peak hour. Stage 1 has been selected as the additional increases in patronage arising from Stages 2, 3, and 4 are relatively minor in comparison.
8.4.4 Each chart contains seven smaller pie charts, one for each transport mode/service. The pie charts are comprised of three elements: background demand; development demand; and spare capacity. The sum of the three elements is total available capacity. In the Base scenario this is the current 2008 service provision. For future years, known capacity improvements have been incorporated including improved service frequencies, additional rolling stock, and new routes.
8.4.5 Base background demand is based on current 2008 patronage levels whilst future predictions for Stage 1 include an allowance for increased background patronage. This is shown in grey in the pie charts. Development-based demand is taken directly from TAM outputs and is shown as red in the pie charts. The spare capacity remaining after the background demand and development demand has been accounted for is shown in green.
Transport Strategy Review 8.25 8 Transport Assessment
Base AM
Spare Background Forty Lane
METROPOLITAN JUBILEE Development Park
East Lane
Empire Way Park Lane BUS
CHILTERN
South Way
LOROL SOUTHERN Stadium High Road
Central BAKERLOO Harrow Road
Base PM
Spare Background Forty Lane
METROPOLITAN JUBILEE Development Park
East Lane
Empire Way Park Lane BUS
CHILTERN
South Way
LOROL SOUTHERN Stadium High Road
Central BAKERLOO Harrow Road
Transport Strategy Review 8.26 8 Transport Assessment
Stage 1 AM
Spare Background Forty Lane
METROPOLITAN JUBILEE Development Park
East Lane
Empire Way Park Lane BUS
CHILTERN
South Way
LOROL SOUTHERN Stadium High Road
Central BAKERLOO Harrow Road
Stage 1 PM
Spare Background Forty Lane
METROPOLITAN JUBILEE Development Park
East Lane
Empire Way Park Lane BUS
CHILTERN
South Way
LOROL SOUTHERN Stadium High Road
Central BAKERLOO Harrow Road
Transport Strategy Review 8.27 8 Transport Assessment
8.5 Summary
8.5.1 This assessment has confirmed that the traffic impacts of the tested scenarios are very significant, particularly during the first stage of the masterplan where some 5000 new dwellings are planned together with over 300,000m2 of new/replacement floorspace.
8.5.2 Whilst detailed junction modelling is beyond the scope of this study, if the baseline conditions are considered together with the forecast traffic flows, our analysis points to the need for junction improvements at the following locations:
Empire Way/Engineers Way;
Wembley Hill Road/ Empire Way;
Engineers Way/Olympic Way;
Wembley Hill Road/South Way;
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road;
Bridge Road/Forty Lane;
North End Road/ Bridge Road;
Empire Way/Wembley Park Drive;
Empire Way/Fulton Road;
Drury Way/A406 North Circular Road (strategic scheme needed);
North End Road/Albion Way, and
Albion Way/Fulton Road.
8.5.3 Note: those depicted in bold are considered essential to support Stage 1 of the masterplan.
8.5.4 These junction improvements are required not only to prevent undue traffic congestion but also to deliver essential bus priority measures and provide a more positive environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
8.5.5 As noted earlier at 4.3.1, the Section 106 Agreement reached with developer Quintain for its Stage 1 development identifies works to be undertaken at the following junctions:
Wembley Hill Road/Royal Route;
Empire Way/Engineers Way;
Empire Way/Stadium Way;
Empire Way/Lakeside Way;
Wembley Hill Road/Site 09;
Engineers Way/Wembley Park Boulevard;
Engineers Way/Olympic Way;
First Way;
Engineers Way/Site E01; and
Wembley Hill Road/Empire Way.
Transport Strategy Review 8.28 8 Transport Assessment
8.5.6 These works will go some way in mitigating the effects of the forecast traffic flows. However, the consented Quintain development represents only about 60% of the total floorspace envisaged for Stage 1 of the masterplan.
8.5.7 It is perhaps not surprising then that our analysis indicates that the Section 106 package of works will be insufficient both in terms of the individual junction schemes and the geographical extent of the improvement measures to fully mitigate against the full Stage 1 impacts.
8.5.8 In terms of public transport we surmise that there is no issue in terms of the capacity of the existing rail, tube and bus services to accommodate the increased demands associated with the masterplan. However, there are issues relating to accessibility of the public transport networks particularly from the more remote parts of the site. There are also questions raised over whether the existing and future proposed (i.e. more of the same) services provide sufficient connections to the wider area to deliver a step change in usage.
Alternative Scenarios
8.5.9 Clearly this study has examined only one possible development scenario (the current masterplan) with a set of ‘most likely’ transport interventions. The resultant traffic forecasts have proved to be significant and give some cause for concern. Whether is it desirable, practical or affordable to ‘build a way out’ of the potential problems associated with this scenario remains to be seen. The answer will hinge on the scale of the schemes identified when they are worked up in more detail. We suspect though in most cases an appropriate solution can be found.
8.5.10 However the question is raised over what the alternatives might be. One possibility could be to rethink the scale of the development but our advice is that this would be premature at this stage if traffic impact is the only issue. Instead we would recommend that as the masterplan is developed further, much greater emphasis is placed on encouraging travel by non car modes. We offer our thoughts on what is needed to achieve this goal in the following chapters of this report.
Transport Strategy Review 8.29
9 Study Findings and Conclusions
9.1 Introduction
9.1.1 The Draft Wembley Masterplan 2008 presents an exciting vision for the transformation of the area around the new National stadium including;
“…. a comprehensive range of high quality hotels, leisure, commercial, residential and retail activities all in a contemporary, lively and distinctive setting.”
9.1.2 The scale of development envisaged over the next 20 years is immediately striking with over 650,000 m2 of new build or replacement buildings planned together with some 8000 new dwellings. Regeneration on this scale is ambitious and delivery of the masterplan will no doubt present many challenges, not least those associated with transport, access and movement.
9.1.3 As things stand, the transport strategy needed to support the masterplan is in the infancy of its development. Whilst some thought has clearly been given to most aspects of a potential strategy, detail is lacking in many areas and there is still much worked needed to present a fully integrated approach.
9.1.4 This study has necessarily had to work with the information and data that is currently on the table. Through the modelling work it has for the first time provided a level of quantification of the likely transport impacts of the masterplan proposals. This has in turn provided some insight into the adequacy of the emerging transport strategy elements in delivering a sustainable access solution. Our thoughts on this point follow in the remaining sections of this chapter.
9.1.5 Experience suggests however, that a truly integrated transport strategy cannot be developed ‘offline’ from an ongoing masterplanning process in a single pass. Instead an iterative approach is needed whereby outputs from the transport analysis are fed back into the design process to inform decisions on scale, access, parking provision, public transport accessibility, street hierarchy and so on. Such an approach is more likely to produce an optimum solution that will withstand the scrutiny of any public or third party examination further downstream in the planning process.
9.1.6 This study can be viewed as the first step in the process and provides an assessment of the current masterplan position with the pros and cons discussed below. Where issues or potential problems are highlighted we would emphasise the importance of addressing them in a collaborative way with inputs from the designers, planners and transport experts. The Wembley model, developed as part of this piece of work, now provides an ideal tool to assist in this process.
9.2 Planning Policy Alignment
9.2.1 Our review suggests that the masterplan is in general accord with the prevailing policy imperative for development, supporting, promoting and reliant upon an integrated and
Transport Strategy Review 9.1 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
sustainable transport network. The masterplan includes reference throughout to many of those guiding principles such as development location within convenient access of public transport, provision of high quality public realm to encourage walking, and managed parking to encourage travel by other modes. However, at this stage in the masterplan’s development, some of the finer points by which the masterplan may be compared, are absent. For example, no clear infrastructure proposals or provision is schedule is presented; neither is it related to the masterplan’s four stages.
9.2.2 From our work in testing the deliverability of the masterplan in transport terms, a number of concerns are raised in relation to policy objectives including; the scale of the proposed development in relation to the sufficiency supporting transport infrastructure, that the development is phased appropriately in relation to its impact, the extent to which the rail system will be deemed truly accessible those living and working in the masterplan area, the masterplan’s stated intention for convenient car access throughout the area, the appropriateness of the scale of the proposed development in an already congested road network, and the ability to deliver a high quality public realm given the volume of development-related movement.
9.2.3 Our study suggests that some reappraisal of the development schedule and supporting transport infrastructure proposals and initiatives is required in order to satisfy prevailing planning policy guidance.
9.3 Traffic Impact and Highway Improvements
9.3.1 The amount of car based travel associated with the masterplan will be strongly influenced by the availability and convenience of alternative transport modes, the practicality of using these modes for particular activities and the parking strategy adopted across the developments.
9.3.2 Our analysis indicates that the masterplan is starting on the right footing with the potential for large numbers of internal (local) trips to be made on foot or by bicycle as a result of the blend of development envisaged. It also confirms that tube and rail services will attract significant numbers of trips due to the proximity of (much of) the area to the three Wembley stations.
9.3.3 In fact, even under a do minimum scenario, without transport interventions, only 37% of all trips are forecast to be made by car.
9.3.4 However three high level conclusions emerge from the modelling work:
The residual number of peak hour car based trips leads to significant traffic impacts on the local highway network;
The impacts increase over time but are most pronounced in Stage 1 of the masterplan; and
The effect of the transport interventions in terms of encouraging mode shift away from the private car are relatively modest (amounting to about a 4% change over the do minimum scenario)
Transport Strategy Review 9.2 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
9.3.5 To put the first two of these conclusions in context we would expect to see well over 2000 new car trips on the local network in a single peak hour by the end of Stage 1 and around 3000 new car trips by the end of the masterplan period.
9.3.6 The corridors that experience the largest impacts include:
Wembley Hill Road/ Empire Way;
Engineers Way (west of assumed access point);
South Way (west of assumed access point);
Harrow Road;
North Circular Road/Great Central Way.
9.3.7 Forecast traffic volumes generally remain below the threshold for link capacity improvements but in an urban network the critical operational factor is the capacity of the junctions.
Junction Capacity
9.3.8 Whilst the junction impacts are seen to build up during the course of the masterplan period it is clear that the largest impacts occur during Stage 1 and that appropriate mitigation measures will be needed within this timeframe.
9.3.9 Provision is already made for improvements at a limited number of key junctions through the Section 106 Agreement drawn up as part of the consented Quintain Development. These include:
Empire Way/Engineers Way;
Wembley Hill Road/ Empire Way;
Engineers Way/Olympic Way, and
Various local access improvements
9.3.10 We note that the consented Quintain scheme represents about 60% of the total development envisaged for Stage 1. Also, that only very limited details of the improvement proposals are available. However, on the evidence examined we conclude that the improvements agreed for the Quintain scheme will be inadequate to fully mitigate the traffic impacts of the full masterplan stage 1 development both in terms of the individual junction schemes and the geographical extent of the improvement measures.
9.3.11 Detailed junction modelling is beyond the scope of this study, but based on forecast increases in traffic flows our analysis indicates that major improvements will be needed at the following junctions of by the end of Stage 1:
Wembley Hill Road/South Way; and
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill Road.
with the possible need to incorporate widening of the railway bridge over the Chiltern line particularly if significant bus priority measures are included.
9.3.12 Our analysis also points to the requirement for junction improvements at the following locations not only to prevent undue traffic congestion but also to deliver bus priority and provide a more positive environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
Transport Strategy Review 9.3 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
Bridge Road/Forty Lane;
North End Road/ Bridge Road (see below);
Empire Way/Wembley Park Drive;
Empire Way/Fulton Road;
Drury Way/A406 North Circular Road (strategic scheme needed);
North End Road/Albion Way, and
Albion Way/Fulton Road.
Reconnection of North End Road
9.3.13 The reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road is an established aspiration of the council in that it is held to provide a vital additional access to the masterplan area unconstrained by stadium events. The benefits of reconnection are described within the masterplan as including:
Allowing east-west connection on event days, thus enabling existing and future residents and businesses to gain access to areas that are currently blocked for significant amounts of time;
Enabling routes intersecting with Olympic Way to become less traffic dominated;
Creating an actual and perceptual link into an area that currently suffers from problems of severance and poor quality public realm;
Creating much improved pedestrian and cycle access onto Olympic Way.
9.3.14 The reconnection is currently indicated for Stage 2 of the masterplan i.e. beyond 2014. Our modelling work suggests however, that there are benefits in making the connection earlier, certainly before the full extent of Stage 1 is built out.
9.3.15 Reassignment of Existing Traffic. At present the majority of traffic heading to the masterplan area from the north-west is evidenced to travel south on Bridge Road /Empire Way before turning left into Fulton Road. Some 600 vehicles currently make this movement in the am peak. It would appear that the alternative routes into the area via Engineers Way or South Way attract little traffic from the north – the corresponding left turn movements are only 25 and 33 vehicles respectively.
9.3.16 It is reasonable to assume therefore that a significant proportion of the traffic turning left into Fulton Road would reassign to North End Road southbound. Our estimate is around 480 vehicles.
9.3.17 We have also considered the effects of other potential changes to the local high network, the most significant of which is the reversion of the First/Fifth/Fourth Way gyratory system to two way operation. We estimate that this could attract further 20 vehicles onto North End Road as a result of the improved connectivity to the South Way/Great Central Way area.
9.3.18 Using a similar analysis we have estimated that around 200 vehicles would use North End Road northbound, largely to the benefit of traffic reduction on Fulton Road with a more modest reduction on Engineers Way.
Transport Strategy Review 9.4 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
9.3.19 Development Traffic. The vast majority of the development blocks in Stage 1 of the Masterplan are accessed directly from Wembley Hill Road, Engineers Way or South Way. As such the North End Road connection does not provide an attractive alternative route to these blocks. However, there is a development block accessed directly from North End Road and there are a number of blocks at the west end of Engineers Way and on First Way that would benefit from an alternative route via North End Road.
9.3.20 In total we estimate that North End Road could carry around 600 vehicles southbound in the morning peak period and 300 vehicles northbound by the end of Stage 1 of the masterplan. Up until the end of this Stage the majority of the traffic carried by North End Road is likely to be reassigned base traffic, but as the development is built out to the east then the balance of flow will move more towards development traffic.
9.3.21 Fulton Road is likely to benefit most from traffic reduction but there will also be more modest traffic reductions on Engineers Way. The Wembley Park Drive gyratory will also benefit from base traffic reduction which could prove to be a significant factor in the design of the proposed improvement for this junction given the additional loading of traffic on the Empire Way corridor associated with the Stage 1 development.
Reversion of the Gyratory System to Two-Way Operation
9.3.22 The reversion of the gyratory system to two-way operation is not in its own right a means of easing potential traffic congestion in the development area. In fact quite the opposite might be true. However gyratory systems are well known to reduce vehicular permeability, create circuitous routes and encourage higher speeds.
9.3.23 There is clearly then a lack of fit between the current traffic management arrangements and the masterplan aspirations to improve accessibility and create an improved environment for pedestrians and cyclists. The removal of the gyratory system would appear to be a step in the right direction in this regard.
9.3.24 Our modelling suggests that the conversion is feasible provided that suitable junction improvements (with capacity enhancements) are introduced at the junctions of:
Fourth Way/Great Central Way;
First Way/ Fulton Road and
South Way/ First Way
together with appropriate reconfiguration of other affected junctions and access points.
9.3.25 There is a degree of flexibility in the timing of this improvement but if it is to be introduced after the reconnection of North End Road there may be a need for some intermediate capacity enhancements at the junction of Fulton Road and First Way
Road Network Infrastructure Costs
9.3.26 The table below provides a broad range of cost for measures that may be required to accommodate masterplan generated vehicular movement. At this stage no indicative design plans are available to assist in this estimation and no account can be taken either of any associated land acquisition or service diversion costs. The table does though provide an indication of the possible scope of work and broad order of cost.
Transport Strategy Review 9.5 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
Table 9.1 infrastructure Provision Cost Range
Junction Indicative Cost Range
£0-£1m £1-2.5m £2.5-£10m+
Empire x Way/Engineers Way
Wembley Hill x Road/Empire Way
Engineers x Way/Olympic Way
Wembley Hill x Road/South Way
Wembley High Road/Wembley Hill x Road
Reconnection of North x End Road/Bridge Road
North End Road x /Albion Way
Albion Way/Fulton x Road
Bridge Road/Forty x Lane
Empire Way/Wembley x Park Drive
Empire Way/Fulton x Road
Drury Way/A406 x North Circular Road (strategic scheme needed)
Walking and Cycling
9.3.27 We have estimated a total of some 1700 morning peak hour pedestrian movements on completion of the masterplan Stage 1 development, rising to nearly 3000 at the end on Stage 4. In addition to that, an additional 270 cyclists on completion of Stage 1 rising to
Transport Strategy Review 9.6 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
nearly 450 at the end of Stage 4. The evening equivalents are lower, probably representing the peak hour spreading of trips in the evening period.
9.3.28 These numbers are considerable but manageable within the context of a public realm designed to cater for the volumes related to stadium events. In the context of encouraging journeys on foot between areas of the development, to access public transport and to local destinations in the wider Wembley area, it is though important to focus on the provision of a high quality public realm with safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes throughout.
9.3.29 Replacement of the Pedway with a wide processional route that crosses Engineers Way at- grade is one of the key aspirations of the masterplan. We have considered the feasibility of this proposal in terms of traffic flow and potential conflict along Engineers Way. Our analysis suggests that with the reconnection of North End Road to Bridge Road and with suitable traffic calming/public realm enhancements, the eastern end of Engineers Way can be sufficiently ‘de-trafficked’ to make the removal of the Pedway a feasible proposition.
9.3.30 We note however, that due to the need for access to a number of the Stage 1 development blocks, traffic flows along the western end of Engineers Way are likely to be significantly higher, particularly during peak periods.
9.3.31 Along with an enhanced focus on the provision of facilities to assist cyclist across roads and junctions in the area and higher quality and continuous cycle route road signing, greater investment in secure cycle parking facilities at rail and tube interchanges would be beneficial in light of the anticipated substantial increase in cyclists.
Bus services
9.3.32 A key conclusion is that in order to deliver the masterplan without an unacceptable impact on the road network and the undesirable knock-on impacts of that to other modes (including bus), a step-change in bus service provision is required.
9.3.33 Present bus services are generally considered as good, and the masterplan indicates a number of amendments to present services such as the dedicated limited stop bus service from Wembley to Acton via Park Royal, the diversion of services within the site, and the improved spread and penetration of bus services into the masterplan area. Such measures will go some way to improving services and their attractiveness, but do not present a compelling case for bus filling the vital role identified by this report.
9.3.34 Though there is evident rail capacity available for use throughout the masterplan period, its attractiveness and use is limited by its radial orientation which limits geographical coverage, its function in serving medium to longer distance journeys, and the distance of the stations from many parts of the development area (particularly Wembley Central). Bus services can help deliver passengers to those stations, travel orbitally as well as radially without costly infrastructure provision and serve destinations at a very local level. Though more straightforward than improvements to rail services in terms of infrastructure provision, bus service improvements require careful planning and receive close attention in terms of routeing to optimise passenger loadings throughout their planned routes.
9.3.35 The needed step-change in provision may be realised through:
High bus service visibility and profile throughout the masterplan area;
Transport Strategy Review 9.7 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
Bus service provision taking clear priority in terms of internal and external road network planning;
A clear presumption made in favour of bus street-running and penetration throughout the masterplan area and in relation to other modes and issues to minimise passenger walk distances to services;
Bus service planning and provision based on identified key local and strategic destinations, including new services;
Bus priority concerns exerting a central influence on the design and implementation of external road network improvements;
Reliable and frequent services with accurate real-time service information;
A high quality ‘Wembley’ branded bus fleet; and
High quality bus waiting facilities throughout the masterplan area and adjoining roads.
9.3.36 The masterplan alludes to some of the points above, but we suggest needs strengthening in order to present a credible case for buses to play a key role in masterplan delivery. We also suggest that the key to success lies not so much in the provision or diversion of individual routes (though necessary), but in an overall and substantial uplift in the perceived function and quality of the bus services and facilities provided. A substantial £1.75m is available through the S106 Agreement reached with developers Quintain and this would go some way to addressing known present capacity problems on routes 18, 182 and 297.
9.4 Parking
9.4.1 The appropriate level of parking is the one which manages to strike the best balance between all the competing masterplan needs and objectives. The level of parking proposed for residential parking across the site at 0.5 of a space per unit is consistent with the theme of restraining on-site parking in order to minimise associated vehicle movements and encourage use of alternative travel modes. There is though no clear and detailed indication of quite how that ratio will vary across the site other than a reference to broad-brush public transport accessibility (PTAL) values.
9.4.2 Some elements within the site, e.g. those homes and businesses lying nearby Wembley Park station are likely to require and be provided with a lower ratio that others further away. Some land uses will be considered as more deserving than others, for example, it may be considered that in the context of delivering the retail elements of the masterplan, then parking provision is important in order to compete with other centres. But restraining the overall parking level remains important to minimise road network congestion and encourage travel by other modes.
9.4.3 There is then the opportunity to consider further parking restraint for those developments offering the best alternative mode access. Car-free developments are a growing feature in urban environments and a strategy to deliver dedicated car-free development areas within the masterplan area will deliver flexibility to provide needed spaces elsewhere. However, with a view to the wider sustainable travel imperative, then that provision should be given on the basis of an ongoing review and possible reduction of provision over time.
Transport Strategy Review 9.8 9 Study Findings and Conclusions
Coach parking
9.4.4 There are no proposals presented within the masterplan to address this matter though the need for provision is undoubted. The principal difficulty is quite what to use that area for on non-event days. The option of a remote facility, i.e. located external to the masterplan area with a passenger set-down area near the stadium, appears unsatisfactory outcome given the distance to the stadium, the additional movements of the areas roads, and possible problems of event day congestion.
9.4.5 The potential reconnection of the North End Road to Bridge Road does though offer further road network flexibility and perhaps an opportunity to consider a coach parking site (or several smaller sites) in the Eastern Lands District. This would offer a direct convenient connection to both the strategic North Circular Road route, and indirectly via Forty Lane/Neasden Lane via Bridge Road.
Transport Strategy Review 9.9
10 Next Steps
10.1 Introduction
10.1.1 The Wembley masterplan is a living framework for development that will continue to evolve for the foreseeable future in response to changes in demand, emerging information and other external factors.
10.1.2 Through this study the masterplan has been tested at a snap-shot in time and for the first time the transport implications of the proposals as they currently stand have been quantified.
10.1.3 Questions have been raised over the level of detail of the emerging transport strategy and it has become clear that some important gaps need to be filled. The Wembley model now provides the means of quantifying and testing the effects of alternative strategies.
10.1.4 But strategy development should ideally be done in a collaborative way with all key stakeholders sitting around the table. An important next step is therefore to identify a mechanism for this ongoing dialogue to take place. Establishment of a multi-disciplinary design team to progress the masterplan to the next stage (i.e. with sufficient detail and robust analysis to withstand Examination in Public) is one means of achieving this end.
Issues and Tensions
10.1.5 A number of issues and tensions have also arisen during the course of our research for this transport strategy review, such as that between the evident availability of rail capacity compared to its relative inaccessibility from many areas of the masterplan area. Such matters suggest that a further masterplan-related Movement Strategy would assist in supporting further masterplan development and implementation.
10.1.6 We also point in this chapter to the benefit of relating some of the key transport elements to wider development-related studies, such as retailing and employment opportunities, which would better inform the estimates of future development-related movement and transport network usage.
10.2 Movement Strategy
10.2.1 Our research has pointed to a number of concerns between the masterplan’s laudable aspirations and their delivery in terms of the transport systems ability to meet them. In order to facilitate a mechanism by which competing objectives, needs and interests may be assessed and planned for, it is helpful to develop a clear and detailed Movement Strategy for the masterplan.
10.2.2 The Movement Strategy would cover all travel modes and assist with setting the context for movement within the masterplan area, providing the necessary guidance for further masterplan design and implementation. Clearly, there are many facets to movement and the strategy would be informed by consideration of all travel modes.
Transport Strategy Review 10.1 10 Next Steps
Accessibility
10.3 Walk and cycle accessibility
10.3.1 The masterplan, in re-planning the present area, sets out the intention to provide an environment to promote walking and cycling as serious and purposeful modes. For many within the area, both will be attractive and meet many of their access needs. However, the scale of the area should not be underestimated and the travel distances between many points both internal and external to the area are considerable, for example the substantial walk to Wembley Central Station from Wembley Stadium Station to the south of the masterplan area.
10.3.2 Though the general area offers three rail stations, and the masterplan emphasises the reliance on the three station strategy, our review has concluded that for many within the masterplan area, accessing those stations may represent too great a distance to walk. With the evident capacity available on the rail network during the masterplan period, the pressure on the road network, and the policy imperative to travel by sustainable modes, then maximising use of that capacity is of key importance. This will relate to accessing other facilities too, such as education and leisure facilities both internal and external to the area.
10.3.3 The preparation of a specific and detailed GIS-based accessibility assessment and masterplan sub-strategy would enable a close examination of reasonable walk distances within the masterplan area and point to those key actions required to maximise walk and cycle travel and make full use of the rail passenger carrying capacity available.
10.4 Bus and rail network accessibility
10.4.1 Related to the above is the need for a dedicated examination of the geographical coverage and quality of the services offered to those within the masterplan area. To date, broad assumptions only have been made regarding how those services will meet present and likely future travel needs in terms of accessibility to employment, education, leisure and competing shopping opportunities. With regard to rail travel, the predominantly radial coverage is an acknowledged problem, and this needs to be considered fully in terms of the services attractiveness to passengers.
10.4.2 An initial step would be to build upon the initial research presented here, and examine present public transport services in further detail, exploring known and possible service improvements and the means by which those services may be enhanced to serve the masterplan area. That work would benefit from information from separate studies relating to employment centres, education, and retail opportunities to examine patterns of movement in relation to key passenger destinations.
Road network
10.4.3 Given the key role of the road network and its interaction with the attractiveness and use of other travel modes, it is particularly important to have a means to assess appropriate masterplan-related action.
10.4.4 The issues and tensions here are evident. On the one hand it is clear that at some junctions, improvements to improve the ability to handle vehicle movements would be beneficial to
Transport Strategy Review 10.2 10 Next Steps
cater for increased development related traffic. However, the masterplan also looks to encourage rail and bus usage, and junction improvements may also include bus priority measures, pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities, both of which would rob the junction of vehicle handling capacity. Another such tension is in the stated desire to provide easy vehicle circulation within the area whilst providing a high quality pedestrian environment, encouraging walking and cycling.
Parking
10.4.5 The study findings pointed to the potential to prioritise the supply of parking specifically within the context of the masterplan. This element of the Movement Strategy would explore the appropriate balance for specific areas, identifying the areas suitable for car-free development and those where a higher level of provision would be appropriate in the interests of development viability. The strategy would also address the need for an ongoing review of parking provision throughout the masterplan period seeking opportunities to restrain/reduce/reprovide provision as appropriate.
10.4.6 The boroughs applicable parking standards are in general accord the prevailing sustainable transport policy as expressed at to local, sub-regional and national level. In planning development through to 2026, the masterplan may seize the opportunity to set stretched target standards reflecting the desire to manage parking and the vehicle trips associated with them in the interests of realising the wider masterplan objects.
Travel demand management
10.4.7 Though a relatively new transport area, travel demand management already has an established and growing place in addressing the transport challenge. Addressing the very need for travel, at source, is clearly a fundamental way in which to manage movement. New development, such as that proposed, offers considerable potential to deliver on the promise offered by measures such as Travel Plans, car clubs and car sharing, personalised travel planning and tele-working. However, the evidence base to support the effectiveness and reach of such measures is small, but growing.
10.4.8 This element of the Movement Strategy would look in detail at the scope for travel demand measures within the development context and how they may best be interwoven with the masterplan for maximum effectiveness.
Further Movement Strategy elements
10.4.9 In addition to the key areas identified above are a number of other issues that would benefit from closer attention to assist in decision-making during further masterplan development and implementation
Freight
10.4.10 The management of freight and servicing activity represents a clear opportunity to re-plan present activity and practices along contemporary sustainable delivery principles, minimising movements through considerate building design, facilities, access controls and servicing hours.
Transport Strategy Review 10.3 10 Next Steps
Event Day management
10.4.11 The management of movement on event days is a complex matter and one which will evolve further during the course of the masterplan period in response to the specific nature, coverage and scale of development. It will need to be considered carefully alongside the other mode-based sub-strategies,
Public realm
10.4.12 The relationship between movement by all travel modes and the public realm is under increasing examination. The Movement Strategy needs to consider the needs of the public realm carefully and the impact of movement by other modes.
10.5 Masterplan delivery reappraisal
10.5.1 The foregoing has proposed actions that in effect would best represent the characteristics of those to live, work, and visit the area. It would fine-tune and optimise the masterplan’s development to provide the optimum transport environment.
10.5.2 Such a fine-level examination would doubtless amend several of the assumptions made during the course of this broad-brush appraisal and enable a further run of the spreadsheet- based Transport Assessment Model to see the likely effect of those changes and then further refine the masterplan’s detailed proposals. This iterative process could continue throughout the planning process to assess the optimum masterplan arrangement of content and location.
10.6 Wider studies
10.6.1 A fundamental component of the work presented here relates to the estimated volume and pattern of development–related movement. Throughout our work, a number of assumptions have been made regarding key variables including; the numbers of people travelling to and leaving the site on a daily basis, their choice of travel mode, and where they are travelling from and to. All of these, and a host of other variables have led to the findings and conclusion presented here.
10.6.2 The assessment of those variables would though benefit from further and more detailed investigation related to studies of employment, education, leisure and competing shopping opportunities. For example, the masterplan development with it’s new shops along the Boulevard and shopping street may be expected to minimise ‘leakage’ to competing retail centres and therefore minimise related travel out of the area. Conversely, we may expect more travel into the masterplan area and would need to consider the net impact of that.
10.6.3 A detailed examination of such retail impact would do much to inform the related travel patterns in terms of the number of movements generated, where they would travel to/from, and by which mode. Similarly, detailed investigations into education, education and leisure opportunities would do much to inform the masterplan’s movement strategy.
Transport Strategy Review 10.4 10 Next Steps
10.7 Summary
10.7.1 The suggestions for the next steps presented here are intended to add the needed information to strengthen the ongoing assessment of transport impacts and needs in the masterplanning context. A more detailed examination of the complex movement needs and patterns will help to minimise the need for travel, maximise travel by sustainable travel modes, and help in the further development and implementation of the masterplan as it moves forward to realise its broader socio-economic objectives.
Transport Strategy Review 10.5
MVA Consultancy provides advice on transport and other policy areas, to central, regional and local government, agencies, developers, operators and financiers.
A diverse group of results-oriented people, we are part of a 350-strong team worldwide. Through client business planning, customer research and strategy development we create solutions that work for real people in the real world.
For more information visit www.mvaconsultancy.com
Birmingham Lyon Second Floor, 37a Waterloo Street 11, rue de la République, 69001 Lyon, France Birmingham B2 5TJ United Kingdom T: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 29 F: +33 (0)4 72 10 29 28 T: +44 (0)121 233 7680 F: +44 (0)121 233 7681 Manchester Dubai 25th Floor, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza Office 402, Building 49, Dubai Healthcare City Manchester M1 4BT United Kingdom PO Box 123166, Dubai, UAE T: +44 (0)161 236 0282 F: +44 (0)161 236 0095 T: +971 (0)4 433 0530 F: +971 (0)4 423 3613 Marseille Dublin 76, rue de la République, 13002 Marseille, France First Floor, 12/13 Exchange Place T: +33 (0)4 91 37 35 15 F: +33 (0)4 91 91 90 14 Custom House Docks, IFSC, Dublin 1, Ireland T: +353 (0)1 542 6000 F: +353 (0)1 542 6001 Paris 12-14, rue Jules César, 75012 Paris, France Edinburgh T: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 00 F: +33 (0)1 53 17 36 01 Stewart House, Thistle Street, North West Lane Edinburgh EH2 1BY United Kingdom Woking T: +44 (0)131 220 6966 F: +44 (0)131 220 6087 Dukes Court, Duke Street, Woking Surrey GU21 5BH United Kingdom Glasgow T: +44 (0)1483 728051 F: +44 (0)1483 755207 Seventh Floor, 78 St Vincent Street Glasgow G2 5UB United Kingdom T: +44 (0)141 225 4400 F: +44 (0)141 225 4401
London Second Floor, 17 Hanover Square London W1S 1HU United Kingdom T: +44 (0)20 7529 6500 F: +44 (0)20 7529 6556
Email: [email protected]
Offices also in Transport Strategy Review 7 Bangkok, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Singapore