LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy

Prepared for Transport for

November 2001

Document Control

Project Title: LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy

MVA Project Number: C3895022

WP Reference: cmp\tm

Directory & File Name: l:\london\lts\c8950.22\summary\mtsnote.doc

Document Approval

Primary Author: Richard Stanley

Other Author(s):

Reviewer(s): Paul Hanson (MVA) Henry Abraham (GLA)

Issue Date Distribution Comments

1 16/11/01 THu, HAb, PHa First Draft for Review 2 23/11/01 THu, HAb Second Draft 3 26/11/01 HAb Published Version

Contents

Chapter Page

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Objectives of the Study 1 1.3 Structure of this Note 1

2 Modelling Approach 3

2.1 Background to the LTS Model 3 2.2 Modelling Goods Vehicles 5 2.3 Modelling Public Transport Reliability 5 2.4 Modelling Public Transport Crowding: LTS Crowding factors 5 2.5 PiXC as used in the Rail Industry 6 2.6 PiXC as used in the LTS model 7

3 Planning Data Assumptions 8

3.1 Introduction 8 3.2 B2.11 Borough Level Planning Data 8

4 Transport Network Assumptions 14

4.1 Scenarios 14 4.2 2001 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.3 2011 Reference Case Scenario 14 4.4 2011 Test MTS (Mayor's Transport Strategy) Package 16 4.5 2011 Test MTS Package - Road-Based Improvements 16 4.6 2011 Test MTS Package - Radial Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.7 2011 Test MTS Package - Orbital Rail Infrastructure Improvements 17 4.8 2011 Test MTS Package - Underground Service Improvements 18 4.9 2011 Test MTS Package - DLR Improvements 19 4.10 2011 Test MTS Package - New Intermediate Mode Services 19 4.11 2011 Test MTS Package - London Bus Measures 20

5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics 21

5.1 Introduction 21 5.2 2011 Reference Compared to 2001 Reference 22 5.3 2011 Test MTS Compared to 2011 Reference 27

Tables and Figures

Figure 2.1 Schematic Representation of the LTS Model 3 Figure 3.1 Change in B2.11 Population from 2001 to 201 12 Figure 3.2 Change in B2.11 Number of Households from 2001 to 201 13 Figure 4.1 2001 Reference TLRN Road Network 14

Table 2.1 Stock Types and Seat/Standing Capacities 7 Table 3.1 B2.11 Population (over age of 4 years old 10 Table 3.2 B2.11 Households 11 Table 4.1 2011 Reference National Rail CTRL services 15 Table 4.2 2011 Reference National Rail Rolling Stock Capacity Changes 15 Table 4.3 2011 Test MTS ELL and OrbiRail Features 17 Table 4.4 2011 Test MTS Underground Service Improvements 18 Table 5.1 2011 Ref cf. 2001: 24 Hour (Cost Dependent) Trips by Mode 24 Table 5.2 2011 Ref cf. 2001: MP Period Trips by Mode (3 Hour Total) 24 Table 5.3 2011 Ref cf. 2001: MP Period Car Statistics (Average Hour) 24 Table 5.4 2011 Ref cf. 2001: MP Period Vehicle Statistics (Average Hour) 25 Table 5.5 2011 Ref cf. 2001: MP Period PT Statistics (3 Hour total) 26 Table 5.6 2011 MTS cf. 2011 Ref: 24 Hour (Cost Dependent) Trips by Mode 29 Table 5.7 2011 MTS cf. 2011 Ref: MP Period Trips by Mode (3 Hour Total) 29 Table 5.8 2011 MTS cf. 2011 Ref: MP Period Car Statistics (Average Hour) 29 Table 5.9 2011 MTS cf. 2011 Ref: MP Period Vehicle Statistics (Average Hour) 30 Table 5.10 2011 MTS cf. 2011 Ref: MP Period PT Statistics (3 Hour Total) 31

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

1.1.1 This note summarises LTS modelling carried out to inform development of the Mayor's Transport Strategy (published in July 2001) for MTS Scenarios. It presents these both in terms of background to, and results from, the LTS test MTS study.

1.1.2 This note restricts itself to the main emphasis of the study examining the ten year strategy from the present day to future year 2011.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

1.2.1 The Greater London Authority (GLA) in conjunction with commissioned LTS to provide demand model forecasting and analysis to support analysis of measures set out in the Draft London Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS) document which had been published for Public Consultation.

1.2.2 The measures include increased reliability and capacity on existing rail and underground services, additional infrastructure such as new rail lines and extensions to existing lines, road schemes, river crossings, pedestrianisation schemes, more frequent reliable bus services, and road user congestion charging.

1.2.3 The LTS model (version B2.11) has been used to analyse the impact of these schemes and measures. The work described here was largely carried out between February and June 2001. As explained in paragraph 2.15 of the final published strategy document, the MTS published forecasts draw on past trends, research by TfL, and LTS model results; a separate note prepared by TfL/ GLA entitled “Technical Note on Demand and Capacity Analysis Carried Out to Inform the Development of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy” explains how the projections in the MTS were derived.

1.3 Structure of this Note

1.3.1 Chapter 2 describes the main technical issues relating to the LTS model and modelling. It describes briefly the structure of the LTS model and the modelling of public transport reliability and crowding.

1.3.2 Chapter 3 describes the planning data inputs to the model and the assumptions utilised in this study. These assumptions underpin the forecast growth in travel. These were based on interim outputs which are being updated for work on the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy.

1.3.3 Chapter 4 describes the transport network inputs to the model and the assumptions which have been adopted for the various strategies under consideration. Note that various simplifications had to be made for the modelling, and that thinking on scheme definitions has been refined further since the work was done.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 1 1 Introduction

1.3.4 Chapters 5 presents the main LTS forecast results, in terms of aggregate summary statistics for both highway and public transport modes to the year 2011.

1.3.5 Throughout this report the Mayor's Transport Strategy is referred to by the acronym MTS. In addition, the term Rail is synonymous with National Rail. Test MTS refers to the LTS test package of MTS improvements investigated as part of this study.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 2

2 Modelling Approach

2.1 Background to the LTS Model

2.1.1 The London Transportation Studies (LTS) Model is a strategic multi-modal model for London. It is developed and maintained by MVA on behalf of Transport for London (TfL), and is used to provide transport professionals with data forecasts and analysis on travel in the London area. Figure 2.1 illustrates the essential structure of the LTS Model, which is described in detail below.

Figure 2.1 Schematic Representation of the LTS Model

2.1.2 The LTS model includes the volume of demand for travel by car, public transport, walk/cycle and lorry in the base year of 1991. Planning data include demographic inputs, jobs and car ownership, and are used to update the demand for travel in a forecast year. The demand for travel is held at a zone level comprising 1019 zones across the study area of London (within the M25) and 584 zones outside.

2.1.3 Within the study area, all Motorways, A-roads, B-roads and important minor roads are represented in LTS by a 20,000 one-way link highway network. For public transport the entire system, (including all surface rail and underground services and stations, and bus services within the LTS area) is represented by a 30,000 one-way link public transport network. The links replicate the routes by which people may travel between zones. The LTS model has networks for the years 1991, 1996 and 2001, and reference networks for future years 2011 and 2021.

2.1.4 LTS models person travel for three separate time periods: morning peak (0700-1000); interpeak (1000-1600); evening peak (1600-1900). The seven categories of person trips modelled are: home based (white collar work; blue collar work; education; employers' business; other); non

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 3 2 Modelling Approach

home based (employers' business; other). Trip matrices are forecast by mode and destination for each of the purposes. These are added to lorry, taxi and visitor trips for assignment to the appropriate highway or public transport network.

2.1.5 The forecasting process follows a conventional structure known as the "four stage model", ie demand (trip ends), mode choice, distribution and assignment. This was illustrated in Figure 2.1. The model can be thought of as having five modules:

• demand model • mode and distribution (destination choice) • public transport model • highway model • evaluation

2.1.6 All steps of the model are run for trips wholly within the study area and trips with at least one end within the study area. For trips wholly outside the study area, the current trip pattern is modified by growth rates which are consistent with the National Road Traffic Forecasts (NRTF).

2.1.7 The demand trip end models provide inputs to the overall process, with final loaded networks and an evaluation, if required, as an output. The mode and distribution model interacts with the networks in an iterative way, to ensure that the demand for travel and the supply of transport are in equilibrium.

2.1.8 The demand model utilises the planning data and a car ownership forecasting model to predict planning data based changes in demand from the base case. The mode and distribution model (DMS) uses costs and times as provided by the public transport and highway models, to estimate the mode and destination choices of this demand. However, for some journey purposes (home to work trips), the total volumes of both production and attraction trips are fixed in each zone to ensure trips to work are in step with jobs available; the model "optimises" both the linking of production to attraction and the mode used.

2.1.9 The public transport and highway models work in similar ways. An assignment to routes (in the case of public transport the routes may be a combination of surface rail, underground and bus) is made based on initial costs and times for the various routes; the traffic loadings implied by this are then input to a network model which calculates revised costs and times based on the traffic flow (altered speeds due to congestion in the case of highways, crowding penalties on the case of public transport). The process is repeated until the assignment is stable from one iteration to the next.

2.1.10 However, it is also necessary to have the mode and distribution model in equilibrium, and this model is re-run with the new costs and times for each mode. This may lead to different mode and distribution outputs, requiring the assignment networks to be re-run. Usually the process requires forty highway and two public transport assignment iterations,

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 4 2 Modelling Approach

followed by a mode and distribution model run, with the whole sequence repeated seven times, the last cycle providing final traffic loadings.

2.1.11 The evaluation module provides a wide range of statistics on travel patterns including matrices of traffic flows, loadings on individual links, economic benefits and accessibility indices.

2.1.12 A broad brush representation of congestion charging has also been incorporated to strategic London-wide LTS results.

2.2 Modelling Goods Vehicles

2.2.1 Goods vehicles are split into two classes, Light Goods Vehicles (LGV) and Other Goods Vehicles (OGV). For each type, initial trip ends are determined by using trip rates to employment and population data to generate zonal level growth. This is then applied to the estimated base year matrices by furnessing, then split to give individual time period matrices. 2.2.2 For OGVs, this is the end of the processing. This process alone however has historically not matched observed growth in LGVs. The resulting matrices are further adjusted to be in line with NRTF (National Road Traffic Forecasts) at the M25 boundary, but with reducing growth towards the centre of London. The adjustment of growth towards the centre reflects recent trends observed at traffic cordons around London and their relation to national trends.

2.3 Modelling Public Transport Reliability

2.3.1 The model estimates the time to wait for a public transport service, and then applies factors to this wait time to represent the disutility of waiting. The waiting-time model assumes that the expected waiting time is half of the headway up to 20 mins, and an additional quarter of the headway thereafter.

2.3.2 Wait-time factors have been determined during model calibration and have been interpreted as being the product of two components: a behavioural weight on wait-time of 2.0 (standard practice) and an (un)reliability component of 1.25. If we consider 1.0 as being normal wait time, the extra 0.25 can be considered as being the excess wait time due to unreliability. It is this latter component that is varied to model unreliability changes.

2.3.3 The factor feeds though into the demand model to influence the demand for public transport.

2.4 Modelling Public Transport Crowding: LTS Crowding factors

2.4.1 The LTS Model incorporates the effects of crowding on public transport services by factoring up the perceived running times of the PT vehicles (buses or trains). The factor varies from 1 (seats still available) to about 1.6 when the vehicles are completely full (crush capacity).

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 5 2 Modelling Approach

2.4.2 These values are calculated on an individual route and link basis. In the standard summary tables, total hours by passengers in the different modes are provided with the factors applied as crowded time (cwd_time), and without the factors applied as uncrowded time (unc_time). An average passenger weighted factor (cwd_fact) is deduced by dividing this crowded time by the uncrowded.

2.4.3 Basic crowding factor plots display the actual volumes of passengers on the links by width, with the colour classification deduced from the average crowding factor. The crowding factor for the link is calculated as the passenger weighted average in the equivalent way to the crowding factor in the summary report. The stopping pattern of the services is not taken into account in the display (ie fast and slow trains traversing the same link are averaged).

2.4.4 The model showed little evidence of crowding on the buses. This may arise from two reasons. Firstly, the model does not accurately capture all short trips that may appear on buses (ie underestimates flows on links). Secondly, in real life the variability of bus services may cause large fluctuations of passengers between vehicles, which again is not modelled.

2.5 PiXC as used in the Rail Industry

2.5.1 The PiXC (Passengers in eXcess of Capacity) statistic is used for analysing the performance of Train Operating Companies (TOCs), and is created by counting the number of passengers travelling in “nominally” unacceptable conditions, that is those in excess of the number that could be carried in acceptable conditions. It is normally measured at the point at which the most passengers are being carried. It is therefore a peak crowding measure. This is done for each train run by the TOC and compared with the actual number of people travelling, to give a percentage PiXC figure.

2.5.2 The acceptable conditions are characterised by the allocation by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) of a “nominal” capacity of each type of stock. It is accepted that variations in passenger demand can cause fluctuation outside the operators’ control, and that an absolute cut-off in acceptability at this capacity is unrealistic. As a result the actual criterion is that not more than a certain percentage of passengers should be travelling on trains above this capacity. As stipulated by the SRA, this is 4.5% for either peak period (morning or evening), and 3% for both peaks combined.

2.5.3 For short journeys, (ie for inner-suburban services), it is acceptable for some passengers to stand, and the nominal capacity is then greater than the seat capacity, but significantly lower than the crush capacity. It is however deemed unacceptable to have to stand for longer than 20 minutes, and hence for other longer services the “nominal” capacity is taken as the number of seats provided.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 6 2 Modelling Approach

2.6 PiXC as used in the LTS model

2.6.1 To determine PiXCs, a view on “nominal” capacities had to be taken for the LTS model. The SRA supplied a list of stock types and their seat and “nominal standing” capacities. As these numbers could vary significantly according to stock configuration, they were standardised by taking the ratio of “nominal standing”/seat capacities. A similar LTS characteristic of “crush standing”/seat was derived. It was clear from the figures, and the types of routes to which they applied, that a simple relationship could be used to add “nominal” capacities to the LTS data, as shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 National Rail Stock Types and Seat/Standing Capacities

Type of stock SRA stand/seat LTS crush stand/seat Slam door 0.10 0.50 Longer distance 0.10 0.50 Inner suburban 0.35 1.35 Newer inner suburban 0.50 1.50 Some Euston-based 0.27 0.97 Eurostar 0 0

2.6.2 The matching SRA figure was applied to the LTS seat capacities to yield appropriate capacities for LTS PiXC calculations. To allow for journeys greater than 20 minutes to be compared to seats-only values, all routes on LTS were classified as either “inner suburban” or “other” from their stopping pattern. For services other than inner-suburban, the nominal capacity was set to the seat capacity.

2.6.3 LTS works on a three hour peak period, whereas the Rail Industry PiXC is deduced using the busiest hour of services. LTS assumptions in service and passenger profiles were used to adjust from the three-hour flow/ three-hour capacity to reflect the peak hour.

2.6.4 Furthermore, LTS models the flows on an average day, not peak flows. Service fluctuations around the mean would have an adverse effect on the peak PiXC values. To allow for this, the PiXC calculation was performed twice, once with a 10% flow increase and once with a 10% reduction. The results were averaged to provide a more realistic result. [In discussions with the SRA, this level of variation was not considered unusual].

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 7

3 Planning Data Assumptions

3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 Since 1999 there have been a number of ongoing planning data studies conducted, including a major study into housing capacity projections, which culminated in the Housing Capacity Study 2000 report. This report, together with more up-to-date planning data information, afforded the opportunity to update the B1.4 planning data series to the latest information available.

3.1.2 The new B2.11 planning data was based on interim results from a GLA study (Ove Arup/ Roger Tym), and there is an ongoing continuing process of review and scrutiny of the planning and demand data for the GLA’s Spatial Development Strategy (SDS). The new B2.11 planning data series provided interim inputs to the model for the LTS Mayor's Transport Strategy work in terms of population, employment, employed workers, and households for the London (borough) area on an interim basis, to allow timely results to be obtained.

3.2 B2.11 Borough Level Planning Data

3.2.1 B2.11 Planning Data for the LTS Study Area, summarised at the London borough level for 2001, 2011, 2021, and changes from 2001, are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 for population (greater than 4 years old) and households respectively. In addition, changes from 2001 to 2011 for population and households are illustrated in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.

3.2.2 In the descriptions that follow, the percentage changes for City of London are not highlighted because the absolute numbers are small relative to the other boroughs.

Population

3.2.3 Between 2001 and 2011 population grows in central London by 7.8%, inner London by 7.9%, outer London by 6.4%, and over the whole of the Greater London area by 7.0%. All boroughs experience growth, in the range 4% - 17%, the largest percentages being Tower Hamlets (16.5%), Greenwich (11.4%) and Haringey (9.8%).

3.2.4 Between 2001 and 2021 the population growth nearly doubles that between 2001 and 2011; population grows in central London by 13.8%, inner London by 14.8%, outer London by 12.2%, and over the whole of the Greater London area by 13.2%. All boroughs experience growth, in the range 8% - 32%, the largest percentages again being Tower Hamlets (32.4%), Haringey (18.6%) and Greenwich (17.1%).

Households

3.2.5 Between 2001 and 2011 households grow in central London by 10.8%, inner London by 10.1%, outer London by 9.5%, and over the whole of the Greater London area by 9.8%. All boroughs experience growth, in the range 6% - 21%, the largest percentages being Tower Hamlets

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 8 3 Planning Data Assumptions

(20.4%), Greenwich (14.9%) and Haringey (12.1%), in a similar manner to population growth changes.

3.2.6 Between 2001 and 2021 the growth in households is roughly double that between 2001 and 2011; households grow in central London by 21.3%, inner London by 20.7%, outer London by 19.7%, and over the whole of the Greater London area by 20.1%. All boroughs experience growth, in the range 13% - 42%, the largest percentages again being Tower Hamlets (41.7%), Greenwich (25.8%) and Haringey (24.8%).

Employment

3.2.7 Employment projections were based on work by consultants Arup’s and Roger Tym and Partners for the GLA in early 2001. To obtain the detailed zonal job projections required by LTS, a pragmatic approach allocated these projections pro rata to previous LTS zonal employment projections. Some adjustments were made for zones within areas where major development is expected, based on Arup’s/Tym’s advice.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 9 3 Planning Data Assumptions

Table 3.1 B2.11 Population (over age of 4 years old)

Absolute numbers % difference from 2001 2001 2011 2021 2011 2021

Barking & Dagenham 154,647 169,780 176,212 9.8% 13.9% Barnet 315,021 334,393 359,238 6.1% 14.0% Bexley 210,553 218,502 228,145 3.8% 8.4% Brent 236,783 254,150 269,497 7.3% 13.8% Bromley 288,343 306,006 325,429 6.1% 12.9% Camden 184,592 198,273 212,665 7.4% 15.2% City of London 6,657 7,687 8,728 15.5% 31.1% Croydon 320,373 341,377 361,450 6.6% 12.8% Ealing 286,856 304,673 325,693 6.2% 13.5% Enfield 259,986 274,637 290,741 5.6% 11.8% Greenwich 206,446 230,047 241,646 11.4% 17.1% Hackney 185,057 196,753 205,570 6.3% 11.1% Hammersmith and Fulham 154,552 161,966 166,542 4.8% 7.8% Haringey 208,367 228,864 247,112 9.8% 18.6% Harrow 203,987 213,021 220,343 4.4% 8.0% Havering 222,271 231,473 241,995 4.1% 8.9% Hillingdon 240,148 253,331 264,177 5.5% 10.0% Hounslow 200,793 215,268 225,903 7.2% 12.5% Islington 175,567 190,199 201,958 8.3% 15.0% Kensington & Chelsea 157,065 163,816 170,227 4.3% 8.4% Kingston Upon Thames 141,976 149,684 155,355 5.4% 9.4% Lambeth 255,932 279,963 298,510 9.4% 16.6% Lewisham 234,077 247,413 258,571 5.7% 10.5% Merton 176,744 189,528 201,844 7.2% 14.2% Newham 216,934 233,996 251,119 7.9% 15.8% Redbridge 221,380 240,539 254,930 8.7% 15.2% Richmond Upon Thames 178,569 187,697 195,053 5.1% 9.2% Southwark 225,650 244,612 263,740 8.4% 16.9% Sutton 171,215 181,044 191,173 5.7% 11.7% Tower Hamlets 189,483 220,822 250,896 16.5% 32.4% Waltham Forest 207,703 220,960 233,425 6.4% 12.4% Wandsworth 260,689 277,044 287,078 6.3% 10.1% Westminster 205,222 219,497 228,907 7.0% 11.5%

LTS Central London 169,856 183,054 193,296 7.8% 13.8% LTS Inner London 2,489,988 2,687,850 2,858,328 7.9% 14.8% Outer London Boroughs 4,243,794 4,516,111 4,762,245 6.4% 12.2% Greater London 6,903,638 7,387,015 7,813,869 7.0% 13.2% Annulus 777,315 816,210 849,459 5.0% 9.3% LTS Study Area 7,680,953 8,203,225 8,663,327 6.8% 12.8%

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 10 3 Planning Data Assumptions

Table 3.2 B2.11 Households

Absolute numbers % difference from 2001 2001 2011 2021 2011 2021

Barking & Dagenham 66,475 74,341 80,141 11.8% 20.6% Barnet 132,702 145,354 161,895 9.5% 22.0% Bexley 91,428 98,367 106,669 7.6% 16.7% Brent 103,184 114,096 125,531 10.6% 21.7% Bromley 128,109 139,635 153,376 9.0% 19.7% Camden 93,351 102,435 113,190 9.7% 21.3% City of London 3,322 3,984 4,710 19.9% 41.8% Croydon 142,805 157,629 173,663 10.4% 21.6% Ealing 124,864 136,703 151,408 9.5% 21.3% Enfield 112,573 121,789 133,553 8.2% 18.6% Greenwich 93,308 107,211 117,367 14.9% 25.8% Hackney 88,045 94,904 102,130 7.8% 16.0% Hammersmith and Fulham 77,307 82,412 87,216 6.6% 12.8% Haringey 97,516 109,303 121,725 12.1% 24.8% Harrow 84,608 91,258 98,094 7.9% 15.9% Havering 94,983 102,793 111,478 8.2% 17.4% Hillingdon 104,251 113,000 122,231 8.4% 17.2% Hounslow 86,449 94,973 103,205 9.9% 19.4% Islington 86,073 95,478 104,517 10.9% 21.4% Kensington & Chelsea 83,900 89,805 95,616 7.0% 14.0% Kingston Upon Thames 62,233 67,182 72,124 8.0% 15.9% Lambeth 127,582 142,821 157,216 11.9% 23.2% Lewisham 111,169 119,444 128,852 7.4% 15.9% Merton 78,884 86,599 95,675 9.8% 21.3% Newham 91,928 101,091 111,898 10.0% 21.7% Redbridge 94,612 105,335 115,483 11.3% 22.1% Richmond Upon Thames 81,942 87,783 94,091 7.1% 14.8% Southwark 109,706 120,587 134,065 9.9% 22.2% Sutton 76,650 83,861 91,959 9.4% 20.0% Tower Hamlets 85,905 103,397 121,690 20.4% 41.7% Waltham Forest 94,558 103,082 112,890 9.0% 19.4% Wandsworth 122,603 132,555 142,205 8.1% 16.0% Westminster 103,239 113,387 122,133 9.8% 18.3%

LTS Central London 87,855 97,376 106,610 10.8% 21.3% LTS Inner London 1,193,791 1,314,226 1,440,552 10.1% 20.7% Outer London Boroughs 1,854,618 2,030,990 2,220,832 9.5% 19.7% Greater London 3,136,264 3,442,592 3,767,995 9.8% 20.1% Annulus 350,220 383,263 415,449 9.4% 18.6% LTS Study Area 3,486,484 3,825,855 4,183,444 9.7% 20.0%

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 11 3 Planning Data Assumptions

Figure 3.1 Change in B2.11 Population from 2001 to 2011

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 12 3 Planning Data Assumptions

Figure 3.2 Change in B2.11 Number of Households from 2001 to 2011

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 13

4 Transport Network Assumptions

4.1 Scenarios

4.1.1 The main focus was on modelling a (based) reference case for 2001 and 2011, and for the future year 2011 (Do-Something) Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS) test. This note summarises results for these three scenarios.

4.2 2001 Reference Case Scenario

4.2.1 The transport networks applied in the 2001 Reference Case scenario assumed present day services and conditions. The (ELL) appears as a National Rail scheme.

4.2.2 The road network for the morning peak period is illustrated in Figure 4.1. This shows the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network) road classification.

Figure 4.1 2001 Reference TLRN Road Network

4.3 2011 Reference Case Scenario

4.3.1 The 2011 Reference can be considered a largely notional concept for modelling purposes, as improvements to the transport system along the lines proposed in the MTS are needed to support the levels of projected population and employment growth.

4.3.2 The main changes to the highway network assumed are improvements to the A13 inside the M25, A23 Coulsdon Inner Relief Road, and widenings to the M1, M2, M4, M25 and A1(M).

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 14 4 Transport Network Assumptions

4.3.3 The National Rail infrastructure changes scheduled for completion include the implementation of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) stages 1 and 2 involving both international and domestic services to Waterloo and St. Pancras. In addition, rolling stock seating capacity increases and service frequency increases resulting from Train Operating Company (TOC) re-franchising for commuter services in the South East are also included.

4.3.4 The National Rail CTRL services which have been introduced are set out in Table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 2011 Reference National Rail CTRL services

CTRL 2011 Rail Service (both directions) International Waterloo to Channel Tunnel via CTRL (non-stop) International St. Pancras to Channel Tunnel via CTRL (non-stop) International Waterloo to Channel Tunnel via CTRL (semi-fast) International St. Pancras to Channel Tunnel via CTRL (semi-fast) Domestic St. Pancras to Ramsgate via Dover Domestic St. Pancras to Gillingham Domestic St. Pancras to Ramsgate via Chatham Domestic St. Pancras to Margate via Canterbury West

4.3.5 International CTRL services are hourly for all time periods. Domestic CTRL services are either one or two trains per hour, depending upon time period and service.

4.3.6 The National Rail rolling stock changes to South East commuter services which have been introduced are set out in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 2011 Reference National Rail Rolling Stock Capacity Changes

Corridor/TOC Frequency Seating Capacity Notes Increase Increase/Train SE (Thameslink) 0% 0% SE (non-Thameslink) 3% 15% 12-car Operation CSC (Outer) 15% 0% Extra 5 tph CSC (Inner) 3% 20% 10-car Operation SWT (Windsor) 5% 10% Train lengthening SWT (Wimbledon) 0% 30% 12-car Operation Thames 0% 15% Train lengthening Chiltern 0% 0% 0% 10% Thameslink 0% 0% GN 0% 0% WA 3% 5% GE 0% 0% LTS 0% 10%

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 15 4 Transport Network Assumptions

4.3.7 These changes have been provided by the SRA on the basis of improvements which can be provided without station capacity increases or major infrastructure changes.

4.4 2011 Test MTS (Mayor's Transport Strategy) Package

4.4.1 The package of improvements specified by the MTS for 2011 were wide- ranging, including the following modes of travel and transport cost related issues:

• road (and pedestrian) travel • national rail travel • underground travel • light rail travel • bus travel • intermediate mode travel (bus transit or tram) • bus flat fares • road user congestion charging

4.4.2 It should be noted that some measures in the MTS such as improved integration and information, and green travel plans, are not readily modelled and were therefore omitted, and others can only be partially represented in the model.

4.4.3 The Central London Congestion Charge was represented in a broad brush way using a one way cordon charge method, as this was the simplest approach within the LTS model. All the other topics are discussed in more detail below.

4.5 2011 Test MTS Package - Road-Based Improvements

4.5.1 New river crossings could have major regeneration benefits to key areas of the Thames Gateway and east London. The test MTS for 2011 has assumed two such road-based crossings which will provide an improved level of access to road-based modes.

4.5.2 These two schemes are:

• Silvertown Tunnel. Also known as the Third Blackwall tunnel, a road tunnel between North Greenwich and Silvertown.

• Thames Gateway Bridge. A bridge between Barking and Thamesmead, which would have dedicated lanes for Public Transport. The Woolwich Ferry is assumed to close but the Woolwich foot tunnel remains open.

4.5.3 A number of other minor road-based improvements were assumed for modelling purposes. The World Squares Project, involving partial pedestrianisation of Parliament Square and Trafalgar Square, is also included.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 16 4 Transport Network Assumptions

4.6 2011 Test MTS Package - Radial Rail Infrastructure Improvements

4.6.1 There is a basic imbalance between the capacity of the rail system in the Central area compared to the services feeding into it. Capacity problems at terminals and of onward distribution can be solved by extending the suburban services via tunnels through the central area.

4.6.2 The MTS for 2011 includes two radial route schemes which are designed to achieve this:

• Thameslink 2000 will build on the existing cross-London link between Farringdon and Blackfriars. It is intended to expand capacity significantly, increasing capacity and improved access at London Bridge, Blackfriars and Farringdon stations and reduce journey times to central London from suburban areas.

• CrossRail will provide a new high capacity east-west rail link across London, serving Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon and Liverpool Street stations in the central area. It is designed to reduce overcrowding on several underground lines and also reduce congestion at a number of busy stations. It will serve suburban areas to the west and east of London, including the Thames Gateway area at Tilbury.

4.6.3 Since this modelling was done, further work has refined the proposed alignment for CrossRail to take in the Isle of Dogs, so providing essential capacity for growth there.

4.7 2011 Test MTS Package - Orbital Rail Infrastructure Improvements

4.7.1 The MTS for 2011 includes two schemes which are designed to improve the orbital national rail links in London, summarised in table 4.3:

• East London Line (ELL) and extensions • OrbiRail (North London and West London lines)

4.7.2 Features of these two schemes are summarised in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 2011 Test MTS ELL and OrbiRail Features

Scheme Name Features ELL 18 trains per hour in the morning peak through the "core" section of the ELL between Whitechapel and Surrey Quays. ELL extension Extension northwards to serve Dalston, Finsbury Park, Highbury & Islington and Willesden Junction. ELL extension Extension southwards to serve Crystal Palace, West Croydon and Wimbledon. OrbiRail: NLL Increase in train frequencies on the (Richmond to North Woolwich). OrbiRail: WLL Two new stations planned on the (Clapham to Willesden/Barking) at Shepherds Bush and Chelsea Harbour.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 17 4 Transport Network Assumptions

4.8 2011 Test MTS Package - Underground Service Improvements

4.8.1 The following package of Underground Service improvements have been assumed for modelling the test MTS for 2011:

• Consolidation/rearrangement of Circle/Metropolitan/Hammersmith & City line services. • Increases in frequency on selected lines. • Increase in speeds on selected sections of track on selected lines. • Increases in reliability on all services.

4.8.2 These changes are only a working assumption as definitive plans cannot be made until the Underground is transferred to TfL.

4.8.3 These changes are summarised in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 2011 Test MTS Underground Service Improvements

Scheme Name Details Metropolitan Takes over the Aldgate to Barking section of the Hammersmith & City line. Trains now run from north west London through to Barking.

Hammersmith & City Loses the Aldgate to Barking section, takes over the Circle line, becoming a panhandle/coil route Hammersmith to Aldgate to Tower Hill to Victoria to Edgware Road.

Circle Ceases to exist. Absorbed into Hammersmith & City line.

Frequency increases Increases in service frequencies for Central, Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly, and Victoria lines.

Speed increases Increase in train speeds on the Victoria, Waterloo & City, Northern, Piccadilly, Hammersmith & City/Metropolitan (between Baker Street and Liverpool Street), and Jubilee lines (between Stratford and Westminster).

Reliability increases estimates that 60% of delay is caused by infrastructure and stock failures. The Mayor has set a target of halving the level of delays due to these causes in his MTS for 2011, hence a 30% across the board improvement in underground reliability has been implemented.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 18 4 Transport Network Assumptions

4.9 2011 Test MTS Package - DLR Improvements

4.9.1 The package of improvements to the Docklands Light Railway contained in the 2011 test MTS includes two new extensions to London City Airport and to Woolwich Arsenal, as well as a travelator connection between Stratford and Stratford International CTRL Station. Features of these schemes can be summarised as:

• LCA Extension • Extension Canning Town to London City Airport. • Serves new stations at West Silvertown, Pontoon Dock, and London City Airport. • Woolwich Extension • Extension London City Airport to Woolwich Arsenal under the River Thames. • Serves new stations at King George V (North Woolwich) and Woolwich Arsenal. • Other • Travelator connection between Stratford and Stratford International CTRL stations. • Change to existing DLR service patterns to accommodate services to the new extensions.

4.10 2011 Test MTS Package - New Intermediate Mode Services

4.10.1 Four Intermediate Mode schemes are included in the 2011 test MTS. The schemes often utilise existing road or railway infrastructure and all four schemes require a significant reallocation of road space in favour of public transport, as well as the re-routeing or curtailment of competing bus services. The four schemes are described briefly, in turn, below.

4.10.2 Uxbridge Road Transit is a bus or tram-based scheme along a 20km corridor in west London serving Uxbridge, Southall, Hanwell, Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush.

4.10.3 Cross River Transit is a bus or tram-based scheme along the 15km north-south corridor serving Camden, Kings Cross, Euston, Holborn, Waterloo, Elephant & Castle, Stockwell, Brixton and Peckham.

4.10.4 Greenwich Waterfront Transit is a bus or tram-based scheme along a 16km corridor serving Greenwich, North Greenwich, Woolwich Arsenal, Thamesmead, and Abbey Wood.

4.10.5 East London Transit is a bus-based network of schemes in east London serving Barkingside, Gants Hill, Barking, Barking Reach, Rainham, Elm Park, Romford, Collier Row and Harold Hill. Services from Barking Reach/Gallions Reach are extended across the Thames Gateway Bridge to Woolwich and Abbey Wood, linking up with the Greenwich Waterfront IM services.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 19 4 Transport Network Assumptions

4.11 2011 Test MTS Package - London Bus Measures

4.11.1 The test MTS for 2011 contains a package of measures designed to change the quality of the bus system. Priorities are to reduce journey times and delays on buses, plus an expansion of the existing services. Some measures apply across the board to all routes; others are route specific.

4.11.2 A description of each of these measures, and how they have been represented, where feasible, in the LTS Model, are discussed below. It should be noted that the LTS model does not fully model shorter bus trips, and therefore would be expected to predict lower boards and alights than observed.

Reliability

4.11.3 Improvements in the operations of buses and enforcement measures are assumed to lead to a reduction in excess wait time by 25%, to be applied to the bus wait time factor in the LTS model, as described earlier in Chapter 2.

Frequency

4.11.4 All services are assumed to increase in frequency by around 25%. The frequency increase is a proxy for some additional services, which had not been defined explicitly, together with other improvements, which would otherwise not contribute to the model forecasts.

Boarding/alighting time

4.11.5 The introduction of PRESTIGE, plus engineering measures to speed up bus boarders along the network and associated measures are assumed to reduce bus boarding time by 10%.

4.11.6 Bus journey times in the LTS model are derived from the appropriate general traffic times by adding 1 min/km (which allows for boarding, alighting, acceleration, deceleration), which is now reduced by 10%.

Bus fares

4.11.7 A flat fare of 70p (current prices) has been applied, complementing the introduction of a congestion charging scheme in central London.

LBI1

4.11.8 London Bus Initiative Stage 1 - a strategic initiative targeting all major transport corridors and providing for a reallocation of road space in favour of buses at key points, by means of new bus lanes and extension of existing ones.

4.11.9 LBI1 comprises 27 specific routes targeted for improvement across London. It comprises 3 "Quality Whole Routes Plus" (QWR+), 5 "Quality Whole Routes" (QWR), and 19 "Whole Routes" (WR).

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 20

5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 This chapter presents summary statistics from the LTS MTS Study forecast results. Many of these are presented at the CIOX (Central, Inner, Outer, External) London area level; a full definition of the CIOX area classification is documented in detail in LTS91 Technical Note 1 - The LTS Zone System. The LTS area consists of all London Boroughs plus the Annulus up to the M25.

5.1.2 The following statistics are presented at the CIOX level:

• 24 hour cost dependent trips by mode • morning peak period (3-hour) cost dependent trips by mode • car kilometrage • car time (hours) • car speed (kph)

5.1.3 In addition, the following highway vehicle statistics are also presented at the CIOX level for car/ LGV/OGV combined:

• vehicle kilometrage • vehicle hours • vehicle speeds (kph)

5.1.4 The following PT statistics, disaggregated into individual PT modes (National Rail, Underground, Bus) are presented for:

• boards • uncrowded time • crowded time • excess time • average crowd factor • passenger kilometres

5.1.5 An explanation of crowded and uncrowded time was given in chapter 2. Excess time is defined here simply as being the difference between crowded and uncrowded time, whilst the average crowd factor is defined as the ratio of crowded/uncrowded time. This latter factor is also a useful global direct measure of PT congestion.

5.1.6 All these statistics are presented both as absolute numbers, and as absolute and percentage changes compared to a base reference scenario, in the following combinations:

• 2011 Reference compared to 2001 Reference • 2011 test MTS compared to 2011 Reference

5.1.7 It should be noted that modelling of slow modes by LTS is only an approximation, and cannot reflect some of the improvements the MTS is seeking for these modes. Similarly, shorter bus trips are not fully

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 21 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

represented in the LTS model due to practicalities of zone size and availability of base data.

5.2 2011 Reference Compared to 2001 Reference

Modal Statistics

5.2.1 Modal statistics for this comparison are reported in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 for cost dependent trips by mode, for 24-hour and morning peak period respectively.

5.2.2 24 hour cost dependent trips increase by 8.3% between 2001 and the 2011 Reference, of which car increases 8.4%, PT 10.3% and slow modes (walk, cycle) 4.2%.

5.2.3 Looking at comparable statistics for the morning peak period, between 2001 and the 2011 Reference, car plus PT trips increase 8.9%, with car increasing 8.0% to PT's 10.2%.

5.2.4 These changes are, of course, attributable to assumed growth from 2001 in the planning data, together with implementation of planned transport infrastructure changes applied in the reference scenarios.

Car Statistics

5.2.5 Morning peak car statistics disaggregated at the CIOX level are reported in Table 5.3. Between 2001 and the 2011 Reference, car kilometrage increases across all areas of London; central, inner, outer, and LTS area as a whole show car kilometrage increases of 3.3%, 7.1%, 5.7% and 5.9% respectively.

5.2.6 Between 2001 and the 2011 Reference, car hours also increase across all areas of London; central, inner, outer, and LTS area as a whole show car hours increases of 6.2%, 8.6%, 9.2% and 8.9% respectively.

5.2.7 As a result, car speeds are seen to fall across all areas of London between 2001 and the 2011 Reference, by 2.7%, 1.4%, 3.2%, 2.8% for central, inner, outer, LTS area respectively.

5.2.8 In the same way as for the modal statistics, these changes are, of course, attributable to assumed growth from 2001 in the planning data, together with implementation of planned transport infrastructure changes applied in the reference scenarios.

Vehicle Statistics

5.2.9 Morning peak vehicle statistics disaggregated at the CIOX level for combined car/LGV/OGV are reported in Table 5.4. Vehicle kilometrage increases across all areas of London between 2001 and the 2011 Reference; central, inner, outer and LTS area as a whole show vehicle kilometrage increases of 3.0%, 6.0%, 7.2% and 6.8% respectively.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 22 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

5.2.10 Vehicle hours also increase across all areas of London between 2001 and the 2011 Reference; central, inner, outer and LTS area as a whole show vehicle kilometrage increases of 5.9%, 7.6%, 11.1% and 9.8% respectively.

5.2.11 As a result, vehicle speeds are seen to fall across all areas of London between 2001 and the 2011 Reference, by 2.7%, 1.6%, 3.5% and 2.7% for central, inner, outer, LTS area respectively.

5.2.12 In the same way as for the car statistics, these changes are attributable to assumed growth from 2001 in the planning data, together with implementation of planned transport infrastructure changes applied in the reference scenarios.

5.2.13 By comparing the statistics for vehicle and car it can be deduced that the composition of vehicle travel by vehicle class does not greatly differ by year, other than there is a future trend towards slightly more kilometrage by LGVs and OGVs compared to car.

PT Statistics

5.2.14 Morning peak PT statistics disaggregated by individual mode are presented in Table 5.5. Between 2001 and the 2011 Reference, PT boards and passenger kilometres increase at the same rate in the same modal pattern. Boards increase by 16.5%, 12.0%, 8.8% and 11.6% for National Rail, Underground, Bus, and over all PT Modes respectively, whilst passenger kilometres increase by 13.7%, 12.1%, 7.3% and 12.7% respectively.

5.2.15 The crowding factor for Rail decreases from 1.28 to 1.26, attributable to the expected relief afforded through the Strategic Rail Authority’s plan for TOC re-franchising between 2001 and the 2011 Reference. The Underground average crowd factor increases significantly from 1.21 to 1.24 as increased patronage on the Underground results in greater congested conditions.

5.2.16 For bus, between 2001 and the 2011 Reference the average crowd factor increases slightly, though for PT as a whole there is no change.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 23 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

2001 2011 Difference from 2001 Base Mode Base Base Absolute Percentage Car 7,930,413 8,598,904 668,491 8.4% PT 5,566,010 6,138,207 572,197 10.3% Slow 3,058,890 3,188,097 129,207 4.2% All 16,555,313 17,925,208 1,369,895 8.3%

Table 5.1 2011 Reference Compared to 2001: 24 Hour (Cost Dependent) Trips by Mode

2001 2011 Difference from 2001 Base Mode Base Base Absolute Percentage Car 2,231,663 2,409,571 177,908 8.0% PT 1,792,214 1,974,437 182,223 10.2% All 4,023,877 4,384,008 360,131 8.9%

Table 5.2 2011 Reference Compared to 2001: Morning Peak Period Trips by Mode (3 Hour Total)

2001 2011 Difference from 2001 Base Base Base Absolute Percentage Car Kms Central 198,760 205,378 6,618 3.3% Inner 976,309 1,045,712 69,403 7.1% Outer 4,012,012 4,239,786 227,774 5.7% LTS Area 5,187,081 5,490,876 303,795 5.9%

Car hours Central 13,004 13,813 809 6.2% Inner 50,377 54,728 4,351 8.6% Outer 124,764 136,266 11,502 9.2% LTS Area 188,145 204,807 16,662 8.9%

Car Speeds (kph) Central 15.3 14.9 -0.4 -2.7% Inner 19.4 19.1 -0.3 -1.4% Outer 32.2 31.1 -1.0 -3.2% LTS Area 27.6 26.8 -0.8 -2.8%

Table 5.3 2011 Reference Compared to 2001: Morning Peak Period Car Statistics (Average Hour) LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 24 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

2001 2011 Difference from 2001 Base Base Base Absolute Percentage Vehicle Kms Central 249,339 256,752 7,413 3.0% Inner 1,251,046 1,325,532 74,486 6.0% Outer 5,016,359 5,378,532 362,173 7.2% LTS Area 6,516,744 6,960,816 444,072 6.8%

Vehicle hours Central 16,255 17,210 955 5.9% Inner 64,083 68,983 4,900 7.6% Outer 155,082 172,333 17,251 11.1% LTS Area 235,420 258,526 23,106 9.8%

Vehicle Speeds (kph) Central 15.3 14.9 -0.4 -2.7% Inner 19.5 19.2 -0.3 -1.6% Outer 32.3 31.2 -1.1 -3.5% LTS Area 27.7 26.9 -0.8 -2.7%

Table 5.4 2011 Reference Compared to 2001: Morning Peak Period Vehicle Statistics (Average Hour)

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 25 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

2001 2011 Difference from 2001 Base Base Base Absolute Percentage Boards Rail 796,886 928,078 131,192 16.5% UG 1,185,926 1,328,825 142,899 12.0% Bus 1,587,842 1,728,091 140,249 8.8% All PT 3,570,654 3,984,994 414,340 11.6%

Uncrowded Time (hours) Rail 374,359 419,672 45,313 12.1% UG 257,219 287,723 30,504 11.9% Bus 243,057 265,062 22,005 9.1% All PT 874,635 972,457 97,822 11.2%

Crowded Time (hours) Rail 477,981 527,449 49,468 10.3% UG 310,026 355,643 45,617 14.7% Bus 258,029 283,454 25,425 9.9% All PT 1,046,036 1,166,546 120,510 11.5%

Excess Time (hours) (Crowded-Uncrowded) Rail 103,622 107,777 4,155 4.0% UG 52,807 67,920 15,113 28.6% Bus 14,972 18,392 3,420 22.8% All PT 171,401 194,089 22,688 13.2%

Average Crowd Factor (Crowded/Uncrowded) Rail 1.28 1.26 -0.02 -1.6% UG 1.21 1.24 0.03 2.5% Bus 1.06 1.07 0.01 0.9% All PT 1.20 1.20 0.00 0.0%

Passenger km Rail 25,405,156 28,897,760 3,492,604 13.7% UG 8,253,065 9,249,929 996,864 12.1% Bus 3,782,894 4,059,033 276,139 7.3% All PT 37,441,115 42,206,722 4,765,607 12.7%

Note: ELL included as Rail throughout

Table 5.5 2011 Reference Compared to 2001: Morning Peak Period PT Statistics (3 Hour total) LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 26 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

5.3 2011 Test MTS Compared to 2011 Reference

Modal Statistics

5.3.1 Modal statistics for this comparison are reported in Tables 5.6 and 5.7 for cost dependent trips by mode, for 24-hour and morning peak period respectively.

5.3.2 There is no overall change to the magnitude of 24 hour cost dependent trips between the 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS though there is a redistribution between modes involving decreases in car and slow mode trips of 2.2% and 6.0% respectively, whilst there is an increase of 6.2% in PT trips.

5.3.3 Looking at comparable statistics for the morning peak period between 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS, car plus PT trips increase slightly by 1.4% with a similar pattern of modal trip redistribution in favour of PT being apparent, car decreasing 2.6% whilst PT increases 6.3%.

5.3.4 Since the same year applies to both scenarios, there are, of course, no changes attributable to planning data. All changes are attributable to the implementation of planned transport infrastructure changes and policies applied in the MTS scenario. At a London-wide level it is apparent that PT becomes a more attractive option compared to car than it was for the Reference scenario.

Car Statistics

5.3.5 Morning peak car statistics disaggregated at the CIOX level are reported in Table 5.8. Between the 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS, car kilometrage decreases marginally across all areas of London with most of this decrease occurring in central London.

5.3.6 Between the 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS, car hours decrease across all areas of London; central, inner, outer, and LTS area as a whole show car hours decreasing by 15.5%, 4.0%, 0.5% and 2.4% respectively.

5.3.7 As a result, between the 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS, car speeds are seen to rise across all areas of London, by 3.6%, 3.6%, 0.6%, 1.8% for central, inner, outer, LTS area respectively.

5.3.8 Morning peak vehicle statistics disaggregated at the CIOX level for combined car/LGV/OGV are reported in Table 5.9. Between the 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS, vehicle kilometrage generally decreases, the most significant being in central London. Although vehicle kilometrage does increase very slightly in outer London, compared to virtually no change in car kilometrage, the numbers are so small as to be of little significance.

5.3.9 Between the 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS, vehicle hours decrease across all areas of London at a similar rate to that of car hours; central, inner, outer and LTS area as a whole show vehicle hours decreasing by 14.4%, 3.5%, 0.3% and 2.1% respectively.

5.3.10 As a result, between the 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS, vehicle speeds are seen to rise across all areas of London, at a similar rate to that of car

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 27 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

speeds, by 3.2%, 3.2%, 0.4%, 1.7% for central, inner, outer, LTS area respectively.

5.3.11 By comparing the statistics for vehicle and car, it can be deduced that the composition of vehicle travel by vehicle class does not differ greatly between 2011 Reference and 2011 MTS scenarios. With the introduction of the 2011 MTS the major modelled impact on car (and hence vehicle) travel is road user congestion charging.

PT Statistics

5.3.12 Morning peak PT statistics disaggregated by individual mode are presented in Table 5.10. Introduction of the 2011 MTS results in PT boards increasing by 20.3%, 1.3%, 13.9% and 11.2% for National Rail, Underground, Bus, and over all PT Modes respectively, whilst passenger kilometres increase by 9.9%, 0.7%, 13.4% and 8.2% respectively.

5.3.13 The increase in National Rail passenger kilometres of nearly 3 million and boards of nearly 200,00 are as a result of the major National Rail improvement schemes (CrossRail, Thameslink 2000, East London Line extensions, OrbiRail) implemented in the 2011 MTS. Such a significant increase in National Rail travel in (overall) less crowded conditions brings down the average crowd factor for National Rail from 1.26 to 1.22.

5.3.14 Introduction of the 2011 MTS introduces two conflicting influences on patterns of travel for the Underground/DLR. Underground service improvements, plus similar improvements and extensions to the DLR result in faster and more frequent trains and attract more patronage and increase crowding levels. On the other hand, the National Rail improvements help reduce overcrowding on the Underground by attracting passengers away from it. The overall boards and passenger kilometres for Underground/DLR remain virtually unchanged, but with a significant reduction in average crowd factor from 1.24 to 1.18.

5.3.15 For bus travel, the significant increase in boards (nearly 250,000) and passenger kilometres (over 500,000) is attributable to the introduction of the London Bus Initiative and intermediate mode packages, which result in the average crowd factor for bus reducing from 1.07 to 1.05.

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 28 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

2011 2011 Difference from 2011 Base Mode Base MTS Absolute Percentage Car 8,598,904 8,409,350 -189,554 -2.2% PT 6,138,207 6,517,820 379,613 6.2% Slow 3,188,097 2,997,017 -191,080 -6.0% All 17,925,208 17,924,187 -1,021 0.0%

Table 5.6 2011 MTS Compared to 2011 Reference: 24 Hour (Cost Dependent) Trips by Mode

2011 2011 Difference from 2011 Base Mode Base MTS Absolute Percentage Car 2,409,571 2,347,679 -61,892 -2.6% PT 1,974,437 2,098,130 123,693 6.3% All 4,384,008 4,445,809 61,801 1.4%

Table 5.7 2011 MTS Compared to 2011 Reference: Morning Peak Period Trips by Mode (3 Hour Total)

2011 2011 Difference from 2011 Base Base MTS Absolute Percentage Car Kms Central 205,378 179,613 -25,765 -12.5% Inner 1,045,712 1,039,782 -5,930 -0.6% Outer 4,239,786 4,239,756 -30 0.0% LTS Area 5,490,876 5,459,151 -31,725 -0.6%

Car hours Central 13,813 11,670 -2,143 -15.5% Inner 54,728 52,546 -2,182 -4.0% Outer 136,266 135,627 -639 -0.5% LTS Area 204,807 199,843 -4,964 -2.4%

Car Speeds (kph) Central 14.9 15.4 0.5 3.6% Inner 19.1 19.8 0.7 3.6% Outer 31.1 31.3 0.2 0.6% LTS Area 26.8 27.3 0.5 1.8%

Table 5.8 2011 MTS Compared to 2011 Reference: Morning Peak Period Car Statistics (Average Hour)

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 29 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

2011 2011 Difference from 2011 Base Base MTS Absolute Percentage Vehicle Kms Central 256,752 226,630 -30,122 -11.7% Inner 1,325,532 1,321,106 -4,426 -0.3% Outer 5,378,532 5,385,006 6,474 0.1% LTS Area 6,960,816 6,932,742 -28,074 -0.4%

Vehicle hours Central 17,210 14,724 -2,486 -14.4% Inner 68,983 66,597 -2,386 -3.5% Outer 172,333 171,898 -435 -0.3% LTS Area 258,526 253,219 -5,307 -2.1%

Vehicle Speeds (kph) Central 14.9 15.4 0.5 3.2% Inner 19.2 19.8 0.6 3.2% Outer 31.2 31.3 0.1 0.4% LTS Area 26.9 27.4 0.5 1.7%

Table 5.9 2011 MTS Compared to 2011 Reference: Morning Peak Period Vehicle Statistics (Average Hour)

LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 30 5 Model Forecast Summary Statistics

2011 2011 Difference from 2011 Base Base MTS Absolute Percentage Boards Rail 928,078 1,116,896 188,818 20.3% UG 1,328,825 1,346,085 17,260 1.3% Bus 1,728,091 1,967,697 239,606 13.9% All PT 3,984,994 4,430,678 445,684 11.2%

Uncrowded Time (hours) Rail 419,672 466,101 46,429 11.1% UG 287,723 273,415 -14,308 -5.0% Bus 265,062 282,723 17,661 6.7% All PT 972,457 1,022,239 49,782 5.1%

Crowded Time (hours) Rail 527,449 566,790 39,341 7.5% UG 355,643 321,579 -34,064 -9.6% Bus 283,454 296,351 12,897 4.5% All PT 1,166,546 1,184,720 18,174 1.6%

Excess Time (hours) (Crowded-Uncrowded) Rail 107,777 100,689 -7,088 -6.6% UG 67,920 48,164 -19,756 -29.1% Bus 18,392 13,628 -4,764 -25.9% All PT 194,089 162,481 -31,608 -16.3%

Average Crowd Factor (Crowded/Uncrowded) Rail 1.26 1.22 -0.04 -3.2% UG 1.24 1.18 -0.06 -4.8% Bus 1.07 1.05 -0.02 -1.9% All PT 1.20 1.16 -0.04 -3.3%

Passenger km Rail 28,897,760 31,746,392 2,848,632 9.9% UG 9,249,929 9,313,487 63,558 0.7% Bus 4,059,033 4,604,242 545,209 13.4% All PT 42,206,722 45,664,121 3,457,399 8.2%

Note: ELL included as Rail throughout Intermediate Modes included as Bus

Table 5.10 2011 MTS Compared to 2011 Reference: Morning Peak Period PT Statistics (3 Hour Total) LTS Modelling to inform work on the Mayor's Transport Strategy Page 31