sign in sign up
<<
Home , Blackwall Tunnel, Chalkwell Coaches, Greenwich foot tunnel, River Shuttle, Sun in the Sands

6.5 Transport Assessment 6 Volume

TR010021

APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Revision 0 Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

April 2016

Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

Page 2 of 308 Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Silvertown Tunnel

Transport Assessment 6.5

Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009

Document Reference: 6.5 Internal Code: ST150030-PLN-ZZZ-ZZ-DSD-ZZ-0078 Regulation Number: 5(2)(q) Author: Transport for

Rev. Date Approved By Signature Description 0 29/04/2016 David Rowe (TfL For DCO Lead Sponsor) Application

Page 3 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Contents

List of Abbreviations ...... 17 Glossary of Terms ...... 24 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 45 1.1 Purpose of Transport Assessment ...... 45 1.2 Previous consultations ...... 46 1.3 The need for the Scheme ...... 47 1.4 Scheme description ...... 48 1.5 Assessment tools, modelling and data ...... 52 1.6 Transport Assessment study area ...... 58 1.7 Transport Assessment document structure ...... 60 2 RELEVANT TRANSPORT POLICY AND PLANS ...... 61 2.1 Overview ...... 61 2.2 National policy ...... 61 2.3 Regional policy ...... 63 2.4 Local policy ...... 64 2.5 Key points ...... 65 3 CURRENT TRANSPORT NETWORKS AND TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR ...... 67 3.1 Overview ...... 67 3.2 Road network ...... 67 3.3 Existing public transport network ...... 70 3.4 Existing local walking and cycling network ...... 76 3.5 Analysis of current cross-river travel in ...... 79 3.6 Users of the ...... 87 3.7 Use of highway crossings for public transport ...... 94 3.8 Pedestrians and cyclists ...... 95 3.9 Key points ...... 98 4 CURRENT NETWORK PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY ISSUES ...... 101 4.1 Overview ...... 101 4.2 Road network performance ...... 101 4.3 Network reliability and resilience ...... 123 4.4 Road safety ...... 133 4.5 Current public transport performance ...... 136

Page 4 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.6 Walking and cycling network ...... 141 4.7 Access to labour market and jobs ...... 143 4.8 Key points ...... 147 5 FUTURE ‘BASELINE’ GROWTH AND IMPACTS ...... 149 5.1 Overview ...... 149 5.2 Changes in population and employment ...... 149 5.3 Total trips made and mode share ...... 153 5.4 Road network ...... 156 5.5 Network reliability and resilience ...... 166 5.6 Road safety ...... 166 5.7 Public transport network ...... 166 5.8 Walking and cycling network ...... 170 5.9 Access to jobs and labour market ...... 172 5.10 Key points ...... 176 6 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEME ...... 179 6.1 Introduction ...... 179 6.2 Scheme delivery overview ...... 179 6.3 Construction environmental management approach ...... 180 6.4 Indicative construction programme ...... 181 6.5 Highway works phasing ...... 183 6.6 Impacts of highway works on the network ...... 190 6.7 Construction traffic ...... 202 6.8 Construction staff travel ...... 213 6.9 Cumulative construction traffic impacts ...... 218 6.10 Construction mitigation ...... 223 6.11 Key points ...... 224 7 TRANSPORT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SCHEME...... 227 7.1 Overview ...... 227 7.2 Daily demand and mode share ...... 228 7.3 2021 road network impacts by time period ...... 238 7.4 Longer-term road network impacts by time period ...... 266 7.5 Benefits of the Scheme in different scenarios ...... 268 7.6 Wider area monitoring and mitigation of highway impacts ...... 279 7.7 Resilience and incident management ...... 281

Page 5 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.8 Road safety ...... 282 7.9 Public transport network ...... 282 7.10 Walking and cycling network ...... 290 7.11 Access to labour market and jobs ...... 295 7.12 Key points ...... 304

Page 6 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Overview of proposed Silvertown Tunnel location ...... 45 Figure 1-2: Proposed Silvertown Tunnel alignment ...... 49 Figure 1-3: RXHAM simulation area (shown in green) ...... 56 Figure 1-4: Demand flow v actual flow from RXHAM ...... 56 Figure 1-5: TA wider study area ...... 59 Figure 3-1: East London river crossings on the TLRN ...... 67 Figure 3-2: 2012 two-way Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the strategic road network in east London ...... 68 Figure 3-3: to M25: five crossings in 23 km ...... 69 Figure 3-4: Cross-river PT and highway capacity change since 1992, east of Tower Bridge within London ...... 71 Figure 3-5: Cross-river rail-based PT network east of Tower Bridge (including EAL) ...... 73 Figure 3-6: Cross-river bus services in London ...... 74 Figure 3-7: Inbound commuter coach services using the Blackwall Tunnel (AM peak period, 07:00-10:00, February 2016) ...... 75 Figure 3-8: Scheduled river bus services in east London ...... 76 Figure 3-9: Emirates Air Line (EAL) crossing of the Thames ...... 77 Figure 3-10: Existing walking network within 800m of the Blackwall and proposed Silvertown tunnel portals ...... 78 Figure 3-11: Cyclist using the Emirates Air Line ...... 79 Figure 3-12: AM peak hour (08:00-09:00) cross-river road and PT person trips in east London (2012-13) ...... 80 Figure 3-13: IP average hour (10:00-16:00) cross-river road and PT person trips in east London (2012-13) ...... 81 Figure 3-14: PM peak hour (17:00-18:00) cross-river road and PT person trips in east London (2012-13) ...... 81 Figure 3-15: AM peak travel to the (including ) by mode of transport, 1988 to 2014 ...... 82 Figure 3-16: Weekday AM peak hour northbound traffic on GLA river crossings (2012) ...... 84 Figure 3-17: Weekday IP average hour northbound traffic on GLA river crossings (2012) ...... 85 Figure 3-18: Blackwall Tunnel northbound - average hourly flows by day type ...... 86 Figure 3-19: Blackwall Tunnel southbound - average hourly flows by day type ...... 86 Figure 3-20 : AM peak hour (08:00-09:00) northbound cross-river road vehicle trips to the east of (2012) ...... 87 Figure 3-21: Proportion of northbound driving trips departing by hour and by journey purpose, roadside sample 2013 ...... 89

Page 7 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-22: Proportion of southbound driving trips departing by hour and by journey purpose, roadside sample 2013 ...... 89 Figure 3-23: Trip length by journey purpose...... 90 Figure 3-24: Origins and destinations for Blackwall Tunnel users in the AM peak hour (RXHAM 2012 base year) ...... 92 Figure 3-25: Origins and destinations for Blackwall Tunnel users in the PM peak hour (RXHAM 2012 base year) ...... 93 Figure 3-26: Proportion of person trips by mode on road crossings east of London Bridge (AM peak hour, both directions, 2012) ...... 94 Figure 3-27: Scheduled commuter coaches (northbound, AM peak, 15-minute periods) ...... 95 Figure 3-28: Daily pedestrian cross-river trips to the east of London Bridge (2012-13) ...... 96 Figure 3-29: Daily cycling cross-river trips to the east of London Bridge (2012-13) ...... 97 Figure 3-30: Pedestrian and cycle counts by direction (07:00-19:00, 8th Dec 2015) ...... 98 Figure 4-1: AM peak average delay (September 2013 to August 2014) and AADT traffic flows (2012) ...... 101 Figure 4-2: PM peak average delay (September 2013 to August 2014) and AADT traffic flows (2012) ...... 102 Figure 4-3: Traffic on the northbound approach to the Tunnel (view north from Boord Street footbridge, AM peak, 4th June 2015) ...... 103 Figure 4-4: Traffic on the northbound approach to the Tunnel (view south from Boord Street footbridge, AM peak, 4th June 2015) ...... 104 Figure 4-5: Indicative extent of queuing traffic on the northbound approach to the Tunnel, with and without an incident (AM peak) ...... 105 Figure 4-6: Indicative extent of queuing traffic on the southbound approach to the Tunnel, with and without an incident (PM peak) ...... 106 Figure 4-7: RXHAM Blackwall Tunnel journey time assessment route ...... 107 Figure 4-8: Observed average weekday AM peak speed northbound (Nov 2012) ...... 108 Figure 4-9: Observed average weekday AM peak cumulative journey time northbound (Nov 2012) v unconstrained (speed limit) journey time ...... 108 Figure 4-10: Observed average weekday PM peak speed southbound (Nov 2012) ...... 110 Figure 4-11: Observed average weekday PM peak cumulative journey time southbound (Nov 2012) v unconstrained (speed limit) journey time ...... 110 Figure 4-12: Blackwall Tunnel northbound average hourly flows (2013-2015) by day ...... 112 Figure 4-13: Blackwall Tunnel southbound average hourly flows (2013-2015) by day ...... 113 Figure 4-14: Two-way weekday daily vehicle flows at the Blackwall Tunnel, 1986-2014 .... 114 Figure 4-15: 2012 AM peak hour actual flow ...... 117 Figure 4-16: 2012 IP average hour actual flow...... 117

Page 8 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-17: 2012 PM peak hour actual flow ...... 117 Figure 4-18: 2012 AM peak hour VCR ...... 119 Figure 4-19: 2012 IP average hour VCR ...... 119 Figure 4-20: 2012 PM peak base VCR ...... 119 Figure 4-21: 2012 AM peak hour junction delay ...... 121 Figure 4-22: 2012 IP peak hour junction delay ...... 121 Figure 4-23: 2012 PM peak hour junction delay ...... 121 Figure 4-24: 2012 AM Demand vs Actual flow for East London River Crossings (PCUs) ..... 122 Figure 4-25: 2012 PM Demand vs Actual flow for East London River Crossings (PCUs) ...... 123 Figure 4-26: Average duration of Blackwall Tunnel closures between 2013 and 2015 ...... 126 Figure 4-27: Blackwall Tunnel diversion routes ...... 127 Figure 4-28: Average weekday AM peak (07:00-10:00) northbound journey times (Sun-in-the- Sands to Bow Interchange), school term time only (2013-2015)...... 129 Figure 4-29: Average weekday PM peak (16:00-19:00) northbound journey times (Sun-in-the- Sands to Bow Interchange), school term time only (2013-2015)...... 129 Figure 4-30: AM peak direction journey time reliability (TLRN radial corridors) ...... 130 Figure 4-31: Impact of Blackwall Tunnel northbound AM journey times on other links in south London ...... 131 Figure 4-32: Additional delays experienced on links when there is delay at the Blackwall Tunnel northbound ...... 132 Figure 4-33: Collision review area ...... 133 Figure 4-34: AM peak period (07:00-10:00) London Underground and DLR crowding (2011) ...... 136 Figure 4-35: PM peak period (07:00-10:00) National Rail and London Overground crowding (2011) ...... 137 Figure 4-36: 2015 PTALs (all modes) ...... 138 Figure 4-37: 2015 PTALs (bus only) ...... 139 Figure 4-38: Route 108 journey time ...... 140 Figure 4-39: Base year job accessibility by car – AM Peak ...... 145 Figure 4-40: Base year job accessibility by car – PM peak ...... 145 Figure 4-41: Workforce catchment areas of Richmond town centre and Royal Docks ...... 147 Figure 5-1: masterplans ...... 152 Figure 5-2: masterplan ...... 152 Figure 5-3: Royal Docks Enterprise Zone ...... 153 Figure 5-4: Total 24-hour trips by mode in ESR, 2012 and 2021 Reference Case ...... 154

Page 9 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-5: Goods vehicle trips originating in ESR, as a proportion of all private vehicle trips (2012 v 2021 Reference Case) ...... 157 Figure 5-6: AM peak hour (08:00-09:00) northbound cross-river road vehicle trips (base 2012 and Reference Case 2021 and 2031) ...... 158 Figure 5-7: AM peak forecast change in actual flow (2021 Reference Case – 2012 base) .... 159 Figure 5-8: IP forecast change in actual flow (2021 Reference Case – 2012 base) ...... 159 Figure 5-9: PM peak forecast change in actual flow (2021 Reference Case – 2012 base) .... 159 Figure 5-10: 2021 Reference Case AM peak hour northbound actual v demand flow (PCUs) ...... 161 Figure 5-11: 2021 Reference Case PM peak hour southbound actual v demand flow (PCUs) ...... 161 Figure 5-12: 2012 base vs 2021 Reference Case AM peak VCR change ...... 163 Figure 5-13: 2012 base vs 2021 Reference Case PM peak VCR change ...... 163 Figure 5-14: 2021 AM peak hour Reference Case junction delay ...... 165 Figure 5-15: 2021 IP peak hour Reference Case junction delay ...... 165 Figure 5-16: 2021 PM peak hour Reference Case junction delay ...... 165 Figure 5-17: Crossrail route map ...... 167 Figure 5-18: Forecast morning peak (0700-1000) crowding levels on the London Underground and DLR networks (2031) ...... 168 Figure 5-19: Forecast morning peak (0700-1000) crowding levels on the National Rail, London Overground and Crossrail networks (2031) ...... 168 Figure 5-20: 2031 Reference Case bus PTALs ...... 169 Figure 5-21: Proposed cycle Quietways and existing Cycle Superhighways ...... 171 Figure 5-22: Change in PT journey times (AM peak hour, 2011 to 2021) ...... 172 Figure 5-23: Approx. rail journey times to Canary Wharf from SE London (peak hour, 2021) ...... 173 Figure 5-24: Change in job accessibility by car from 2012 to 2021 Reference Case – AM peak ...... 174 Figure 5-25: Change in job accessibility by car from 2012 to 2021 Reference Case – PM peak ...... 175 Figure 6-1: Indicative construction programme ...... 182 Figure 6-2: Silvertown worksite (as envisaged during Phase 1) ...... 184 Figure 6-3: Proposed Greenwich worksite ...... 187 Figure 6-4: Silvertown worksite construction phasing ...... 194 Figure 6-5: Greenwich worksite construction phasing ...... 196 Figure 6-6: Proposed HGV access routes to worksites ...... 205

Page 10 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-7: Weekday daily HGV movements during construction – Silvertown site ...... 206 Figure 6-8: Weekday daily HGV movement during construction – Greenwich site ...... 209 Figure 6-9: Estimated Scheme construction river movements ...... 212 Figure 6-10: Daily one-way cumulative with Scheme construction traffic movements ...... 219 Figure 7-1: Total daily (24-hour) person trips by mode between/within areas in ESR, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case ...... 230 Figure 7-2: Total daily (24-hour) cross-river person trips (both directions) by mode in ESR, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case ...... 231 Figure 7-3: AAWT demand by river crossing (vehicles, both directions), 2021 Assessed Case (with Scheme) and Reference Case (without Scheme) ...... 232 Figure 7-4: Impact of the Scheme on traffic composition (demand AAWT, 2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) ...... 233 Figure 7-5: Northbound trips: Tunnel preference by destination north of the (2021 Assessed Case, uncongested conditions) ...... 234 Figure 7-6: Southbound trips: Tunnel preference by origin north of the River Thames (2021 Assessed Case, uncongested conditions) ...... 235 Figure 7-7: Illustration showing how traffic flows could change at the Blackwall Tunnel in peak periods ...... 238 Figure 7-8: Blackwall Tunnel only 2021 Reference Case traffic volumes vs combined Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels 2021 Assessed Case traffic volumes (PCUs) ...... 239 Figure 7-9: Origins and destinations of northbound trips through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the AM peak hour...... 241 Figure 7-10: Origins and destinations of southbound trips through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the PM peak hour ...... 241 Figure 7-11: Trip length of cross-river trips via the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor (AM peak hour northbound, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case) ...... 242 Figure 7-12: Trip length of cross-river trips via the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor (PM peak hour southbound, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case) ...... 242 Figure 7-13: Cross-river actual traffic flows (PCUs) in the AM peak hour – change from 2021 Reference Case to 2021 Assessed Case ...... 243 Figure 7-14: Cross-river actual traffic flows (PCUs) in the IP average hour – change from 2021 Reference Case to 2021 Assessed Case ...... 244 Figure 7-15: Cross-river actual traffic flows (PCUs) in the PM peak hour – change from 2021 Reference Case to 2021 Assessed Case ...... 245 Figure 7-16: Blackwall Tunnel Reference Case actual and demand flows vs Combined Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels Assessed Case actual and demand flows (PCUs) ...... 246 Figure 7-17: 2021 AM peak hour Assessed Case: Actual and Demand Flows for northbound East London River Crossings (PCUs) ...... 247

Page 11 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-18: 2021 PM Peak Hour Assessed Case: Actual and Demand Flows for southbound East London River Crossings (PCUs) ...... 248 Figure 7-19: Assessed Case average weekday AM peak hour cumulative journey time northbound and observed (Nov 2012) and speed limit (unconstrained) journey time ...... 249 Figure 7-20: Assessed Case average weekday PM peak hour cumulative journey time southbound and observed (Nov 2012) and speed limit (unconstrained) journey time ...... 249 Figure 7-21: Change in actual flow (PCU/hr) with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case, AM peak hour, 2021) ...... 258 Figure 7-22: Change in actual flow (PCU/hr) with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case, IP average hour, 2021) ...... 258 Figure 7-23: Change in actual flow (PCU/hr) with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case, PM peak hour, 2021) ...... 258 Figure 7-24: VCR change with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case v Reference Case, AM peak hour, 2021) ...... 260 Figure 7-25: VCR change with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case v Reference Case, PM peak hour, 2021) ...... 260 Figure 7-26: Change in junction delay with Silvertown Tunnel (Reference Case Vs Assessed Case, AM peak hour, 2021) ...... 262 Figure 7-27: Change in junction delay with Silvertown Tunnel (Reference Case vs Assessed Case, IP average hour, 2021) ...... 262 Figure 7-28: Change in junction delay with Silvertown Tunnel (Reference Case vs Assessed Case, PM peak hour, 2021) ...... 262 Figure 7-29: Change in travel time (PCU-hours) for all trips originating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case) ...... 263 Figure 7-30: Change in travel time (PCU-hours) for all trips terminating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case) ...... 264 Figure 7-31: Change in average speed (kph) for all trips originating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case) ...... 265 Figure 7-32: Change in average speed (kph) for all trips terminating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case) ...... 265 Figure 7-33: Change in demand flow (2021 AM peak hour northbound) ...... 271 Figure 7-34: Change in demand flow (2021 PM peak hour southbound) ...... 271 Figure 7-35: Impact on travel time in wider study area (PCU-hours, 2021) ...... 272 Figure 7-36: Impact on average speed in wider study area (kph, 2021) ...... 272 Figure 7-37: Impact on queuing in wider study area (PCUs, 2021) ...... 272 Figure 7-38: Change in demand flow (2021 AM peak hour northbound) ...... 273 Figure 7-39: Change in demand flow (2021 PM peak southbound) ...... 274 Figure 7-40: Impact on travel time in wider study area (PCU-hours, 2021) ...... 274

Page 12 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-41: Impact on average speed in wider study area (kph, 2021) ...... 275 Figure 7-42: Impact on queuing in wider study area (PCUs, 2021) ...... 275 Figure 7-43: Change in travel time (PCU-hours) compared to 2021 Reference Case ...... 276 Figure 7-44: Impact on travel time in wider study area (PCU-hours, 2031) ...... 278 Figure 7-45: Impact on average speed in wider study area (kph, 2031) ...... 278 Figure 7-46: Impact on queuing in wider study area (PCUs, 2031) ...... 278 Figure 7-47: Indicative Silvertown Tunnel cross-river bus network (Assessed Case) ...... 284 Figure 7-48: Change in AM PT transit volume – 2021 Assessed Case v Reference Case ..... 287 Figure 7-49: Indicative proportion of person trips by mode through the Blackwall Tunnel in 2012 compared to both Tunnels in the 2021 Assessed Case ...... 288 Figure 7-50: Bus PTAL, Assessed Case 2031 ...... 289 Figure 7-51: Change in PTAL score due to new Silvertown bus connections (2031 Reference Case v Assessed Case) ...... 290 Figure 7-52: Masterplan pedestrian and cycling connections ...... 292 Figure 7-53: Indicative walking and cycling improvements in the Royal Docks ...... 293 Figure 7-54: Illustrative pedestrian and cycle links in the vicinity of the southern tunnel portal ...... 294 Figure 7-55: Illustrative pedestrian and cycle links in the vicinity of the northern tunnel portal ...... 294 Figure 7-56: Change in job accessibility by PT (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost – AM peak period (07:00-10:00) ...... 297 Figure 7-57: Change in job accessibility by PT (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost – PM peak period (16:00-19:00) ...... 297 Figure 7-58: Change in job accessibility by Car (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on journey time – AM peak hour ...... 299 Figure 7-59: Change in job accessibility by Car (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on journey time – PM peak hour ...... 299 Figure 7-60: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Commuters – AM peak hour ...... 301 Figure 7-61: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Commuters – PM peak hour ...... 301 Figure 7-62: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Business – AM peak hour ...... 302 Figure 7-63: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Business – PM peak-hour ...... 303

Page 13 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

List of Tables Table 1-1: Assessed charge per trip in 2014/15 prices ...... 51 Table 3-1: Estimated one-way maximum capacities of road crossings in east London ...... 70 Table 3-2: Weekday cross-river person trips between (and including) Tower Bridge and the , by time period (2012/3) ...... 79 Table 3-3: Summary of all inter-borough annual average daily highway trips made (excluding Central London) ...... 83 Table 4-1: 2012 estimated crossing capacity utilisation in peak periods ...... 102 Table 4-2: Incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel between 2013 and 2015 ...... 124 Table 4-3: Average Blackwall Tunnel closures per year 2013-2015 ...... 125 Table 4-4: Collisions by severity and year in defined study area...... 134 Table 4-5: Cluster analysis summary ...... 135 Table 4-6: Number of accessible jobs by car within 45 minutes (millions, base year) ...... 146 Table 5-1: Population growth in the ESR ...... 150 Table 5-2: Employment growth in the ESR ...... 151 Table 5-3: AM peak hour person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets ...... 155 Table 5-4: IP person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets ...... 155 Table 5-5: PM peak person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets ...... 156 Table 5-6: Number of accessible jobs by borough (millions, by car) – AM peak hour ...... 175 Table 5-7: Number of accessible jobs by borough (millions, by car) – PM peak hour ...... 176 Table 6-1: Highway Construction Phases - Silvertown ...... 185 Table 6-2: Highway construction phases - Greenwich ...... 188 Table 6-3: Silvertown worksite impact matrix ...... 191 Table 6-4: Greenwich worksite impact matrix ...... 192 Table 6-5: Bus route diversions during Greenwich construction phases ...... 200 Table 6-6: Estimated HGV movements over four year construction period (with 50% by weight of all materials associated with the Scheme by river) ...... 204 Table 6-7: AM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Silvertown site ...... 207 Table 6-8: Inter-peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Silvertown site ..... 207 Table 6-9: PM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Silvertown site ...... 208 Table 6-10: AM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Greenwich site..... 209 Table 6-11: IP hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Greenwich site ...... 210 Table 6-12: PM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Greenwich site ..... 210

Page 14 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-13: Silvertown worksite mode of travel to work, based on 2011 Census (mid-layer super output areas 034 and 037 – LB Newham)...... 214 Table 6-14: Greenwich worksite mode of travel to work, based on 2011 Census (mid-layer super output area 036 – RB Greenwich) ...... 215 Table 6-15: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on DLR services (Silvertown worksite) ...... 215 Table 6-16: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on Crossrail services (Silvertown worksite) ...... 216 Table 6-17: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on bus services from Bus Station (Silvertown worksite) ...... 216 Table 6-18: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on rail services (Greenwich worksite) ...... 217 Table 6-19: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on bus services from Greenwich Bus Station (Greenwich worksite) ...... 217 Table 6-20: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on North Greenwich underground services (Greenwich worksite) ...... 218 Table 6-21: Hourly cumulative two-way construction traffic – Silvertown site ...... 220 Table 6-22: Hourly cumulative two-way construction traffic – Greenwich site ...... 220 Table 6-23: AM peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Silvertown site...... 221 Table 6-24: Inter-peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Silvertown site...... 221 Table 6-25: PM peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Silvertown site...... 221 Table 6-26: AM peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Greenwich site ...... 222 Table 6-27: Inter-peak increase in traffic on roads due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Greenwich site ...... 222 Table 6-28: PM peak increase in traffic on roads due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Greenwich site ...... 222 Table 7-1: AM peak hour person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets ...... 236 Table 7-2: IP person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets ...... 236 Table 7-3: PM peak person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets ...... 237 Table 7-4: Highway journey time change in minutes (Assessed Case – Ref Case), 2021 AM peak hour ...... 251 Table 7-5: Highway journey time change (minutes, 2021 IP average hour, Assessed Case v Ref Case) ...... 252

Page 15 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-6: Highway journey time change (minutes, 2021 PM peak hour, Assessed Case v Ref Case) ...... 253 Table 7-7: 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case RXHAM simulation area outputs ...... 256 Table 7-8: 2031 Reference Case and Assessed Case RXHAM simulation area outputs ...... 266 Table 7-9: 2041 Reference Case and Assessed Case RXHAM simulation area outputs ...... 267 Table 7-10: Indicative cross-river bus network service details ...... 285

Page 16 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Full Name

A AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AAWT Average Annual Weekday Traffic ADS Advance Directional Sign ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable AM Morning Peak Traffic Period AMCB Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits ANPR Automatic Number Plate Recognition AQ Air Quality AQAP Air Quality Action Plan AQDMP Air Quality and Dust Management Plan AQFA Air Quality Focus Area AQMA Air Quality Management Area AQS Air Quality Strategy ASLs Advanced Stop Lines ATC Automated Traffic Counts

B BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio BoR Book of Reference BPH Buses per Hour BTP British Transport Police

C CABE Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CAZ Central Activities Zone CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CC Congestion Charging CCS Considerate Constructors Scheme CCTV Closed Circuit Television CD&E Construction, Demolition and Excavation CDM (2015) Construction Design and Management Regulations (2015) CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CIL Community Infrastructure Levy CLOS Cyclist Levels of Service CLP Construction Logistics Plan CLR Contaminated Land Report CMP Construction Management Plan

Page 17 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Abbreviation Full Name CO2 Carbon Dioxide COBA-LT Cost and Benefit to Accidents - Light Touch CoCP Code of Construction Practice CoP Code of Practice CRoW The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 CS Construction Statement CSH Cycle Superhighway CTMP Construction Traffic Management Plan

D DAS Design and Access Statement DCO Development Consent Order DfT Department for Transport DI Distributional Impacts DLR DMP Delivery Management Plan DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

E EAL Emirates Air Line EAR Economic Assessment Report EC European Commission EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment EDR Engineering Design Report EDS Economic Development Strategy EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EiP Examination in Public EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELHAM East London Highway Assignment Model ELL East London Line EMP Ecology Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System EqIA Equality Impact Assessment EP Emergency Plan ERM Environmental Resources Management ES Environmental Statement ESR East and south-east sub-region EU European Union EWT Excess Wait Time

F FALP Further Alterations to the London Plan

Page 18 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Abbreviation Full Name FORS Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme FTA Freight Transport Association

G GC Generalised Costs GDP Gross Domestic Product GDPW Gross Domestic Product per Worker GEMS Greenwich Environmental Method Statement GHG Greenhouse Gases GIGL Greenspace Information for Greater London GIS Geographic Information System GJT Generalised Journey Time GLA Greater London Authority GLAA Greater London Authority Act GVA Gross Value Added

H HA Highways Agency (Now Highways ) HDV Heavy Duty Vehicle HE Highways England (Formerly Highways Agency) HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HIA Health Impact Assessment HMP Heritage Management Plan HSE Health and Safety Executive

I IER Introductory Environmental Report IHS Integrated Household Survey IoD Index of Deprivation IoMD Index of Multiple Deprivation IP Interpeak Traffic Period IPRG Independent Peer Review Group IWT In Work Time

J JCOP Joint Code of Practice

K KPI Key Performance Indicator

L LA Local Authority

Page 19 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Abbreviation Full Name LAD Local Authority District LAEI London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory LAQM Local Air Quality Management LB London Borough LBN London Borough of Newham LBTH London Borough of Tower Hamlets LCAP London Congestion Analysis Project LCDS London Cycling Design Standards LCN London Cycle Networks LDF Local Development Framework LEA Local Economic Assessment LED Light-Emitting Diode LEZ Low Emission Zone LGV Light Goods Vehicle LHA Local Highway Authority LIP Local Implementation Plan LIR Local Impact Report LMVR Local Model Validation Report LoHAC London Highways Alliance Contract LOPR London Office Policy Review LoRDM London Regional Demand Model LP London Plan LPA Local Planning Authority LSOA Lower Super Output Area LSTCC London Streets Traffic Control Centre LSTOC London Streets Tunnel Operations Centre LTDS London Travel Demand Survey LTraCS London Traffic Control System LTS London Transportation Studies LU London Underground

M M&E Mechanical & Electrical MCC Manual Classified Counts MDD Managing Development Document MEDS Mayor's Economic Development Strategy MMP Materials Management Plan MOL Metropolitan Open Land MPH Miles Per Hour MTS Mayor's Transport Strategy MWC Main Works Contractor

Page 20 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Abbreviation Full Name N NABSA Not Afloat But Safely Aground NB Northbound NCN National Cycle Network NHS National Health Service NMU Non-Motorised Users NN NPS National Networks National Policy Statement NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPPG National Planning Practice Guidance NPS National Policy Statement NPV Net Present Value NSIP Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project NTEM National Trip End Model

O OAPF Opportunity Area Planning Framework OBC Outline Business Case OGV Other Goods Vehicle OLSPG Olympic Legacy Supplementary Planning Guidance ONS Office for National Statistics OP Off Peak Traffic Period OS Ordnance Survey OWT Out of Work Time

P PAC Pre Application Consultation PCN Penalty Charge Notice PCU Passenger Car Unit PEIR Preliminary Environmental Information Report PER Preliminary Engineering Report PEMP Project Environmental Management Plan PERS Pedestrian Environment Review System PHV Private Hire Vehicle PINS Planning Inspectorate PLA Port of London Authority PM Evening Peak Traffic Period PMA Private Means of Access PO Project Objective PPG Planning Policy Guidance PPS Planning Policy Statement PRoW Public Right of Way PTAL Public Transport Accessibility Level

Page 21 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Abbreviation Full Name PTWA Public Transport Waiting Area PT Public Transport PV Present Value PVB Present Value of Benefits PVC Present Value of Costs

Q QUADRO Queues and Delays at Road Works

R RA Regeneration Area RB Royal Borough RBG Royal Borough of Greenwich RODS Rolling Origin and Destination Survey RR Regeneration Report RRT Roads Response Team RSA Road Safety Audit RSI Road Side Interview RSM Road Space Management RTF Road Task Force RTI Road Traffic Incident RUC Road User Charging RXHAM River Crossings Highway Assignment Model

S SAF Strategic Assessment Framework SACTRA Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment SATURN Simulation and Assignment of Traffic to Urban Road Networks SB Southbound SCOOT Split Cycle, Offset Optimisation Technique SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment SoCC Statement of Community Consultation SOCG Statement of Common Ground SoR Statement of Reasons SoS Secretary of State SPD Supplementary Planning Document SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SR Sensitivity Receptor SRN Strategic Road Network SRTP Sub-Regional Transport Policy SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

Page 22 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Abbreviation Full Name SWMP Site Waste Management Plan

T TA Transport Assessment TAG Transport Analysis Guidance TBM Tunnel Boring Machine TDSCG Tunnel Design and Safety Consultation Group TEE Transport Economic Efficiency TfL TGB TLRN Transport for London Road Network TMP Traffic Management Plan TRL Transport Research Laboratory TRM Traffic Regulation Measure(s) TRO Traffic Regulation Order(s) TTT Thames Tunnel TTWA Travel to Work Area TUBA Transport User Benefit Appraisal TWAO Transport and Works Act Order

U UK United Kingdom ULEZ Ultra Low Emission Zone UTC Urban Traffic Control

V VCR Volume/Capacity Ratios VfM Value for Money VMS Variable Message Signs VMSL Variable Mandatory Speed Limits VOC Vehicle Operating Cost VoT Value of Time VRM Vehicle Registration Mark

W WebTAG Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance WHO World Health Organisation WI Wider Impacts WITA Wider Impacts in Transport Appraisal

Page 23 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Glossary of Terms

Term Explanation Account holder User of the tunnels who has registered their vehicle and payment details with TfL Active Travel Travel and transport by physically active, human-powered modes as opposed to motorised ones, largely for functional reasons. Air Quality Monitored results of any of the pollutants must be evaluated Management against national air quality objectives, which are defined by Area statutory legislation. An Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) is an area that local authorities are obliged to designate, if monitored air pollution exceeds the objectives. AM peak The morning peak hours when traffic is busiest. In the context of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme this applies to the hours between 6:00 and 10:00 in the northbound direction. Assessed Case Scenario adopted for assessment of likely effects of the proposed scheme, in the context of central forecasts of transport conditions and with user charges set so as to achieve the Scheme’s traffic, environmental, socio-economic and financial objectives. Base Year For the purpose of this Transport Assessment, observed conditions on the transport network for 2012 have been used to characterise and describe the base year (i.e. the current traffic and transport situation). The base year is descriptive of the 2012 conditions that form the foundation of the modelling of the future year Reference Case. Blackwall Tunnel An existing road tunnel underneath the River Thames in east London, linking the London Borough of Tower Hamlets with the Royal Borough of Greenwich, comprising two bores each with two lanes of traffic. Building Statutory instruments that seek to ensure that the policies set Regulations out in the relevant legislation are carried out. Building regulations approval is required for most building work in the United Kingdom. Bulk Material Construction materials required in large quantities, such as aggregate, crushed stone or fill materials. Bus and Goods A dedicated highway lane that has restricted occupancy, Vehicle Lane available for use by buses, Heavy Goods Vehicles and taxis.

Page 24 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Bus Gate Bus gates are traffic signals often provided within bus priority schemes to assist buses and other permitted traffic when leaving a bus lane to enter or cross the general flow of traffic or to meter the flow of general traffic as it enters the road link downstream of the bus lane.

Depending on their purpose, bus gates can be located remote from other signals or they can be positioned immediately upstream of a signal controlled junction, as a bus pre-signal. Carbon ‘Carbon’ is used as short hand to refer to the basket of six greenhouse gases (GHGs) recognised by the Kyoto Protocol. GHGs are converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) based on their global warming potential per unit as compared to one unit of CO2. CDM (2015) The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 set out the roles and responsibilities of parties involved in construction projects in relation to health and safety during the project life cycle including design, construction operation and maintenance stages. Charging period For the purposes of the Assessed Case this has been defined as 6am to 10pm every day. COBA-LT A computer program developed by the Department for Transport to undertake the analysis of the impact on accidents as part of economic appraisal for a road scheme. Construction A defined period of works. Phase Contractor Anyone who directly employs or engages construction workers or manages construction work. Contractors include sub- contractors, any individual self-employed worker or business that carries out, manages or controls construction work. Control Centre Facility to deal with issues with over-height, illegal and unsafe vehicles going through Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels, and help manage traffic. Core Strategy The Core Strategy sets out the vision, key objectives and strategic planning policies for the area. Counter-peak In the context of the Silvertown Tunnel, where traffic flow is tidal in nature, the counter peak refers to the hours of 6:00-10:00 southbound and 16:00-19:00 northbound i.e. the opposite directions of the AM peak and PM peak. Cumulative The summation of effects that result from changes caused by a Effects development in conjunction with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions. Cut and Cover A form of construction usually involving in situ reinforced concrete, where a tunnel is built within an excavation which is undertaken from the ground surface.

Page 25 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Demand flow A traffic modelling term which refers to the traffic that would be allocated to the link irrespective of capacity. Department for The government department responsible for the English Transport (DfT) transport network and a limited number of transport matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that have not been devolved. Design Manual for A series of 15 volumes that provide official standards, advice Roads and notes and other documents relating to the design, assessment Bridges (DMRB) and operation of trunk roads, including motorways in the United Kingdom. Design Review Transport for London has set up an independent design review Panel panel, administered by Urban Design London, to provide design assurance throughout the design process. The panel will focus on the above ground elements of the Silvertown Tunnel. The panel will provide consistency through the life of the design process; ensure that the design principles are applied appropriately and that the eventual built design is of an appropriate quality. Desk-based A data collection exercise using existing sources of data. The Assessment purpose is to identify relevant known resources. Detailed Design A finalised design, complete in all aspects and suitable for construction of the Scheme. Development This is a statutory order which provides consent for the project Consent Order and means that a range of other consents, such as planning (DCO) permission and listed building consent, will not be required. A DCO can also include provisions authorising the compulsory acquisition of land or of interests in or rights over land which is the subject of an application.

http://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/help/glossary- of-terms/ Docklands Light An automated light metro system serving the Docklands and Railway (DLR) east London area. The DLR is operated under concession awarded by Transport for London to KeolisAmey Docklands, a joint venture between transport operator Keolis and infrastructure specialists Amey plc. Dwelling A building used for living purposes. A mobile home used for permanent living should be included in an assessment. If calculations are being conducted for compensation purposes then some mobile homes are dealt with under the Highways Noise Payments and Moveable Homes Regulations. Emirates Air Line A cable car service for pedestrians and cyclists across the River (EAL) Thames in east London, linking the Greenwich peninsula to the Royal Victoria Dock. The service is managed by TfL, and is part of the TfL transport network.

Page 26 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Enterprise Zone An area in which state incentives such as tax concessions are offered to encourage business investment. Excavated Ground or other material removed during a construction Material process, usually by mechanical means. Excess Wait Time The time waited in excess of the average scheduled wait time e.g. when waiting for a bus service. Flood Gates Flood gates used to control water flow in flood barriers, reservoir, river, stream, or levee systems. Gasholder A large container in which natural gas is stored near atmospheric pressure at ambient temperatures. Greenwave Coordinated control of a series of traffic signals to allow continuous traffic flow in a given direction. HAV A type of materials transport ship which is capable of fully loaded open water navigation. Health A state of complete physical, social and mental well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Health Impact A combination of procedures, methods and tools that Assessment (HIA) systematically judges the potential, and sometimes unintended, effects of a policy, plan, programme or project on both the health of a population and the distribution of those effects within the population. HIA identifies appropriate actions to manage those effects. Heavy Goods European Union term for any vehicle with a gross combination Vehicle (HGV) mass of over 3500kg Host Boroughs The Royal Borough of Greenwich, and the London Boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets where the existing Blackwall Tunnel and proposed Silvertown Tunnel are situated. Illustrative Design An example of how the proposals could be developed at the next stage of design as a result of engagement with the Project Company contractor, planning authority and other relevant stakeholders. This is an example of how the Scheme may look, but it is not the final design. in-situ A process of work completed in its final position. Induced Demand The effect that after supply increases, more of a good is consumed. In relation to transport schemes, this means that demand for the network will increase if extra capacity is added. A change to the road network that has the potential to generate additional traffic on the improved section if new users respond by, for example, diverting from other routes, changing their origin Induced Traffic or destination (trip locations), or switching from other transport modes. This additional traffic is often referred to as induced traffic. Initial Charge The user charges as applied at the opening of the Scheme.

Page 27 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Inter peak The time period between the AM peak and the PM peak when traffic levels are lower. In the context of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme this refers to the hours between 10:00 and 16:00. Jetty A structure that projects from land out into water for the purposes of marine logistics.

LinSig A design and modelling package for traffic signal junctions. LinSig allows for the modelling of traffic signals and their effect on traffic capacities and queuing. As well as modelling the effects of traffic signals LinSig also optimises signal timings to reduce delay or increase capacity at a junction or group of interlinked junctions. The capabilities and application of LinSig are similar to that of another software package called TRANSYT. LoHAC The London Highways Alliance Contract is a framework of collaborative highways services contracts. Authorities can form individual call-offs with no loss of sovereignty. The contract was developed jointly by London boroughs and TfL, it enables them to carry out a wide variety of tasks using four area-based contractors. London Streets The centre responsible for real time operational control of traffic Traffic Control on the London road network operated by TfL. Centre (LSTCC) London Streets LSTOC operates the traffic and tunnel safety systems for all the Tunnel road tunnels in London operated by Transport for London (12 Operations no). LSTOC operations are fundamental to the safe and reliable Centre (LSTOC) operation of TfL's tunnels and their approaches. Assist in performance of the 90km of high speed road corridors serviced by the London streets traffic control system. Magnitude A combination of the scale, extent, and duration of an effect also defined as ‘degree of change’ Millennium The is the original name of a large dome- Exhibition Site shaped building, originally used to house a major exhibition (MES) celebrating the beginning of the third millennium. Located on the Greenwich Peninsula the exhibition was open to the public from 1 January to 31 December 2000. All of the original exhibition and associated complex has since been demolished. The dome still exists, and it is now a key exterior feature of The O2. The Millennium Exhibition Site comprises the O2 and the surrounding buildings and infrastructure. Mitigation Measures including any process, activity, or design to avoid, reduce, remedy or compensate for negative environmental impact or effects of a development. Mode share The percentage of trips or people using a particular mode of transport. Also referred to as mode split.

Page 28 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Mode shift A change in the percentage mode share composition e.g. increase in the percentage of trips made by public transport and decreasing the percentage of trips made by car. Opportunity Areas London’s major source of brownfield land with significant capacity for new housing, commercial and other development linked to existing or potential improvements to public transport accessibility. Order Limits The extent of land and rights over land that will be needed temporarily to construct the Scheme, and permanently to operate, maintain and safeguard the Scheme (often referred to as ‘the red line boundary’) Outline Design Defines the design principles and freezes the scope of the project. Passenger car A method used in Transport Modelling to allow for the different unit vehicle types within a traffic flow group to be assessed in a consistent manner. Typical factors are 1 for a car or light goods vehicle, 2 for a bus of heavy goods vehicle, 0.4 for a motorcycle and 0.2 for a pedal cycle. PM peak The evening peak hours when traffic is busiest. In the context of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme this applies to the hours between 16:00 and 19:00 in the southbound direction. Principal Designer A term defined under the CDM (2015). A principal designer is a designer who is an organisation or individual (on smaller projects) appointed by the client to take control of the pre- construction phase of any project involving more than one contractor.

Principal designers have an important role in influencing how risks to health and safety are managed throughout a project. Design decisions made during the pre-construction phase have a significant influence in ensuring the project is delivered in a way that secures the health and safety of everyone affected by the work. Principal A term defined under the CDM (2015). Principal contractors are Contractor appointed by the client to coordinate the construction phase of a project where it involves more than one contractor.

The main duty of the principal contractor is to properly plan, manage and co-ordinate work during the construction phase in order to ensure that hazards are identified and risks are properly controlled.

Priority Lane A dedicated highway lane that has restricted occupancy, available for use by buses, Heavy Goods Vehicles and taxis.

Page 29 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Project Company A Project Company is typically a consortium of private sector companies, formed for the specific purpose of providing the services under a private finance contract. This is also technically known as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV).

The Project Company will obtain funding to design and build the new facilities and then undertake routine maintenance and capital replacement during the remainder of the contract period. The total contract period is typically 30 years.

The Project Company will repay funders from payments received from TfL during the post construction period of the contract. Receipt of payments from TfL will depend on the ability of the Project Company to deliver the services in accordance with the output specified in the contract. Public Transport A detailed and accurate measure of the accessibility of a point to Accessibility the public transport network, taking into account walk access Levels time and service availability. The method is a way of measuring the density of the public transport network at any location within Greater London. Quietways Quietways will be a network of radial and orbital cycle routes throughout London. Linking key destinations, they will follow backstreet routes, through parks, along waterways or tree-lined streets. This is currently a proposal and does not yet exist. Ramp metering A ramp meter, ramp signal or metering light is a device, usually a basic traffic light or a two-section signal (red and green only, no yellow) light together with a signal controller that regulates the flow of traffic entering freeways according to current traffic conditions. Reference Case An assumed ‘future baseline’ scenario, which represents the circumstances and conditions that TfL would anticipate in the future year 2021 without the implementation of the Scheme, taking account of trends (for example in population and employment growth) and relevant developments (such as other committed transport schemes). The Reference Case is used as a comparator for the Assessed Case, to show the significant effects of the Scheme against the appropriate reference scenario. Reference Design The design proposals for the Scheme that the DCO application refers to, as modified and developed in response to the Statutory Consultation process. The Reference Design has been developed to a concept stage appropriate to prove engineering and construction feasibility and to inform the construction and operational land requirements, environmental impact assessments and Scheme cost estimate.

Page 30 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Resilience Resilience is a concept which operates at the level of the individual, the community and wider society. It also describes a dynamic process by which individuals, communities and/or societies adapt positively to adversity. Resources A supply of assets (e.g., money, materials, people) that can be used by a person or organization in order to achieve a particular objective. River Transport Transport of materials associated with the Scheme by river to or from locations within the Works Areas or within 4km of the Works Areas. Roads Task The Roads Task Force (RTF) is an independent body set up by Force Street the in 2012 to tackle the challenges facing Types London's streets and roads. The RTF proposed a 'street family' of nine Street Types, in which streets are defined by significance of their 'movement' and the intensity of their 'place'. TfL are working with the London boroughs to classify the network according to this new family of Street Types. Rotherhithe An existing road tunnel underneath the River Thames in east Tunnel London, linking the London Borough of Tower Hamlets with the London Borough of Southwark, comprising a single bore with two lanes of traffic. Pedestrian and cycle access is permitted. Safeguarding Safeguarding is a formal process, undertaken by the Department for Transport (DfT), to protect land required for major new infrastructure projects from future development. The Safeguarding Directions, made by the Secretary of State for Transport, instruct local planning authorities to consult TfL on planning applications for land within the safeguarded area. Sensitive Receptors which are potentially sensitive to noise and vibration. Receptor (SR) Examples include dwellings, hospitals, schools, community facilities, designated areas (e.g. AONB, National Park, SAC, SPA, SSSI, SAM), and public rights of way. Service Building, The building housing all control, power supply, and other Tunnel Service essential equipment for the operation of the tunnel. Also houses Building, Portal firefighting control and ventilation equipment. Serves as a Building maintenance base and has the facility to become a standby operations room. Site Waste A document that outlines how the Scheme will reduce, manage, Management Plan and dispose of its solid waste. (SWMP) Spoil The material excavated by the Tunnel Boring Machine during the construction of the tunnel. Strategic Road Terminology used by the government to describe the Network approximately 4,300 miles of motorways and major ‘trunk’ A- roads in England managed by the Highways England on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Page 31 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Streetscape TfL Streetscape Guidance provides a standard for London's Guidance streets and spaces for those who will be working on or affecting London's streets. All works on the Transport for London Road Network must adhere to the guidance provided. A copy of the guidance can be found at : https://tfl.gov.uk/streets-toolkit Temporary Works Structures, means and measures selected and used by a Contactor undertaking construction works, which form no part of the permanent building or structure which is being constructed. Thames Gateway An area of land stretching 70 kilometres east from inner east London on both sides of the River Thames and the . Thames Tideway A 25km tunnel running mostly under the River Thames through Tunnel (TTT) central London, intended to provide storage and conveyance of combined raw sewage and rainwater discharges that currently overflow into the river. Under construction for client Thames Water. The O2 A large entertainment district on the Greenwich peninsula, including an indoor arena, cinema, bars and restaurants. It is built largely within the former Millennium Dome. The Scheme The construction of a new bored tunnel with cut and cover sections at either end under the River Thames (the Silvertown Tunnel) between the Greenwich peninsula and Silvertown, as well as necessary alterations to the connecting road network and the introduction of user charging at both Silvertown and Blackwall tunnels. Tidal flow Tidal flow refers to a road where a lane or lanes can sometimes carry traffic in one direction and at other times in the opposite direction, to help with traffic flow. This was in operation at the Blackwall Tunnel between 1978 and 2007. Toucan Crossing A signal controlled crossing that allows pedestrians and cyclists to cross a road safely. Transport for A London government body responsible for most aspects of the London (TfL) transport system in Greater London. Its role is to implement transport strategy and to manage transport services across London.

These services include: buses, the Underground network, Docklands Light Railway, Overground and Trams. TfL also runs Santander Cycles, London River Services, Victoria Coach Station and the Emirates Air Line.

As well as controlling a 580km network of main roads and the city's 6,000 traffic lights, TfL regulates London's private hire vehicles and the Congestion Charge scheme.

Page 32 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Transport for The network of 580km of London's main roads for which TfL is London Road the highways and traffic authority. Network (TLRN) The Tunnel, Proposed new twin-bore road tunnels under the River Thames Silvertown Tunnel from the A1020 in Silvertown to the A102 on Greenwich Peninsula, East London. TRANSYT A traffic simulations and signal timing optimisation programme. The modelling software is used to test the effects of traffic signals on capacity and queueing at junctions and to optimise these timings. The capabilities and application of TRANSYT are similar to that of another software package called LinSig. Tunnel Boring A machine used to excavate tunnels with a circular cross Machine (TBM) section. There are two main types of closed face TBMs: Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) and Slurry Shield (SS). Please see those terms (above) for further explanation Tunnel Portal A structure created which defines the end of a section of tunnel. User Charging The charge to be paid by users of the Silvertown Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel that is to be imposed in order to manage traffic demand and help pay for the Scheme. VISSIM A microscopic multi-model traffic flow simulation model based on car following and lane change logic that is capable of modelling complex road network geometry and permits different traffic controls (signal, give way or stop) to be utilised anywhere in the model. Microscopic simulation, sometimes called microsimulation, means that each entity (car, train, person) and the interaction between them is simulated individually. Wallasea Island An island in . Currently being transformed into a nature reserve using earth excavated from major engineering projects. WebTAG The Department for Transport’s web-based transport analysis guidance. Ferry The links Woolwich (Royal Borough of Greenwich) and North Woolwich (London Borough of Newham). It also links two ends of the inner London orbital road routes; the North Circular and South Circular.

It runs every 5-10 minutes throughout the day, from Monday to Friday and every 15 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays. It carries pedestrians, cyclists, cars, LGVs and HGVs. The ferry is operated by Briggs Marine and Environmental on behalf of TfL. Worksite An area of land within the Scheme order limits which is temporarily occupied and used to undertake the Works.

Page 33 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Term Explanation Works area Land within the Scheme order limits temporarily occupied and used to undertake construction works, which may comprise a number of discrete worksites, or areas of construction activity that move during a construction programme.

Page 34 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

SUMMARY

S.1 Purpose of this Transport Assessment

S.1.1 The Silvertown Tunnel scheme (the Scheme) involves the construction of a twin bore road tunnel providing a new connection between the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach on Greenwich Peninsula (Royal Borough of Greenwich) and the Tidal Basin Roundabout junction on the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing/Silvertown Way (London Borough of Newham). The Scheme also includes the introduction of free-flow user charging on both the Blackwall Tunnel (northern portal located in London Borough of Tower Hamlets) and at the new Silvertown Tunnel.

S.1.2 The purpose of this Transport Assessment (TA) is to describe the traffic and transport effects of the Scheme, both during its construction and its subsequent operation post completion. The TA also sets out how Scheme impacts requiring mitigation would be identified and the systems that would be engaged to determine mitigation requirements. It has been prepared taking into account current guidance produced by both Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for Transport (DfT).

S.1.3 The TA has been produced following extensive data collection and traffic modelling analysis to establish the current traffic and transport conditions and usage of the road network serving the crossing, and to determine the likely future conditions on the network with the Scheme (referred to as the Assessed Case) and without the Scheme (referred to as the Reference Case). It is the primary source of information regarding the Scheme’s likely traffic and wider transport impacts.

S.1.4 Reference Case and Assessed Case transport impacts are reported for three future years: 2021, 2031 and 2041. These align with forecast years for the most up-to-date versions of TfL’s suite of London-wide and sub-regional transport models, which are available in five-year steps from 2016 to 2041. Detailed analysis of impacts reported in the TA focusses on 2021 (with summaries provided for 2031 and 2041) for the following reasons:

 for the purpose of assessment, 2021 represents the opening year of the Scheme1;

1 The Scheme is expected to open in 2022/23, but DfT guidance on Transport User Benefits Appraisal (TUBA) states that “if scheme opening is only 1 or 2 years after the first modelled year then the modelled year data can be used to represent the scheme opening year” (DfT, January 2016, ‘TUBA: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Version 1.9.6’)

Page 35 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 2021 represents a worst case scenario for traffic-related environmental impacts (for example, air quality and noise) as it is universally acknowledged that these effects will lessen over time as vehicle technology improves; and

 there is more certainty in the planning and travel behaviour assumptions underpinning the 2021 forecasts when compared with those for 2031 and 2041.

S.2 Scheme description

S.2.1 The Silvertown Tunnel would be approximately 1.4km long and would be able to accommodate large vehicles including double-deck buses. It would include a dedicated bus, coach and goods vehicle lane, which would enable TfL to provide additional cross-river bus routes.

S.2.2 On the north side, the tunnel approach road connects to the Tidal Basin Roundabout, which would be altered to create a new signal-controlled roundabout linking the Silvertown Way, Dock Road and the Lower Lea Crossing. Dock Road would be realigned to accommodate the new tunnel and approach road. On the south side, the A102 would be widened to create new slip road links to the Silvertown Tunnel. A new flyover would be built to take southbound traffic exiting the Blackwall Tunnel over the northbound approach to the Silvertown Tunnel. The Scheme includes minor changes to Tunnel Avenue including the removal of the bus-only gate allowing access for all vehicles between Blackwall Lane and Ordnance Crescent. The Boord Street footbridge over the A102 would be replaced with a pedestrian and cycle bridge.

S.2.3 The introduction of free-flow user charging on both the Blackwall Tunnel and at the new Silvertown Tunnel is intended to play a fundamental role in managing traffic demand and supporting the financing of the construction, maintenance and operation of the Silvertown Tunnel.

S.2.4 Main construction works could commence in late 2018 and would last approximately 4 years with the new tunnel opening in 2022/23. The main construction compound would be located at Silvertown, utilising the existing facilities at Thames Wharf along with a new temporary jetty for the removal of spoil and delivery of materials by river. A secondary site compound would be located adjacent to the alignment of the proposed cut and cover tunnel on the Greenwich Peninsula.

Page 36 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

S.3 Policy context

S.3.1 In June 2012 the Secretary of State for Transport gave a direction under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 that the proposed Silvertown Tunnel be treated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). This direction recognised the projected growth of London, and that London is an engine for economic growth nationally. It was also recognised that current congestion at the Blackwall Tunnel is having a significant adverse impact on the strategic road network. The size and scale of the Scheme was also explicitly stated as a reason for granting it NSIP status.

S.3.2 The NSIP direction means that the Scheme will require a Development Consent Order (DCO) to be granted by the Secretary of State for Transport. The application for a DCO to construct, operate and maintain a new tunnel with user charging as proposed will be determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with the National Networks National Policy Statement (NNNPS).

S.3.3 Existing national, regional and local plans and policies give general and specific support to new road-based river crossings in east London, including at Silvertown, to improve strategic and local cross-river accessibility by road and to relieve congestion and address poor network resilience.

S.4 Current transport networks and performance issues

S.4.1 There are a number of strategically important radial roads in east and south- east London, several of which converge at the Blackwall Tunnel making it one of the busiest links on London’s road network; it currently carries an average of around 91,000 daily trips.

S.4.2 The Blackwall Tunnel is one of only three highway crossings of the river that serve the East and South-East Sub-Region (ESR) of London2, along with the , and the Woolwich Ferry. It is the most strategically important with a capacity of around three times that of the Rotherhithe Tunnel and twenty times that of the Woolwich Ferry. The Blackwall Tunnel, accordingly, essentially functions as the linchpin river crossing of the strategic road network in the ESR, and is heavily used at most times of the day and week.

2 The ESR is defined in Policy 2.5 of the current London Plan, and consists of the London Boroughs of Hackney, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham, Havering, , and , and the Royal Borough of Greenwich

Page 37 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

S.4.3 There has been a period of sustained investment in public transport (PT) capacity across the ESR over the past 20 years with the addition of new cross-river rail links (namely the , the DLR extension, High Speed 1 and the London Overground), and Crossrail will add further to this from 2018. The Emirates Air Line (EAL) also provides a cross-river pedestrian and cycle link along the alignment of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel. East of Tower Bridge, the overwhelming majority of cross-river trips are made by rail. However, because of the scarcity and lack of capacity of highway crossings, there is only a single cross-river bus route operating east of Tower Bridge (via the Blackwall Tunnel), compared to 47 bus routes that cross the river west of Vauxhall Bridge.

S.4.4 In terms of highway network performance, the Blackwall Tunnel is one of the most heavily congested major traffic routes in London. While all of the highway crossings in the ESR are operating at or close to capacity, high levels of demand at the Blackwall Tunnel in particular mean that there are long queues on the approach roads to the tunnel particularly in peak periods, and average speeds are low. In the northbound direction in the AM peak, queues routinely stretch back 3.2km from the tunnel portal while in the southbound direction in the PM peak queues can often stretch back 2.7km. This congestion can add, on average, around 20 minutes to users’ journey times and often more.

S.4.5 Coupled with the day-to-day congestion issues, the cross-river highway network in the ESR is notoriously unreliable. While congestion and the scarcity of existing crossings are key factors that underlie the sub-optimal performance of the network, another factor is the unusually high susceptibility of the Blackwall Tunnel to traffic incidents and closures causing additional delay and congestion. In the three years from 2013 to 2015 there were around 6,300 incidents recorded at the tunnel, of which over 3,600 resulted in an unplanned closure. A significant proportion of these incidents were associated with over-height vehicles (OHVs) attempting to use the northbound tunnel bore, which has a height restriction.

S.4.6 When incidents and closures do occur at the Blackwall Tunnel, the opportunity to divert to other crossings is not attractive to drivers since they are some distance away (particularly the Dartford Crossing which has the highest capacity). Moreover, these alternative crossings have little spare capacity to accommodate diverted traffic, hence the adverse impact of incidents on traffic flows at the Blackwall Tunnel and on the wider network are exacerbated in terms of congestion and delay.

S.4.7 A consequence of these constraints affecting its use is that there is significant variability in journey times for journeys made via the Blackwall

Page 38 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Tunnel, particularly in the northbound direction in the AM peak. In fact, journey time reliability on the Blackwall Tunnel corridor is notably lower than for any other radial corridor on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) both in the AM and PM peak periods. This often has knock-on impacts on other strategic road corridors, when users are forced to re-route away from the Blackwall Tunnel when congestion is particularly heavy and when there are closures.

S.4.8 In addition, the coverage of PT (and particularly bus services) is relatively limited in some parts of the ESR as a result of the very limited cross-river bus network. Bus route 108, the one bus service that uses the Blackwall Tunnel, can suffer from slow peak journey speed, poor reliability and major disruption during times the Tunnel is closed. It also has to operate with single deck vehicles due to the height restriction on the northbound tunnel bore.

S.5 Future ‘baseline’ growth and impacts

S.5.1 Population and employment is forecast to rise rapidly across London between 2011 and 2041, but particularly in the ESR. Population in the ESR is forecast to grow by 35% over this period (compared to 26% across London) and employment is also forecast to grow by 43% (compared to 21% across London). Forecast growth is higher still in the three Silvertown Tunnel host boroughs of Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets, with population rising by between 44% and 59% and employment rising by between 59% and 103%.

S.5.2 As a result of this growth, it is forecast that between 2012 and 2021 the total volume of trips will continue to rise by almost 10% across the ESR. Most of these new trips will be made on the PT network, and the planned investment in PT capacity and connectivity means these trips can be accommodated on the PT network, albeit with some degree of standing and crowding.

S.5.3 Nonetheless, because not all journeys can be made by PT and levels of freight traffic will increase, there will inevitably be growth in trips made by private vehicles. Demand for the existing river crossings will hence increase further. At the Blackwall Tunnel, demand relative to capacity will increase significantly at peak times, particularly in the southbound direction during the PM peak when demand relative to actual flow is forecast to increase from 104% in 2012 to 142% in the 2021 Reference Case. The resultant levels of delay and congestion on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel would be significantly higher than current levels.

Page 39 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

S.5.4 In a future year scenario without the Scheme, therefore, the absence of new road crossings means there will be limited capacity for growth in cross-river road vehicle trips in the ESR, which will lead to increased levels of queuing and congestion on the approaches to existing crossings (and associated air quality impacts). As a result, average journey times and delays – which are already significant – are expected to increase significantly across the area, with knock-on negative impacts for network resilience. This will exacerbate existing network performance problems in terms of congestion and delay, which will have a knock-on impact on local bus services, and further constrain levels of connectivity to labour markets (for businesses) and jobs (for residents).

S.6 Impacts of the Scheme during construction

S.6.1 The indicative construction programme for the Scheme is around four years, and the programme would require the establishment of a worksite around each proposed tunnel portal location.

S.6.2 As the construction of the Silvertown Tunnel would require the transport of a large volume of excavated material, the Silvertown worksite north of the River Thames is likely to be the main worksite; it would minimise the impact of the works on current land uses and maximise the potential for use of river transport. River transport of excavated material, known as spoil, and construction materials and goods could therefore be used to reduce the number of HGV movements on the road network, and it is estimated that spoil removal by river vessel could significantly reduce lorry movements over the four year construction period. In the DCO application, TfL has committed to transport at least 50% by weight of all materials associated with the Scheme by river, as further described in the Code of Construction Practice (Document Reference: 6.10).

S.6.3 However, even if all materials were transported by road, it is not expected that there would be a significant adverse impact on the surrounding networks. Construction traffic routes to the worksites would primarily be along strategic routes such as the A12, the A13, the A102 and the A2, and forecast construction traffic would constitute a small proportion of total flow expected on these routes during the construction work phases.

S.6.4 The tunnel worksites at Greenwich and Silvertown would lead to some localised impacts e.g. access to residences and businesses in the immediate area. A range of mitigation measures have been identified as a result, including temporary diversions for vehicular traffic, pedestrians and cyclists.

Page 40 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

S.6.5 In general, the impacts on the surrounding networks for all transport modes would be relatively small for a scheme of this size as the construction worksites would be conveniently located in relation to the river and the strategic road network.

S.7 Traffic and transport impacts of the Scheme in operation

S.7.1 The combination of additional cross-river highway capacity provided by the Silvertown Tunnel, the imposition of the proposed user charge, and the potential provision of improved cross-river bus services results in the overall impact of the Scheme being a net reduction in daily traffic demand on the highway network, including cross-river demand, in the ESR.

S.7.2 In the 2021 Assessed Case, demand to use the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels also reduces during peak periods when compared with use of the Blackwall Tunnel crossing alone in the Reference Case. However, actual traffic flows3 through both tunnels in the Assessed Case are forecast to be higher than through the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case.

S.7.3 This reflects the fact that, unlike in the Reference Case, traffic flows with the Scheme in operation broadly match demand in all periods of the day (i.e. traffic flows are within crossing capacity in all periods). As a result, congestion and delay on the approaches to the tunnels are significantly reduced. The Scheme is therefore capable of increasing the throughput of vehicles through the crossing corridor at the busiest times without causing an overall increase in traffic, through a combination of the provision of new road capacity and demand management. Overall the user charge acts as an effective mechanism for suppressing induced traffic4.

S.7.4 The ability to use the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels without encountering significant delay and congestion means that drivers paying the user charge are more likely to travel at the time of their choosing, rather than earlier or later in order to avoid the worst of the traffic. With the Scheme, the peak traffic flow periods – which are currently very extended – are likely to contract at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels, so that the distribution of trips across peak periods comes more into line with those on other major routes in London.

S.7.5 The choice of which tunnel to use to cross the River Thames would be largely dependent on the users' origin or destination north of the river, as the

3 A summary explanation of the difference between demand and actual flow is provided in Figure 1-4 in Chapter 1. 4 Further information on induced traffic is provided in Appendix B.

Page 41 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

tunnels would share a common approach on the A102 south of the river. The Blackwall Tunnel would remain a strategic cross-river highway link with the Scheme in place, and is expected to accommodate the majority of traffic through the corridor due to its existing connections to strategic routes such as the A12 and the A13. The Silvertown Tunnel would provide optimum road access to the Royal Docks area (including the Enterprise Zone), parts of the City of London, and the Isle of Dogs including Canary Wharf.

S.7.6 The complementary function of each tunnel, serving both traffic using strategic routes north of the River Thames and trips with origins or destinations in areas in the vicinity of the northern portal, results in the overall distribution of all cross-river trips on the corridor not changing significantly from current observed patterns. Many trips travelling to and from areas such as Canary Wharf and the Royal Docks would make a minor change to their route to use the Silvertown Tunnel in the Assessed Case as against the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case.

S.7.7 Consequently, the mean average and profile of trip lengths through the Blackwall/Silvertown crossing corridor is very similar in both the 2021 Reference and Assessed Cases. Average AM peak hour northbound trip length reduces marginally while PM peak hour southbound trip length increases marginally.

S.7.8 The most pronounced transport impacts of the Scheme in operation are on road network performance and would generally be seen at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels and on their approach roads. In particular, noticeable reductions in Volume to Capacity Ratios (VCR) and junction delays are shown on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel on both sides of the River Thames.

S.7.9 With the Scheme in operation journey times through the Blackwall Tunnel in the peak direction in peak periods would be reduced by up to 20 minutes, leading to improved cross-river connectivity for residents and businesses in the ESR. As well as significantly improving journey times and the day-to-day reliability of the road network, the Scheme would considerably enhance network resilience to traffic incidents (and reduce consequential network disruption) by reducing the number of over-height vehicle incidents and the adverse impacts of incidents generally at the Blackwall Tunnel on traffic flows. The Scheme would also significantly enhance the resilience of the network in the event of a long-term closure of either tunnel, for example, due to a major incident such as a fire or toxic spillage.

S.7.10 Changes in road network performance elsewhere on the network and at other crossings in east London are minimal across all three modelled time

Page 42 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

periods5 with the Scheme in operation, indicating that the pattern of traffic using these crossings would not be significantly affected by the Scheme.

S.7.11 Where increases in traffic flows at other crossings are forecast, these are small relative to total flows. Similarly, where increases in traffic flows are forecast at junctions across the wider network, the impacts are generally minimal and, based on modelling undertaken to-date, could be effectively mitigated.

S.7.12 TfL recognises that traffic demand across London will evolve between the DCO application and Scheme implementation, meaning that the road network may look materially different in six to eight years' time when compared with the Reference Case, which only includes planned interventions and formally committed developments in line with WebTAG guidance. Committing to junction-specific mitigations is therefore not appropriate at this stage and may in fact conflict with the objectives of subsequent projects and programmes.

S.7.13 Instead, it is proposed that junctions across an extensive area of the road network around the Scheme would be monitored, and mitigations would be implemented under existing powers where appropriate based on assessments of actual traffic impacts closer to Scheme opening. Further details on this approach are provided in the Monitoring Strategy (Document Reference: 7.6) and the Traffic Impacts Mitigation Strategy (TIMS) (Document Reference: 7.7).

S.7.14 A major benefit of the Scheme is the opportunity it provides to significantly enhance the bus network. Through reducing delay and providing a full-height tunnel (as opposed to the Blackwall Tunnel northbound bore, which has a 4m height restriction) with a designated lane for buses and HGVs, new and extended cross-river bus routes, amounting to around forty buses per hour in each direction, could be provided which would considerably improve PT accessibility in the areas served either side of the river. In the 2021 Assessed Case almost 30% of trips made through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels would be made via bus or coach, compared to just over 10% today.

S.7.15 The detailed design of the Scheme would improve access for pedestrians and cyclists, taking account of local community needs while being functional, practical and economical. It would help to create a legible street network that promotes walking and cycling, and defines spaces through public realm

5 Traffic modelling was undertaken for a weekday AM peak hour (08:00-09:00), an average weekday inter-peak hour (between 10:00and 16:00), and a weekday PM peak hour (17:00-18:00).

Page 43 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

rather than highways. On the north side of the River Thames, the General Arrangement Plans indicate the provision of non motorised user routes in the vicinity of the Tidal Basin Roundabout. To the south of the river, the Boord Street pedestrian and cycle bridge would be replaced with a new bridge aligned with Boord Street that meets all relevant TfL standards. Step free access over the A102 close to the location of the existing Boord Street bridge would be maintained during the construction and operation of the Scheme.

S.7.16 TfL has also agreed with the host boroughs to explore further and provide funding for a number of additional initiatives that would help to improve the pedestrian and cycling network. These improvements would be delivered via a variety of measures, for example Section 106 style agreements. TfL is also proposing to produce a future EAL fares strategy document in consultation with the host boroughs, which would be published ahead of the opening of the tunnel. This strategy is not part of the Scheme and the final decision on EAL fares will be made by the future Mayor of London, but the proposed Scheme improvements to pedestrian and cycle access across the Tidal Basin Roundabout would be designed to improve access to the EAL and enhance the role of the EAL as a local crossing.

S.7.17 Access to the labour market and jobs would, on the whole, be significantly improved with the Scheme. Accessibility to jobs by PT would improve as a result of the enhanced bus network made possible by the Scheme and the journey time and reliability benefits it would bring for bus users. Accessibility by private vehicle would also improve significantly in terms of journey times, with residents south of the River Thames estimated to find over 200,000 additional potential jobs accessible within a 45 minute journey time in the AM peak. And while the introduction of the user charge would result in the cross- river accessibility for car commuters being negatively affected in terms of generalised cost, car-based business trips would generally see a significant improvement in accessibility due to the higher values of time for these trips. Businesses and freight users would benefit overall from the improvements provided by the Scheme.

Page 44 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Transport Assessment

1.1.1 The Silvertown Tunnel scheme (the Scheme) involves the construction of a twin bore road tunnel providing a new connection between the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach on Greenwich Peninsula (Royal Borough of Greenwich) and the Tidal Basin Roundabout junction on the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing/Silvertown Way (London Borough of Newham). The location of the proposed tunnel is shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1: Overview of proposed Silvertown Tunnel location

1.1.2 The Scheme also includes the introduction of free-flow user charging on both the Blackwall Tunnel (northern portal located in London Borough of Tower Hamlets) and at the new Silvertown Tunnel6. This measure is intended to play a fundamental role in managing traffic demand and supporting the financing of the construction, maintenance and operation of the Silvertown Tunnel.

1.1.3 The purpose of this Transport Assessment (TA) is to set out the traffic and transport related effects of the Scheme, how Scheme impacts requiring

6 It not proposed that user charges are implemented at the Rotherhithe Tunnel or the Woolwich Ferry as part of the Scheme.

Page 45 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

mitigation would be identified, and the systems that would be engaged to determine mitigation requirements. It has been prepared with reference to current guidance produced by both Transport for London (TfL)7 and the Department for Transport (DfT)8.

1.1.4 In February 2016 the TfL Board, chaired by the Mayor of London, approved the submission of an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the Secretary of State for Transport for powers to construct, operate and maintain the Scheme. The requirement for a DCO is a result of a direction given by the Secretary of State under the Planning Act 2008 to treat the of the Scheme as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) – further details are provided in Chapter 2.

1.1.5 TfL has subsequently submitted a suite of documents covering different aspects of the Scheme to the Planning Inspectorate as part of the DCO application in April 2016, including this TA. The TA should be read in conjunction with the other documents that form the application for a full understanding of the Scheme and its implications.

1.2 Previous consultations

1.2.1 As part of the development of the Scheme, TfL published a suite of documents for informal consultation in October 2014, including an Introductory Transport Assessment. A separate consultation was also undertaken on proposals for replacement of the Woolwich Ferry and new crossings east of Silvertown.

1.2.2 The consultation, which ran until December 2014, resulted in over 4,600 responses from businesses, organisations, local authorities, government departments and members of the public. Two separate reports were subsequently published by TfL, addressing the outcomes:

 the Consultation Analysis Report9, published in March 2015 detailing all the issues raised by respondents to the consultation; and

7 http://www.tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/transport-assessment-guidance 8 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/transport-evidence-bases-in-plan- making/transport-evidence-bases-in-plan-making-guidance/; http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/travel-plans-transport-assessments-and- statements-in-decision-taking/transport-assessments-and-statements/; https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular- strategic-road.pdf 9 https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/silvertown-consultation/user_uploads/silvertown-tunnel- consultation-report.pdf

Page 46 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 the Responses to Issues Raised Report10, published in June 2015 detailing TfL’s response to the aforementioned issues.

1.2.3 A further suite of documents, revised to reflect the outcome of the October 2014 consultation, was subsequently published for statutory consultation in October 2015, including a Preliminary Transport Assessment. The statutory consultation, which ran until November 2015, resulted in over 4,000 responses, and a Consultation Report (Document Reference: 5.1) detailing the outcome is included in the DCO submission.

1.3 The need for the Scheme

1.3.1 The Scheme is proposed in response to the three transport problems that exist at the Blackwall Tunnel: congestion, frequent closures and a lack of resilience (owing to the lack of proximate alternative crossings). These problems have adverse effects on the economy and local environment, and in the context of continued significant growth can only get worse, also increasing their secondary adverse impacts. Failing to address these problems could hamper the sustainable and optimal growth of London and the UK.

1.3.2 The importance of an effective highway river crossing in east London for national growth is recognised in the designation of the Scheme as an NSIP in a direction given by the Secretary of State. The designation direction states that congestion at the Blackwall Tunnel is having an impact on the national road network that the Scheme could address. Critically, it highlights why the proposal has national significance: given the position of London as an economic driver nationally, any decrease in efficiency in London's transport network may have a consequential detrimental impact nationally.

1.3.3 The need to act has become more pressing as London continues to grow and land-uses in east London have changed to reflect a developing economy and growing population. Much of the land around the safeguarded area11 for the Scheme is now high-density residential, and more development is forthcoming both on the Greenwich Peninsula and at Royal Docks. Although the safeguarding means that it is feasible to build a tunnel, competing demands for space will make this more difficult in the future, and the opportunity to construct the Silvertown Tunnel could be permanently lost.

10 https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/rivercrossings/silvertown-consultation/user_uploads/silvertown- responses-to-issues-raised-report.pdf-1 11 Safeguarding is a formal process, undertaken by the DfT, to protect land required for major new infrastructure projects from future development. The Safeguarding Directions, made by the Secretary of State for Transport, instruct local planning authorities to consult TfL on planning applications for land within the safeguarded area for the Scheme.

Page 47 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

1.4 Scheme description

1.4.1 The Silvertown Tunnel would be approximately 1.4km long and would be able to accommodate large vehicles including double-deck buses. It would include a dedicated bus, coach and goods vehicle lane, which would enable TfL to provide additional cross-river bus routes. Figure 1-2 shows the proposed alignment in more detail.

1.4.2 On the north side, the tunnel approach road connects to the Tidal Basin Roundabout, which would be altered to create a new signal-controlled roundabout linking the Silvertown Way, Dock Road and the Lower Lea Crossing. Dock Road would be realigned to accommodate the new tunnel and approach road. On the south side, the A102 would be widened to create new slip road links to the Silvertown Tunnel. A new flyover would be built to take southbound traffic exiting the Blackwall Tunnel over the northbound approach to the Silvertown Tunnel. The Scheme includes minor changes to Tunnel Avenue including the removal of the bus-only gate allowing access for all vehicles between Blackwall Lane and Ordnance Crescent. The Boord Street footbridge over the A102 would be replaced with a pedestrian and cycle bridge.

1.4.3 New portal buildings would be located close to each tunnel portal to house the plant and equipment necessary to operate the tunnel.

1.4.4 Main construction works could commence in late 2018 and would last approximately 4 years with the new tunnel opening in 2022/23. A Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) would be used to bore the main tunnel sections under the river with shorter sections of cut and cover tunnel at either end linking the bored sections of the tunnel to the portals. The proposal is to erect and launch the TBM from specially constructed chambers at Silvertown and Greenwich Peninsula where the bored sections and cut and cover sections of the tunnel connect.

1.4.5 The main construction compound would be located at Silvertown, utilising the existing facilities at Thames Wharf along with a new temporary jetty for the removal of spoil and delivery of materials by river. A secondary site compound would be located adjacent to the alignment of the proposed cut and cover tunnel on the Greenwich Peninsula.

Page 48 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 1-2: Proposed Silvertown Tunnel alignment

Page 49 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

User charging

1.4.6 When the Silvertown Tunnel is open, a user charge would be applied at both it and the Blackwall Tunnel. TfL would set out the charges to be applied in a Statement of Charges made available in advance of the Scheme opening.

1.4.7 The primary purpose of the user charge is to manage demand for the Scheme. A secondary purpose is to pay for the Scheme. By managing traffic demand, TfL would also be able to manage the environmental impacts associated with traffic.

1.4.8 Without user charges, the Silvertown Tunnel would add highway capacity that by itself would go only part of the way towards addressing the three transport problems of the Blackwall Tunnel (congestion, closures and a lack of resilience). It has been well documented in recent years that the provision of additional highway capacity to address congestion in urban areas can prove to be of short-lived benefit. This reflects an effect known as 'induced traffic' in which the increased convenience of driving (owing to reduced journey times, for example) attracts additional traffic to the point where congestion that has initially been reduced returns to its former level.

1.4.9 Without user charges, induced traffic would occur resulting in increased congestion on the road network in the vicinity of the crossings, offsetting the benefits (in terms of congestion relief and improved resilience) of the Scheme. This potential adverse impact can be managed effectively through a user charge, which would act to suppress demand and is therefore a powerful and flexible tool to ensure the benefits of the additional capacity are secured. Revenue from user charging would also be used to support the construction, maintenance and operation of the Silvertown Tunnel.

1.4.10 It would be important that demand management could be used for as long as it is needed to ensure the ongoing delivery of the Scheme's objectives. This means that the user charges would continue after the capital costs of construction have been recouped and would likely be in place indefinitely. Further specific discussion of changing demand as a result of the Scheme and induced traffic can be found in Chapter 7 and in Appendix B.

1.4.11 The DCO would give TfL a general power to set the user charges prior to the Scheme opening and to make subsequent variations to the charges where this is necessary to manage traffic and its associated impacts. As well as giving flexibility over the level of the charges, the charging power would enable TfL to set and vary other aspects of the charges such as the times of

Page 50 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

day when charges apply, the classes of vehicles that different charges apply to, and the discounts and exemptions that are available.

1.4.12 For the purpose of assessing the likely effects of the Scheme at the DCO application stage, TfL has used what it considers would be the most appropriate charges based on its current forecasts of the conditions that will exist when the Silvertown Tunnel opens. The charges that have been used for the assessments are referred to throughout the application documents, including this TA, as 'the Assessed Case charges'. TfL has also undertaken sensitivity testing of the user charges in the Assessed Case to demonstrate that these can be varied to respond effectively to changing future conditions. The Assessed Case charges are shown in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Assessed charge per trip in 2014/15 prices12 Charging hours are 6 am to 10 pm Account holder - registered for auto Non account pay holder Off peak charge Peak charge Headline charge Weekday peak periods Weekdays between; 6 - 10 outside of peak am going period and all Northbound and times on 4 -7 pm going User type weekend Southbound At all times Motorcycle, moped, £1.50 £2.00 £3.00 motortricycle Car and small £1.75 £3.00 £4.00 van Large van and £3.00 £5.00 £6.00 minibus HGVs £7.50 £7.50 £8.50 Free (100% Free (100% Free (100% Bus and Coach discount) discount) discount)

1.4.13 The actual user charges that would apply would not be determined until nearer to the time that the Scheme opens to traffic. The Charging Statement (Document Reference 7.5) submitted with the DCO application explains how

12 Stated in today’s prices, the assumption is that these would increase for general inflation between now and tunnel opening. After the tunnel opens, the charge would increase for general inflation on a periodic basis.

Page 51 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

the Assessed Case user charges have been used for the purpose of assessing the likely traffic and environmental impacts of the Scheme, the results of which are set out in the Environmental Statement (Document Reference 6.1).

1.4.14 Both the Reference Case and Assessed Case included an assumption that the Woolwich Ferry will be retained as a free service and that the Rotherhithe Tunnel will remain un-charged.

Scheme objectives

1.4.15 Scheme objectives were identified with reference to the transport problems described above, and also draw from the National Policy Statement for National Networks, Mayoral policy as defined in the London Plan and Mayor's Transport Strategy (MTS), and further Scheme development work. The following Scheme objectives have been adopted:

 to improve the resilience of the river crossings in the highway network in east and south-east London to cope with planned and unplanned events and incidents;

 to improve the road network performance of the Blackwall Tunnel and its approach roads;

 to support economic and population growth, in particular in east and south-east London by providing improved cross-river transport links;

 to integrate with local and strategic land use policies;

 to minimise any adverse impacts of any proposals on communities, health, safety and the environment;

 to ensure where possible that any proposals are acceptable in principle to key stakeholders, including affected boroughs;

 to achieve value for money and, through road user charging, to manage congestion.

1.4.16 The Case for the Scheme (Document Reference 7.1) contains an appraisal of all Scheme options against the above Scheme objectives.

1.5 Assessment tools, modelling and data

1.5.1 For the purposes of assessment and quantification, a number of transport planning tools and models were used to assess the following core future year crossing scenarios:

Page 52 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 Reference Cases13 (for 2021, 2031 and 2041) without the Scheme (‘do minimum’); and

 Assessed Cases (for 2021, 2031 and 2041) with the Scheme (‘do something’).

1.5.2 These future years align with the forecast years of TfL's suite of London-wide and sub-regional transport models (summarised later in this section), which are available in five-year steps from 2016 to 2041. Detailed analysis of Scheme impacts reported in the TA focusses on 2021 (with summaries provided for 2031 and 2041) for the following reasons:

 for the purpose of assessment, 2021 represents the opening year of the Scheme;

 2021 represents a worst case scenario for traffic-related environmental impacts (for example, air quality and noise) as it is universally acknowledged that these effects will lessen over time as vehicle technology improves; and

 there is more certainty in the planning and travel behaviour assumptions underpinning the 2021 forecasts when compared with those for 2031 and 2041.

1.5.3 As indicated in paragraph 1.4.4, the new tunnel is expected to open in 2022/23. However, the use of 2021 as the opening year for the Assessed Case (with the Scheme in place) conforms with DfT guidance on Transport User Benefits Appraisal (TUBA). This states that “if scheme opening is only 1 or 2 years after the first modelled year then the modelled year data can be used to represent the scheme opening year”14.

1.5.4 Estimates of trip generation and distribution were derived from TfL's London Transportation Studies (LTS) model and a version of the London Regional Demand Model (LoRDM) adapted specifically for east London river crossing assessments. LTS uses population and employment forecasts and other inputs to predict the number of trips made in London in future. These forecasts feed into LoRDM, which is a demand balancing model that incorporates a Demand Model component but forecasts highway route choice using the River Crossings Highway Assignment Model (RXHAM) and

13 The Reference Case includes an assumption that the Woolwich Ferry will be retained as a free service and that the Rotherhithe Tunnel will remain un-charged. 14 DfT, January 2016, ‘TUBA: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), Version 1.9.6’.

Page 53 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Public Transport (PT) route choice using the Railplan PT Assignment Model15.

1.5.5 The Reference Case and Assessed Case model projections are based on population and employment growth forecasts for London developed by the GLA, as detailed in section 5.2 in Chapter 5. Future population and employment growth in particular is subject to uncertainty, and therefore these forecasts represent a single most-likely point within a range of plausible planning scenarios developed by the GLA for each future year.

1.5.6 This was one reason why extensive sensitivity testing of alternative scenarios was undertaken. In addition to the modelling of the core scenarios described above, these sensitivity tests provide a range of plausible outcomes, and the Assessed Case forms a single point within that range. Further details of the sensitivity tests undertaken are provided in the Traffic Forecasting Report (Document Reference: 7.9). Summary results of a number of sensitivity tests are also provided in section 7.5 in Chapter 7 of this TA, including:

 low and high growth tests, to demonstrate the impacts of the Scheme (including the flexibility of the user charge as a demand management tool) across the aforementioned range of planning scenarios developed for 2021; and

 a test incorporating the provision of new river crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere in addition to the Scheme, to provide an illustrative example of the effects of the Scheme in the context of the wider TfL east London river crossings programme – it should be noted that proposals for new river crossings to the east of Silvertown were outside the scope of the assessment of the Scheme itself, as they are not committed at this stage.

1.5.7 The river crossing version of LoRDM has a base year of 2012 and utilised the latest versions of the relevant base year assignment models available in January 2015. The timescales associated with calibrating and validating a strategic sub-regional multi-modal model and then using it to test multiple future year scenarios to support a major scheme appraisal means that 2012 was the most up-to-date year for which a base model could reasonably be developed to support the Scheme assessment. Major scheme appraisals undertaken by TfL and other government agencies typically utilise base models dating back a number of years for this reason, and 2012 is within

15 Further information on TfL's strategic models is available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications- and-reports/strategic-transport-and-land-use-models

Page 54 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

acceptable limits for the age of base model data suggested in Government guidance16.

1.5.8 The approach to developing the strategic modelling suite described above was in line with current guidance and has been thoroughly reviewed by third party consultants. TfL has also sought and taken on board independent advice on model development from the DfT and leading external experts including Dr Denvil Coombe (one of the UK’s leading experts in the development of transport models, particularly with regard to the application of DfT WebTAG guidance and industry good practice).

1.5.9 In addition, an external audit undertaken in 2014 concluded that the models were suitable for the purpose of assessing the traffic and transport effects of the Scheme. The audit recommended a small number of refinements that TfL subsequently made to produce the latest versions, which have been used to model the Scheme impacts presented in this TA. The base year model and model projections were subject to rigorous assessment by TfL to establish confidence in modelling performance.

1.5.10 In 2015, TfL supported the host boroughs in undertaking a further audit of the modelling suite. This audit was a repeat of the 2014 audit on the latest versions, and similarly concluded that the models were suitable for the purpose of assessing the traffic and transport impacts of the Scheme.

1.5.11 RXHAM was used to assess strategic highway network conditions, and was developed using industry-standard SATURN strategic traffic modelling software to assess the impact of new river crossings on highway network performance in the ESR and beyond. The model was based on TfL's existing sub-regional East London Highway Assignment Model (ELHAM), with amendments made to enhance the model in the vicinity of river crossings.

1.5.12 The RXHAM simulation area is shown in green on the plan in Figure 1-3 and represents the area where all modelled junctions are coded in detail including signal timings etc – the surrounding buffer area shown in black does not include detailed junction coding, and traffic assignment is based on indicative link capacity.

16 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 12 (Traffic Appraisal of Road Schemes), Section 1 (Traffic Appraisal Manual).

Page 55 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 1-3: RXHAM simulation area (shown in green)

Blackwall Tunnel Woolwich Ferry

Dartford Crossing

M25

1.5.13 In terms of traffic flow, RXHAM produces two types of output: demand flow and actual flow. Both are reported in subsequent chapters of this document, and a brief explanation of the difference is provided in the text box in Figure 1-4.

Figure 1-4: Demand flow v actual flow from RXHAM

Demand flow in RXHAM represents all forecast traffic on the road network in any modelled time period. It relates directly back to highway trip generation forecasts from LTS and the LoRDM Demand Model (which are related in turn to underlying population and job forecasts, and mode share assumptions for different journeys). The impact of congestion on the network is reflected in the route choices made by drivers when demand flow is assigned to links and junctions but ultimately, all traffic is assigned to the network for the full length of all journeys irrespective of any capacity constraints. In contrast, actual flow represents the traffic that is able to pass along a link or through a junction in any modelled time period, accounting for the capacity constraints associated with the link or junction in question. The difference between demand and actual flow on any link or at any junction therefore represents the traffic that could not be assigned to the network in the modelled hour as a result of the capacity constraint. This is ultimately reported by the RXHAM as queued traffic at the end of the time period, and results in a reduction in network performance and an increase in journey time delays. The higher the difference between demand and actual flow, the higher the delay incurred by road network users.

Page 56 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

1.5.14 RXHAM is the primary tool used in the assessment of Scheme road network impacts because it covers in detail an extensive area of the road network as shown in Figure 1-3, allowing an understanding of the dynamic effects of the Scheme on the full length of a wide range of different highway journeys, including those that do not cross the river. However, while aggregate impacts are modelled robustly, a strategic model of this nature is by definition less effective at replicating certain more localised highway impacts, for example the variable behavioural responses of individual drivers, particularly at uncontrolled junctions and merges/diverges. In order to assess such impacts, TRANSYT and LINSIG models were used to assess individual junctions, and a VISSIM micro-simulation model was developed covering the road network in the vicinity of the Scheme17.

1.5.15 TfL’s Railplan was used to assess the impact of potential enhancements to the cross-river bus network made possible by the Scheme. Railplan is a PT model that predicts the PT mode (rail, underground, bus) and route that a person would choose to get to their destination, as well as the associated crowding impacts.

1.5.16 A Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) assessment was also undertaken to measure the impact on accessibility of potential enhancements to the bus network as a result of the Scheme. PTAL measures the accessibility of a location to the PT network, taking into account walk access times to stops and stations and service frequencies. The method provides a way of measuring the density of the PT network at any location in Greater London. Scoring ranges from 0 to 40+, with scores then banded into levels from 1a (very poor accessibility by London standards) to 6b (very good accessibility by London standards).

1.5.17 The assessment of impacts of the Scheme on pedestrians and cyclists was informed by the completion of a ‘Pedestrian Environment Review System’ (PERS) assessment and a ‘Cycling Level of Service’ (CLoS)-style assessment. PERS is a tool that measures the quality of the pedestrian environment through subjective review, and generates a measure of the quality and condition of pedestrian facilities. CLoS is a tool that focuses on the ‘rideability’ of cycling infrastructure and provides a common standard for assessing the performance of links and junctions.

17 Information on the assessment of localised highway impacts is provided in Appendix C and summarised in Chapter 7.

Page 57 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

1.5.18 Data was obtained from a range of sources, including traffic counts, centrally held databases, road side interviews and bespoke assessments. Wherever possible the sources of data used in this TA have been referenced.

1.6 Transport Assessment study area

1.6.1 The wider study area considered in this TA equates with the RXHAM simulation area shown in Figure 1-3. This study area is shown in Figure 1-5 and covers the entirety of the road network in all three of the host boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Greenwich and Newham) and the remaining boroughs in the ESR (Lewisham, Bexley, Hackney, Redbridge, Barking & Dagenham, and Havering). It also covers extensive areas of the road network beyond, including the M25 between junction 4 (with the A21) and junction 25 (with the A10), and the A282 Dartford Crossing.

1.6.2 Preliminary testing of the RXHAM indicated that the Scheme is expected to have a very limited impact on traffic volumes and road network performance across this wider study area, with significant impacts typically occurring in the vicinity of the Scheme and particularly on the approach roads to the new tunnel. This was confirmed once modelling for the Assessed Case defined in this TA was finalised, providing clear evidence that an assessment covering the aforementioned wider study area is sufficient to fully understand all strategic highway-related Scheme impacts.

Page 58 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 1-5: TA wider study area

1.6.3 Consequently, the most wide-ranging highway-related impacts reported in this document all refer to the wider study area. Highway impacts are also reported in more detail for two specific geographies within this area, as follows:

 Borough-level summaries are provided to define the impact of the Scheme on the host boroughs and others within the ESR;

 Impacts are reported for all ESR river crossings and approach roads including Tower Bridge, the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the Blackwall Tunnel, the Silvertown Tunnel (in the Assessed Case), and the Woolwich Ferry, plus the Dartford Crossing to the east – particular focus is given to impacts around the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels, as the modelling indicates that Scheme impacts are most pronounced in the vicinity of the Scheme.

1.6.4 In the case of PT, the impact of the Scheme is reported for a catchment area covered by modelled enhancements to the bus network associated with the Assessed Case. These enhancements are summarised in Chapter 7 and described in detail in Appendix F, and cover a significant area of the three host boroughs.

Page 59 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

1.7 Transport Assessment document structure

1.7.1 The structure of this TA is as follows:

 Chapter 2 summarises the national, regional and local policy and plans relevant to delivery of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme.

 Chapter 3 describes the current transport networks in the vicinity of the tunnel and describes the current travel patterns on the aforementioned networks, covering all modes of transport.

 Chapter 4 highlights current issues concerned with poor network performance and quality of provision, informed by the review of transport networks and travel patterns.

 Chapter 5 describes how those issues are likely to evolve in a future Reference Case scenario without the Scheme in place.

 Chapter 6 identifies the transport-related impacts of the construction phases of the Scheme, including forecasts of construction-related traffic and associated impacts on the road network in the vicinity of the tunnel work-sites.

 Chapter 7 identifies the transport-related impacts of the scheme following its completion, covering all modes of transport in an opening year of 2021 plus assessments of 2031 and 2041 – the analysis in this chapter is focussed on the Assessed Case proposal summarised in section 1.4.

Page 60 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

2 RELEVANT TRANSPORT POLICY AND PLANS

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 This chapter sets out the key national, regional and local planning policy documents that are relevant to the Scheme. A detailed appraisal of the Scheme against these policies is set out in the Case for the Scheme document.

2.2 National policy

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)

2.2.1 In June 2012 the Secretary of State for Transport gave a direction under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 that the proposed Silvertown Tunnel be treated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP).

2.2.2 The NSIP direction means that the project may only be authorised by means of a Development Consent Order (DCO) made by the Secretary of State under the Planning Act 2008, which must be determined to be in accordance with the relevant national policy statement and any other matters that the Secretary of State thinks are both important and relevant.

2.2.3 The National Networks National Policy Statement (NNNPS) 1.3 notes that, in the context of section 35 schemes, the relevant development plan is likely to be an important and relevant matter especially in establishing the need for the development. Under section 104 of the Planning Act 2008 The Secretary of State must decide the DCO application for the Scheme in accordance with the NNNPS.

2.2.4 The Scheme was considered to be of national significance for the following reasons:

 London as an engine for economic growth nationally;

 the projected growth of London;

 current congestion at the Blackwall Tunnel is having a direct impact on the strategic road network; and

 the size and nature of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme and comparison to other NSIPs.

Page 61 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

National Networks National Policy Statement (NNNPS)

2.2.5 On 17 December 2014 the final version of the NNNPS was published with formal designation occurring in January 2015. The Planning Act 2008 requires applications to be decided in accordance with the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS).

2.2.6 The NNNPS deals with road and rail at a strategic level. Section 2 of the NNNPS sets out what road and rail NSIP schemes such as Silvertown Tunnel need to deliver:

 “The Government will deliver national networks that meet the country’s long term needs; supporting a prosperous and competitive economy and improving overall quality of life, as part of a wider transport system. This means:

o networks with the capacity and connectivity and resilience to support national and local economic activity and facilitate growth and create jobs; o networks which support and improve journey quality, reliability and safety; o networks which support the delivery of environmental goals and the move to a low carbon economy; o networks which join up our communities and link effectively to each other”.

2.2.7 The NNNPS (paragraph 2.6) expresses the ‘need for development on national networks to support national and local economic growth and regeneration, particularly in the most disadvantaged areas’ and states that ‘improved and new transport links can facilitate economic growth by bringing businesses closer to their workers, their markets and each other’.

2.2.8 Paragraph 2.27 advises that ‘new road alignments and corresponding links, including alignments that cross a river or estuary, may be needed to support increased capacity and connectivity’. The NNNPS also states that ‘river and estuarial crossings will normally be funded by tolls or road user charges’ (3.25) and that ‘proposals for tolling or user charging to fund new capacity and/or manage demands on roads or proposed roads’ are a matter for local and other traffic authorities (paragraph 3.26).

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

2.2.9 The NPPF sets out the Government’s national planning policies for England and outlines how these are expected to be applied by local authorities and others. Paragraph 3 states that, while the NPPF does not contain specific

Page 62 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

policies for NSIPs, it may be considered by a Secretary of State to be a matter that is important and relevant.

2.2.10 The NPPF highlights a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, which should be seen as a ‘golden thread’ running through both plan-making and decision-taking.

2.3 Regional policy

London Plan

2.3.1 The London Plan is the strategic plan for the area covered by the Greater London Authority (GLA). The document sets the economic, environmental, transport and social framework for London. It forms part of the development plan for London and London Boroughs’ local plans need to be in general conformity with it. This version was first published in July 2011. It was updated in 2013 to ensure conformity with the NPPF and draft further alterations were consulted on in 2014 with the consolidated plan published in March 2015.

2.3.2 Chapter 3 of the London Plan (2015) refers to the Mayor’s development proposals for ‘new and enhanced river crossings in east London to improve accessibility and the resilience of local transport networks’ and to ‘support economic growth in the area and link local communities’. They include:

“a new road-based tunnel crossing between the Greenwich Peninsula and Silvertown” (6.20).

2.3.3 Policy 6.12 outlines the assessment criteria for new roads or increasing road capacity in London. They include:

 the contribution to London’s sustainable development and regeneration including improved connectivity;

 the extent of any additional traffic and any effects it may have on the locality, and the extent to which congestion is reduced;

 how net benefit to London’s environment can be provided;

 how conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, PT users, freight and local residents can be improved; and

 how safety for all is improved.

2.3.4 Policy 6.12 also states that ‘proposals should show, overall, a net benefit across these criteria when taken as a whole. All proposals must show how any dis-benefits will be mitigated’.

Page 63 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS)

2.3.5 The MTS (2010) is part of the strategic policy framework to support and shape the economic and social development of London over the next 20 years. It sets out the Mayor’s transport vision for London. It also includes details on how Transport for London and partners will deliver the strategy over the next 20 years.

2.3.6 In section 5.8 (394), the MTS sets out the Mayor’s reasons and support for:

“additional road-based river crossings in east London as part of a package of transport improvements”.

2.3.7 Proposal 39 sets out that the Mayor will take forward a package of river crossings in east London that will include:

“a new fixed link at Silvertown to provide congestion relief to the Blackwall Tunnel and provide local links for vehicle traffic”.

2.3.8 MTS proposal 130 refers to considerations of managing traffic demand through pricing. It states that:

“the Mayor will also consider imposing charges or tolls to support specific infrastructure improvements, such as river crossings”.

2.4 Local policy

2.4.1 Each of the three host boroughs has a suite of documents that form the development plan for the borough.

Royal Borough of Greenwich

2.4.2 The current relevant development plan documents for Greenwich comprise:

 Core Strategy with Detailed Policies, July 2014; and

 Greenwich Peninsula West Masterplan SPD 2012.

2.4.3 Royal Borough of Greenwich’s Core strategy policy IM3 states that they will work to:

“deliver a new package of Thames river crossings in East London including the continued safeguarding of the Silvertown Link Tunnel”.

London Borough of Newham

2.4.4 The current relevant development plan documents for Newham comprise:

 Core Strategy, January 2012;

Page 64 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 Saved Unitary Development Plan policies, February 2012;

 Royal Docks Vision, March 2011;

 Canning Town and Custom House SPD, July 2008;

 Royal Docks OAPF, anticipated for adoption during 2016.

2.4.5 LB Newham’s Core strategy policy S1 supports improving connectivity including new river crossings. Policy INF1 states that support will be given to safeguarded river crossings at West Silvertown and Gallions Reach as well as to other river crossings.

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

2.4.6 The current development plan documents for Tower Hamlets comprise:

 Core Strategy, September 2010; and

 Managing Development Document, April 2013.

2.5 Key points

2.5.1 The Secretary of State for Transport has issued a direction that the proposed Silvertown Tunnel be treated as a NSIP by the Secretary of State for Transport for the role it will play in addressing current congestion at the Blackwall Tunnel and in supporting the economic development of London and the wider UK economy. This direction means that the project will require development consent from the Secretary of State for Transport under the Planning Act 2008. The application for development consent must be determined in accordance with the NNNPS.

2.5.2 Existing national, regional and local plans and policies give general and specific support to new road-based river crossings in east London, particularly at Silvertown, to improve cross-river accessibility and to relieve congestion and improve the resilience of the highway network. Both national and regional policy documents contain criteria that must be taken into account in the assessment of the Scheme.

Page 65 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

Page 66 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3 CURRENT TRANSPORT NETWORKS AND TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR

3.1 Overview

3.1.1 This chapter describes the transport networks that facilitate existing movement in the vicinity of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, and describes in summary the role of the Blackwall Tunnel in the existing road network.

3.2 Road network

3.2.1 As in other parts of London, TfL has responsibility for managing the strategic roads of east and south-east London, in the form of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). The TLRN and (for east and south-east London) the A-road network under the responsibility of the Boroughs are highlighted in Figure 3-1, which also identifies the locations of the three highway river crossings in the GLA area east of Tower Bridge.

Figure 3-1: East London river crossings on the TLRN

A12

A13

A2

A20

Page 67 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3.2.2 The map shows that there are a number of strategically important radial routes that serve traffic travelling to and from the centre of London, as well as a smaller number of orbital routes. Several of these roads converge at the Blackwall Tunnel. The strategic importance of the TLRN, and to a lesser extent the borough A-road network, is emphasised by an analysis of the total flows of traffic across the area. Figure 3-2 indicates two-way Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the strategic road network in east London in 2012, highlighting the significance of the A13, the A2, the A20, and the A12 in particular, as well as the A406 and the M25.

Figure 3-2: 2012 two-way Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the strategic road network in east London18

3.2.3 As Figure 3-2 also makes clear, several of these very busy routes converge at the Blackwall Tunnel, making the tunnel itself one of the busiest links on the network. In both directions, AADT is around 91,000 trips in comparison to around 133,000 at the Dartford crossing. Notably, the Woolwich Ferry carries comparatively little traffic (around 4,600), despite its location between the A406 North Circular and the A205 South Circular routes.

18 Source: annualised RXHAM base year traffic model data

Page 68 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Existing highway river crossings

3.2.4 Figure 3-3 illustrates the availability of road crossings of the River Thames in east and west London, from the edge of the Congestion Charging zone to the M25.

Figure 3-3: Tower Bridge to M25: five crossings in 23 km

3.2.5 Figure 3-3 shows that there are 18 crossings in 29km from Vauxhall Bridge to the M25 (Staines) in west London, but only five crossings in the 23km from Tower Bridge to the M25 (Dartford) in East London (inclusive). Highway river crossings of the Thames are accordingly, about four times as prevalent (by distance) west of Vauxhall Bridge as they are east of Tower Bridge.

3.2.6 As indicated above, the only strategically significant cross-river highway link (in terms of traffic volumes and use by longer-distance traffic) between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing is the Blackwall Tunnel.

3.2.7 The capacities of each of the three east London crossings are summarised in Table 3-1. This shows that the Woolwich Ferry can currently carry approximately 160-210 passenger car units (PCUs) per hour in each direction, making it a very minor link in comparison.

Page 69 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 3-1: Estimated one-way maximum capacities of road crossings in east London19 Approx. capacity Crossing Direction (PCUs/hr) Rotherhithe Tunnel Both 1,200 Northbound 3,200 Blackwall Tunnel Southbound 3,700-3,800 Woolwich Ferry Both 160-210

3.2.8 The Blackwall Tunnel has by far the greatest capacity of the three crossings, with an estimated maximum throughput around three times greater than the Rotherhithe Tunnel and some twenty times greater than the Woolwich Ferry. However, it also serves as a constraint on network capacity since it only carries two lanes of traffic in either direction (with additional restrictions on vehicle height, width and speed northbound due to the sub-standard dimensions of the northbound bore), while key approach roads on both sides of the River Thames (i.e. the A2, the A12 and the A13) carry three-lanes of traffic in each direction for much of their lengths.

3.2.9 Taking the above into account, it is clear that the Blackwall Tunnel essentially functions as the lynchpin river crossing of the strategic road network in east London, for the following reasons:

 it is one of only three highway crossings east of Tower Bridge within the GLA area;

 it lies at the convergence of two key radial traffic routes to the north of the River Thames (the A12 and the A13) and two key radial routes to the south (the A2 and the A20); and

 it can carry nearly three times more traffic than the two neighbouring crossings combined.

3.3 Existing public transport network

Rail-based public transport

3.3.1 There has been a period of sustained investment in PT capacity across the whole of east London over the past 20 years. Prior to 1999 there was only one rail crossing of the River Thames in east London in the form of the

19 Mott MacDonald: River Crossing Modelling Base Year Development and Validation Report, 2014. Note the capacities of these crossings vary both within and between days due to fluctuations in vehicle flow volumes, speeds and vehicle mix, as well as the ability of the road network to deliver traffic to the crossings, so the data should be treated as a guideline only. The capacity of the Woolwich Ferry is particularly variable due to the relatively high proportion of HGVs carried relative to overall traffic.

Page 70 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

London Underground East London Line, which provided only a local shuttle from New Cross/New Cross Gate to .

3.3.2 Since 1999, the following new cross-river PT links have been provided within the GLA area:

 Jubilee Line – opened 1999, and subsequently enhanced with more frequent and longer trains;

 Docklands Light Railway (DLR) – extended to Greenwich and Lewisham in 1999, and subsequently enhanced with longer trains, and to Woolwich in 2009;

 the London Underground East London Line was transferred to the London Overground network, with new services to a much wider range of destinations from 2010, and further services from 2012; and

 the Emirates Air Line (EAL) – opened in 2012 provides an additional cross-river shuttle service for pedestrians and cyclists between North Greenwich and Royal Victoria.

3.3.3 The significant increase in cross-river PT capacity in east London is illustrated in Figure 3-4, which clearly shows a marked increase in capacity in 1999 with the opening of the Jubilee line extension and the DLR extension to Lewisham. A further significant rise in PT capacity will be realised when Crossrail opens in 2018. The change in cross-river highway capacity in east London is also shown in the figure for comparison.

Figure 3-4: Cross-river PT and highway capacity change since 1992, east of Tower Bridge within London

Page 71 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3.3.4 The new cross-river links that have been implemented since 1999 are shown in Figure 3-5. In addition, High Speed 1 started operating frequent high speed trains between and east London in 2009, crossing the river through a tunnel just to the east of the Dartford Crossing.

Page 72 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-5: Cross-river rail-based PT network east of Tower Bridge (including EAL)

Page 73 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Buses

3.3.5 Figure 3-6 shows all standard bus routes in Greater London that at some point cross the River Thames. It excludes night time only bus routes and school services. Routes that cross the river in central London, using Vauxhall Bridge, Tower Bridge, or crossing points in between these two are coloured green. Routes which cross the river outside these crossings are coloured red.

Figure 3-6: Cross-river bus services in London

3.3.6 The figure highlights the notable disparity in cross-river bus provision between east and west London, which is a consequence of the very limited cross-river road connections. There are 47 bus routes that cross the river west of Vauxhall Bridge, and a single route (route 108) crossing the river east of Tower Bridge (using the Blackwall Tunnel).

3.3.7 Route 108 is a 24-hour service which operates between Stratford and Lewisham via the Blackwall Tunnel, and serves Blackheath, North

Page 74 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Greenwich, Bromley-by-Bow and Bow20. It is scheduled to run every ten minutes during the day and every 30 minutes at night.

Coaches

3.3.8 The Blackwall Tunnel is also currently used by eight coach companies that (as at February 2016) between them operate 90 inbound services to central London in the AM peak period (07:00-10:00), with a similar number of return services operating in the PM peak (16:00-19:00).

3.3.9 As shown in Figure 3-7, these routes cover a wide range of areas in Kent and south east London, with services running from as far away as the Isle of Sheppey, and Folkestone. The service pattern indicated dates from February 2016 and is subject to regular change, with services being added and withdrawn on a commercial basis.

Figure 3-7: Inbound commuter coach services using the Blackwall Tunnel (AM peak period, 07:00-10:00, February 2016)

3.3.10 Coach operators endeavour to utilise the spare capacity in the daytime period by undertaking private hire work, such as school-related services.

20 TfL London Buses are currently considering re-routing sections of the route so that it serves Chrisp Street and Violet Road, and terminates at Stratford International. A public consultation on these changes was undertaken in February and March 2016.

Page 75 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

These services link urban areas throughout the north Kent region with central London, via the Blackwall Tunnel.

River bus services

3.3.11 A number of scheduled river bus services operate on the River Thames east of Tower Bridge as illustrated in Figure 3-8. The main RB1 service operates at a 20-minute frequency between North Greenwich pier and central London. While the majority of trips are along the river rather than across it, the river services cater for some cross-river movements on the western side of Canary Wharf (RB4 Hilton-Canary Wharf and RB1 Greenland-Canary Wharf).

Figure 3-8: Scheduled river bus services in east London21

3.4 Existing local walking and cycling network

3.4.1 The EAL was the first part of the MTS river crossings programme to be delivered and provides a high quality link along the alignment of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, catering for pedestrians and cyclists seeking to travel between the Greenwich Peninsula and the Silvertown end of the Royal Docks. This brings passengers past the riverside and close to the main centres of activity on either side, Millennium Square for The O2 on the southern side, and ExCeL and the Siemens Crystal on the northern side.

3.4.2 Elsewhere in this area, there are only a limited number of dedicated cross- river links for pedestrians. The dedicated foot tunnels at Greenwich and Woolwich, built in the early years of the twentieth century, have recently been refurbished by Greenwich Council. The Rotherhithe Tunnel is also

21 Map of Scheduled River services, https://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/river-bus-tours- map.pdf

Page 76 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

open to pedestrians but in practice constitutes an uninviting walking environment and is only used by a handful of pedestrians each day.

3.4.3 Pedestrians can also use other PT links in the area to cross the river (Overground, Jubilee line, DLR) or the Woolwich Ferry.

Figure 3-9: Emirates Air Line (EAL) crossing of the Thames

3.4.4 The current walking network up to 800 metres (or about a 10-minute walk) from the existing Blackwall and proposed Silvertown tunnel portals is shown in Figure 3-10, with the EAL link shown in a dashed pink line.

Page 77 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-10: Existing walking network within 800m of the Blackwall and proposed Silvertown tunnel portals22

Emirates Air Line

3.4.5 The current cycling network in the vicinity of the existing Blackwall and proposed Silvertown Tunnel portals includes several designated cycle routes. Cycle Superhighway 3 is a well-used commuter route, which follows the A13 before cutting south to Naval Row, crossing Cotton Street and continuing along Poplar High Street towards . National Cycle Network Route 13 joins Cycle Superhighway 3 close to East India Dock Basin and runs across Lower Lea Crossing, Dock Road and along the northern boundary of Royal Victoria Dock.

3.4.6 The Thames Path, in particular on the eastern side of Greenwich Peninsula, is a very popular leisure cycle route. National Cycle Network Route 1, which also forms part of the European EuroVelo route network, crosses the River Thames at the Greenwich foot tunnel. Overall there is a relatively dense network of cycle routes in this area using off-road infrastructure and quieter roads.

3.4.7 Cyclists have fewer PT options than pedestrians, due to restrictions on the carriage of (non-folded) cycles on the Jubilee line at all times and DLR at peak times. Cyclists can use the foot tunnels (but must do so on foot) and Woolwich Ferry free of charge. On payment of a fare, cyclists may also use

22 OS, 2014, Integrated Transport Layer (ITN)

Page 78 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

the EAL, which provides an important link for the Greenwich peninsula as neither cyclists nor pedestrians can use the Blackwall Tunnel.

Figure 3-11: Cyclist using the Emirates Air Line

3.5 Analysis of current cross-river travel in east London

3.5.1 This section summarises how the cross-river transport networks in east London are currently used.

3.5.2 Table 3-2 summarises 2012/3 weekday cross-river person trips by private vehicle and PT in east London in an AM peak hour (08:00-09:00), an average inter-peak (IP) hour (10:00-16:00), and a PM peak hour (17:00- 18:00).

Table 3-2: Weekday cross-river person trips between (and including) Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing, by time period (2012/3)23 Northbound Southbound Two-way Time Private Private Private period vehicle PT Total vehicle PT Total vehicle PT Total AM peak 12,100 56,700 68,800 11,900 37,000 48,900 24,000 93,700 117,700 hour IP average 11,300 14,800 26,100 11,000 15,000 26,000 22,300 29,800 52,100 hour PM peak 13,400 36,500 49,900 14,300 51,400 65,700 27,700 87,900 115,600 hour

23 HAM model validation observed flows, (2012); LU Rail Origin Destination Surveys (RODS) (2012); Pedestrian and cyclist Thames screenline crossings, (2013); Scheduled coach services with an estimated average passenger occupancy of 48

Page 79 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3.5.3 The table shows that PT accounts for the overwhelming proportion of all cross river trips between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Crossing (80% in the AM peak hour, 76% in the PM peak hour and 57% in the IP average hour).

3.5.4 Overall, cross-river trips exhibit a highly tidal nature, with northbound trips significantly outnumbering southbound trips in the AM peak hour, and vice versa in the PM peak hour. IP average hour flow is evenly balanced, with 50% travelling in each direction.

3.5.5 In terms of observed flows, the tidal pattern described above is driven entirely by PT trips. For private vehicles, observed trips are split almost evenly between north- and southbound movements across all periods of the day. This even split is primarily a consequence of the limited capacity on road crossings in east London, which constrains throughput and results in delay and queuing in the peak direction. In effect, while the number of vehicles actually crossing the river in both directions is similar during the peak hours, the overall demand for road crossings during these time periods is tidal in nature. This is discussed in more depth later in this chapter and in Chapter 4.

3.5.6 The graphs below provide a breakdown of the data in the table above by crossing, illustrating the small differences in peak and counter-peak flow observed at all road crossings during the AM and PM peaks.

Figure 3-12: AM peak hour (08:00-09:00) cross-river road and PT person trips in east London (2012-13) Private vehicle (NB) Private vehicle (SB) PT (NB) PT (SB) Jubilee Canary Wharf - Canada Water Jubilee Canary Wharf - North Greenwich Jubilee Canning Town - North Greenwich Dartford crossing Blackwall tunnel DLR - Overground - Rotherhithe DLR King George V - Woolwich Arsenal Tower Bridge Rotherhithe Tunnel Woolwich ferry

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Person trips

Page 80 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-13: IP average hour (10:00-16:00) cross-river road and PT person trips in east London (2012-13) Private vehicle (NB) Private vehicle (SB) PT (NB) PT (SB) Dartford Crossing Jubilee Canary Wharf - Canada Water Blackwall Tunnel Jubilee Canary Wharf - North Greenwich Jubilee Canning Town - North Greenwich DLR Island Gardens - Cutty Sark Tower Bridge Overground Wapping - Rotherhithe Rotherhithe Tunnel DLR King George V - Woolwich Arsenal Woolwich Ferry

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Person trips

Figure 3-14: PM peak hour (17:00-18:00) cross-river road and PT person trips in east London (2012-13) Private vehicle (NB) Private vehicle (SB) PT (NB) PT (SB) Jubilee Canary Wharf - Canada Water Jubilee Canary Wharf - North Greenwich Jubilee Canning Town - North Greenwich Dartford Crossing Blackwall Tunnel DLR Island Gardens - Cutty Sark Overground Wapping - Rotherhithe DLR King George V - Woolwich Arsenal Tower Bridge Rotherhithe Tunnel Woolwich Ferry

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Person trips

3.5.7 The graphs above reveal that the Jubilee Line alone carries more than half of all cross-river person trips in east London in both the AM and PM peak hours (accounting for 60% and 58% respectively) and accounts for 44% of

Page 81 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

all trips in the IP average hour24. The DLR accounts for a further 10% in both peaks and 8% in the IP average hour.

3.5.8 Meanwhile, as the above makes clear, private cross-river transport makes up a much smaller share of all trips (one in five). In large part, this reflects an exponential increase in the availability and use of PT in the years since 1992, which has eclipsed the importance of private transport for many trips. This increase in PT capacity is shown in Figure 3-4, while the increase in PT trips is clearly visible in a review of historical data on travel to the Isle of Dogs (the Isle of Dogs Cordon Survey).

3.5.9 As illustrated in Figure 3-15, there has been a very significant increase in overall travel to the Isle of Dogs, corresponding with a rapid increase in the number of jobs located there. However, while in 1998 trips to the Isle of Dogs were made mostly by private vehicle, the tens of thousands of new daily trips added since then are overwhelmingly made using PT, with relatively stable absolute levels of car use falling to a little over 10% of the overall mix by 2014.

Figure 3-15: AM peak travel to the Isle of Dogs (including Canary Wharf) by mode of transport, 1988 to 201425 120

100

80 Jubilee DLR 60 Bus/River Taxi 40 Private Thousand peopleThousand Walk/Cy cle 20

0

3.5.10 An analysis of the London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) covering the years 2012/3 and 2014/5 confirms that this is not an exceptional case. In fact, the volume of inter-borough cross-river highway trips is significantly lower in east

24 It is acknowledged that many trips on the Jubilee Line will be the same people crossing at multiple locations on journeys to and from central London 25 TfL, January 2015, Isle of Dogs Cordon Survey – note: no survey was undertaken in 2009

Page 82 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

London than in comparable areas of west London where there are many more highway crossings. The findings are summarised in Table 3-3.

3.5.11 This shows that over one in three inter-borough highway trips in the west crosses the river but in contrast, only around one in seventeen inter-borough highway trips in the east crosses the river. The total number of cross-river inter-borough highway trips in the west is over five times greater than in the east – a discrepancy that far exceeds the relatively modest differences in total highway travel.

Table 3-3: Summary of all inter-borough annual average daily highway trips made (excluding Central London)26

East London West London Inter-borough trip type Trips % Trips %

Entirely north of the River 149,000 37% 108,000 28% Thames

Entirely south of the River 231,000 57% 136,000 36% Thames

Involved crossing the River 24,000 6% 135,000 36% Thames

Total 404,000 100% 379,000 100%

3.5.12 The scale of the difference in inter-borough cross-river highway trips suggests that the scarcity of cross-river highway links in east London is having a major impact not just in terms of constraining cross-river connectivity, but also fundamentally on the overall pattern of movement and consequently the relationship between different areas either side of the river in east London. Within this wider context however, the significance of the Blackwall Tunnel in east London (and indeed even in London) is clear.

3.5.13 Including the Dartford Crossing, the Blackwall Tunnel carries over 30% of all private highway trips across the River Thames in east London in the AM peak hour, the IP average hour, and the PM peak hour. If the Dartford Crossing is excluded, the proportion increases to 60% or more in each period. Figure 3-16 indicates that within the GLA area overall, the tunnel

26 TfL: London Travel Demand Survey 2012/3 and 2014/5 – East London includes the boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets, Redbridge, Havering, Barking & Dagenham, Greenwich, Lewisham, and Bexley; West London includes Ealing, Hounslow, Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington & Chelsea, Kingston, Richmond, Merton, Wandsworth, and Lambeth – data refers to all highway trips with both an origin and a destination within each region, but excludes trips with an external origin or destination, and trips with an origin and a destination within the same borough.

Page 83 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

carried around 10% of all cross-river highway traffic northbound in weekday AM peak hours in 2012, and was the single busiest crossing.

Figure 3-16: Weekday AM peak hour northbound traffic on GLA river crossings (2012) Blackwall Tunnel Putney Bridge Twickenham Bridge Wandsworth Bridge London Bridge Vauxhall Bridge Kingston Bridge Tower Bridge Kew Bridge Waterloo Bridge Chelsea Bridge Rotherhithe Tunnel Westminster Bridge River crossings Albert Bridge east of Tower Bridge highlighted Lambeth Bridge in red Southwark Bridge Hammersmith Bridge Richmond Bridge Battersea Bridge Woolwich Ferry 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Vehicles 3.5.14 The share of all traffic carried by the Blackwall Tunnel and how this compares with other crossings is similar in the weekday PM peak hours. However, the share of all traffic increases to 15% in an average weekday IP hour, as shown in Figure 3-17, again making the Blackwall Tunnel the busiest of all London river crossings.

Page 84 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-17: Weekday IP average hour northbound traffic on GLA river crossings (2012) Blackwall Tunnel Kingston Bridge Twickenham Bridge Wandsworth Bridge Kew Bridge Putney Bridge Vauxhall Bridge Tower Bridge London Bridge Waterloo Bridge Rotherhithe Tunnel Chelsea Bridge Richmond Bridge Westminster Bridge River crossings Hammersmith Bridge east of Tower Bridge highlighted Lambeth Bridge in red Battersea Bridge Albert Bridge Southwark Bridge Woolwich Ferry 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Vehicles 3.5.15 The Blackwall Tunnel is heavily used at most times of the day and week. Based on an analysis of data from January 2013 to December 2015, Figure 3-18 and Figure 3-19 show the hourly average flows for a typical weekday, Saturday and Sunday.

3.5.16 In line with many sections of London’s road network the Blackwall Tunnel is also heavily used at the weekend. Weekend demand is relatively flat in both directions between 10:00 and 18:00, operating at average hourly flows of around 2,700 vehicles northbound and 3,000 vehicles southbound.

Page 85 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-18: Blackwall Tunnel northbound - average hourly flows by day type27 3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

Flow(Vehicles) 1000

500 Weekday Saturday Sunday

0

07:00 12:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Hour of the Day Figure 3-19: Blackwall Tunnel southbound - average hourly flows by day type 4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500 Flow(Vehicles) 1000

500 Weekday Saturday Sunday

0

13:00 19:00 00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 Hour of the Day

27 Blackwall Tunnel Flows, 11/01/2013 to 31/08/2015

Page 86 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3.6 Users of the Blackwall Tunnel

3.6.1 As the sections above have demonstrated, the Blackwall Tunnel is a strategically important link in the ESR road network, the busiest of all London’s highway crossings, and by far the most important of the three highway crossings in the ESR. As a consequence, it is very busy at most times of the day, including at weekends.

3.6.2 A more detailed analysis of users of the Blackwall Tunnel can assist in understanding its wide-ranging importance.

3.6.3 While private car users make up the majority of users of all highway crossings, the Blackwall Tunnel is an especially important crossing for HGVs, which cannot use the Rotherhithe Tunnel. It also caries far more freight than Tower Bridge, the Rotherhithe Tunnel or the Woolwich Ferry, and only marginally less than the Dartford Crossing (in fact it carries more LGV traffic than Dartford). This data is summarised in Figure 3-20. The totals presented in the graph are numbers of vehicles, as opposed to PCUs, which are reported earlier in this chapter.

Figure 3-20 : AM peak hour (08:00-09:00) northbound cross-river road vehicle trips to the east of London Bridge (2012)28 HGV LGV Taxi Car Bus / coach Dartford Crossing

Blackwall Tunnel

Rotherhithe Tunnel

Tower Bridge

Woolwich Ferry

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Trips (vehicles) 3.6.4 To gain a more detailed understanding of their travel and behavioural characteristics, TfL commissioned a survey in 2013 of users of river crossings in the east of London. Road-side sampling at the Blackwall Tunnel

28 HAM model Validation observed flows (2012) – note: private hire vehicles classified as cars

Page 87 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

was undertaken on both the northbound and southbound approaches. Postcards with a link to an internet survey were then distributed to drivers at traffic lights as they approached the tunnel, with recruitment shifts designed to match actual flows based on the aforementioned sampling so that more postcards were distributed during peak periods. In total, 30,134 surveys were distributed at the Blackwall Tunnel approaches and 788 surveys were completed by drivers of LGVs and cars.

3.6.5 The survey sample revealed that approximately 45% of all drivers travelling through the Blackwall Tunnel in 2013 made the trip for commuting purposes, with 25% travelling for other work purposes and 30% for personal travel. Figure 3-21 and Figure 3-22 show how the journey purpose29 of drivers through the tunnel changes across the day for the northbound and southbound directions respectively.

3.6.6 In the early part of the day and in both directions, commuting trips predominate. Nearly two-thirds of commuters depart between 06:00 and 09:00. For other work trips the most common departure time is around 08:00 and from 14:00-17:00 (northbound), and around 06:00 and from 14:00-17:00 (southbound), but these peaks are far less pronounced than for commuting trips. Personal travel journeys increased in both directions from around midday before reaching a peak around 14:00-15:00 in both directions.

29 ‘Commuting’ includes trips to and from the usual workplace only. ‘Other work’ includes trips for delivering / loading, and trips for work purposes that are not to the usual workplace. ‘Personal travel’ includes all other trips (leisure, entertainment, shopping and personal business, and visiting friends and family).

Page 88 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-21: Proportion of northbound driving trips departing by hour and by journey purpose, roadside sample 2013

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Commuting Other work Personal Travel

Figure 3-22: Proportion of southbound driving trips departing by hour and by journey purpose, roadside sample 2013

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.0%

3.0%

2.0%

1.0%

0.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Commuting Other work Personal Travel

3.6.7 Reported trip lengths were long by London standards, with a mean of some 48km and a median of 32km, compared to around 8km and just over 3km respectively across the whole of London. Figure 3-23 summarises the trip lengths of Blackwall Tunnel users.

Page 89 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-23: Trip length by journey purpose

3.6.8 In terms of trip length, the longest recorded on average were made for ‘other work’ purposes, while trips for Commuting or Personal purposes were significantly shorter. Southbound personal travel trips tended to be significantly longer than northbound personal travel trips,

3.6.9 85% of all users made a return trip through the Blackwall Tunnel on the same day, while 8% used Dartford for one leg of their trip.

3.6.10 Kent was the most common origin point for commuting trips (21%) and other work trips (22%) but less common for personal travel (7%). The Royal Borough of Greenwich made up 15% of known origins for commuting trips, just 8% of other work trips and was ten percentage points higher than the next most common origin for personal travel trips at 17%.

3.6.11 Elsewhere in London the accounted for 12% of origins and 16% of commuting trips. For those trips which originated north of the Thames, the most common origins were the London Borough of Redbridge (7% of trips) and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (6% of trips). Newham and Hackney both accounted for 5% of trips.

3.6.12 Greenwich accounted for 17% of destinations, similar across all three journey purposes. The Boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets both accounted for around 10% of trip destinations, accounting for a higher proportion of commuting trip destinations than for other purposes.

Page 90 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3.6.13 Figure 3-24 and Figure 3-25 show the total origins and destinations of trips through the Blackwall Tunnel in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour respectively as sourced from the RXHAM 2012 base year model.

3.6.14 The plans indicate that in the peak directions in both time periods, a large proportion of all trips originate in the host boroughs. For example in the AM peak hour northbound, some 1,490 trips originate in Greenwich, accounting for 44% of all trips through the tunnel during this time period in this direction. In the PM peak hour southbound, a combined total of 2,620 trips originate in Tower Hamlets and Newham, 63% of all trips.

3.6.15 Destinations are similarly concentrated for peak direction trips, with 1,840 (55%) terminating in Tower Hamlets or Newham in the AM peak hour northbound and 1,680 (40%) terminating in Greenwich in the PM peak hour southbound.

3.6.16 Trips in the counter peak direction tend to be more dispersed with the host boroughs generally accounting for lower proportions of total origins and destinations, although the plans indicate that these trips are still significant in terms of volumes.

Page 91 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-24: Origins and destinations for Blackwall Tunnel users in the AM peak hour (RXHAM 2012 base year)

Northbound

Southbound

Page 92 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-25: Origins and destinations for Blackwall Tunnel users in the PM peak hour (RXHAM 2012 base year)

Northbound

Southbound

Page 93 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3.7 Use of highway crossings for public transport

3.7.1 Figure 3-26 summarises the mode of cross-river person trips carried on the road network in east London during the AM peak hour. The graph makes clear that as well as carrying large volumes of private traffic, the Blackwall Tunnel also carries a significant volume of bus and, in particular, commuter coach passengers.

3.7.2 In fact, some 11% of total person trips using the tunnel in the AM peak hour are travelling by bus and coach, the vast majority in the northbound peak direction, and the Blackwall Tunnel carries almost as many bus and coach trips as Tower Bridge.

Figure 3-26: Proportion of person trips by mode on road crossings east of London Bridge (AM peak hour, both directions, 2012)30 Pedestrian Cyclist Bus/coach Private vehicle

Tower Bridge

Woolwich Ferry

Blackwall Tunnel

Rotherhithe Tunnel

Dartford Crossing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Proportion of person trips by mode (0800-0900) Coaches

3.7.3 The Blackwall Tunnel carries a large number of commuter coaches travelling between Kent and central London at peak times. The peak movement is northbound in the morning peak with 90 coaches scheduled to pass through the Blackwall Tunnel in the morning peak, and 58 of these in the high peak between 07:30 and 08:30, as shown in Figure 3-27.

30 Data sources: Highway Assignment Model baseline traffic counts (2012); Bus Origin Destination Surveys for routes 42, 78, RV1 and 108 (2013); TfL: Pedestrian and cyclist Thames screenline crossings count (2013); Scheduled coach services with an estimated average passenger occupancy of 33; Other passenger occupancy assumptions from TAG data book

Page 94 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-27: Scheduled commuter coaches (northbound, AM peak, 15-minute periods)31 25

20

15

10 Number ofCoaches 5

0

Time

3.7.4 These commuter services carry approximately 2,800 passengers in each peak direction based on an average of two-thirds occupancy.

3.8 Pedestrians and cyclists

3.8.1 Tower Bridge carries around 30,000 pedestrians a day in total, with marginally more travelling northbound. The pedestrian crossings to the east are used less, with the EAL and the Greenwich foot tunnel each carrying over 1,000 pedestrians per day in both directions (Figure 3-28). Smaller numbers of people use passenger ferries as river crossings for part of their journey, including the Hilton Ferry32 and the Woolwich Ferry. Pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited from using Blackwall Tunnel as there is no safe means of accommodating them.

3.8.2 The lower pedestrian flows on crossings to the east of Tower Bridge are primarily a reflection of the relative lack of pedestrian trip attractors in these

31 Chalkwell Coaches, www.chalkwell.co.uk; Centaur Coaches, www.centaurtravel.co.uk; Clarkes, www.clarkescommute.co.uk; Kings Ferry, www.thekingsferry.co.uk; Redwing Coaches, www.redwingcoaches-northkent.co.uk; Barcroft Coaches, www.barcrofttours.co.uk; Buzzlines Travel, www.buzzlinestravel.co.uk, Brookline Coaches, www.brooklinecoaches.co.uk. (2016) 32 Shuttle service connecting the Hilton Hotel in Rotherhithe with Canary Wharf, operating seven days a week and open to the public (at a charge)

Page 95 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

areas when compared with areas in the vicinity of Tower Bridge. The spikes in activity evident at the Greenwich foot tunnel and the EAL are related to the proximity of attractions such as the Cutty Sark and The O2.

Figure 3-28: Daily pedestrian cross-river trips to the east of London Bridge (2012-13)33

3.8.3 Figure 3-29 shows daily cross-river cycle flows in east London. Tower Bridge carries around 5,000 cyclists on an average weekday, and the peak cycling commuter movement is northbound in the morning peak hour (700 cyclists). Cyclists are permitted to push their bicycles through the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels, and the Greenwich tunnel is used heavily by commuters to Canary Wharf (580 cyclists in the morning peak). Although the Rotherhithe Tunnel constitutes a relatively inhospitable environment for cyclists, there are still over 200 cycle trips a day at this crossing.

3.8.4 Cyclists were not counted separately on the EAL and passenger ferries and these trips were recorded as pedestrian cross-river trips. The Dartford Crossing is also not included in the data below. Cyclists can cross the river here and are transported by means of a specially converted Land Rover.

33 Data sources: TfL: Pedestrian and cyclist Thames screenline crossings count (2013); TfL: River Bus Origin Destination Survey (2012); Emirates Air Line passenger data (2012)

Page 96 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 3-29: Daily cycling cross-river trips to the east of London Bridge (2012-13)34

3.8.5 Pedestrian and cycle counts were also undertaken at several key locations in the vicinity of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel worksites, including:

North of the River Thames

 Dock Road, near the entrance to the Hanson Concrete site in Silvertown;

 Tidal Basin Roundabout, on key entry and exit roads; and

 North Woolwich Road/Silvertown Way;

South of the River Thames

 the pedestrian and cycle bridge over the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach adjacent to Boord Street, on the Greenwich Peninsula;

 Millennium Way, between Edmund Halley Way and Boord Street; and

 Tunnel Avenue at several locations.

3.8.6 Counts were recorded by direction in 15-minute periods between 07:00 and 19:00 on Tuesday 8th December 2015. Pedestrian and cycle flows at each

34 Data sources: TfL: Pedestrian and cyclist Thames screenline crossings count (2013); Cyclists on the Emirates Air Line and Thames Clippers services are not counted separately and appear in the pedestrian figures above

Page 97 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

location across the entire 12-hour period are illustrated on the plans in Figure 3-30.

Figure 3-30: Pedestrian and cycle counts by direction (07:00-19:00, 8th Dec 2015)

Pedestrian counts Cycle counts

3.8.7 South of the River Thames, the Boord Street bridge was predominantly used by pedestrians, with 251 counted in total across the 12-hour survey period (119 westbound and 132 eastbound). In comparison only 24 cyclists (13 westbound and 11 eastbound) were counted. Millennium Way had the highest level of pedestrian use with a total of 1,010 (668 westbound and 342 eastbound).

3.8.8 North of the River Thames, the highest level of pedestrian activity was recorded on Silvertown Way with 620 (378 eastbound and 242 westbound) pedestrians using the link. However, more cycling activity was recorded across the 12-hour survey period at the Tidal Basin Roundabout as a result of the use of the Lower Lea Crossing and North Woolwich Road – in total, 243 cyclists were counted.

3.9 Key points

3.9.1 There are a number of strategically important radial roads in east and south- east London, several of which converge at the Blackwall Tunnel. This makes the tunnel one of the busiest links on London’s road network, and in 2012 it carried an average of around 91,000 daily trips.

Page 98 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

3.9.2 The Blackwall Tunnel is one of three highway river crossings in east London within the GLA area, but it is by far and away the most strategically important with a capacity around three times that of the Rotherhithe Tunnel and twenty times that of the Woolwich Ferry. The Blackwall Tunnel essentially functions as the lynchpin river crossing of the strategic road network in east London, and is heavily used at most times of the day and week.

3.9.3 There are many more highway crossings in west and central London, and demand is spread more among crossings to the west of Tower Bridge.

3.9.4 There has been a period of sustained investment in PT capacity across east and southeast London over the past 20 years, with new cross-river links added through the Jubilee Line, DLR, High Speed 1 and the London Overground. However, because of the scarcity of highway crossings and capacity constraints there is only a single cross-river bus route operating east of Tower Bridge (via the Blackwall Tunnel), compared to 47 bus routes that cross the river west of Vauxhall Bridge.

3.9.5 East of Tower Bridge, the overwhelming majority of cross-river trips are made by rail, with the majority of those carried on the Jubilee Line. In the AM and PM peak hours the proportion of total cross-river trips made by PT is around 80% and 76% respectively. The Blackwall Tunnel carries around 3,000 bus and coach passengers in the peak direction between 06:00 and 09:00.

3.9.6 The EAL provides a cross-river link along the alignment of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, catering for pedestrians and cyclists.

3.9.7 The volume of cross-river walking and cycling trips between east and southeast London ranges from over 15,000 trips per day at Tower Bridge to around 2,000 in the Greenwich foot tunnel or the EAL.

Page 99 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

Page 100 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4 CURRENT NETWORK PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY ISSUES

4.1 Overview

4.1.1 The previous chapter outlined the current transport network in east London, with an emphasis on usage of the existing river crossings. This chapter summarises the known network performance issues.

4.2 Road network performance

Congestion and delay

4.2.1 Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 show the average delay across the road network in London for the period of September 2013 to August 2014 and the AADT flows for 2012, during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. As shown, the road network across London has a number of areas which are subject to significant delays during the peak periods. In the AM peak, the approach to the Blackwall Tunnel (northbound) is the most heavily congested major traffic route in the whole London network. It also experiences some of the longest delays across London in the PM peak, and certainly in the East and South-East Sub Region (ESR).

Figure 4-1: AM peak average delay (September 2013 to August 2014) and AADT traffic flows (2012)

Blackwall Tunnel approach

Page 101 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-2: PM peak average delay (September 2013 to August 2014) and AADT traffic flows (2012)

Blackwall Tunnel approach

4.2.2 Congestion can be observed on the links to a number of road crossings, and all three of the road crossings in east London operate at, or close to, their practical reserve capacity at peak times. Table 4-1 indicates the approximate capacity at which the Blackwall Tunnel and its adjacent crossings are operating in the peak hours, based on the approximate maximum capacity of each crossing (as set out in Table 3-1). A value of over 80% indicates that traffic flow on a link is approaching the design capacity of that link.

Table 4-1: 2012 estimated crossing capacity utilisation in peak periods35 Crossing % capacity used % capacity used (AM peak hour) (PM peak hour) Rotherhithe Tunnel NB 73% 81% Rotherhithe Tunnel SB 74% 84% Blackwall Tunnel NB 100% 94% Blackwall Tunnel SB 78% 99% Woolwich Ferry NB 100% 98% Woolwich Ferry SB 99% 100%

35 As indicated in Chapter 3, the effective capacity of specific river crossings varies by time period for a number of reasons so the data in the table above should be treated as a guideline only. As outlined above in some instances the approach roads to these river crossings are subject to considerable congestion which affects the capacity utilisation of the crossings in peak periods.

Page 102 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.2.3 The table indicates that the Blackwall Tunnel’s maximum capacity has been reached in the northbound direction of the AM peak and the southbound direction of the PM peak. As set out above, congestion is particularly an issue in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel, with extensive queuing and delay to traffic occurring on the main approaches to the tunnel portals. This occurs partly because many of these approaches (for example the A102 and A2 to the south of the River Thames and the A12 and A13 to the north) accommodate three lanes of traffic in each direction for much of their lengths and consequently provide significantly more capacity than the tunnel itself, which provides two lanes in each direction.

4.2.4 For example, Figure 4-3 and Figure 4-4 show vehicles queuing on the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach to the northbound tunnel portal at Boord Street during the AM peak on a weekday in June 2015, while traffic flows freely in the adjacent southbound lanes. This is typical of the weekday morning peak period.

Figure 4-3: Traffic on the northbound approach to the Tunnel (view north from Boord Street footbridge, AM peak, 4th June 2015)

Page 103 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-4: Traffic on the northbound approach to the Tunnel (view south from Boord Street footbridge, AM peak, 4th June 2015)

4.2.5 Long queues of traffic wishing to use the Blackwall Traffic routinely form on the approach roads in peak periods. Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 show the indicative extent of queuing traffic on an average weekday when there are no incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel, and on a day when a ‘typical’ incident takes place in the peak period and which affects traffic in the peak direction.

4.2.6 In the northbound direction in the AM peak, queues routinely start forming around 3.2 km from the Tunnel portal, at a point just north of the Sun-in-the- Sands Roundabout. On the regular occasions when incidents occur, queues can quickly build up further to around 4.6km in length leading to additional delay and journey times. The example in Figure 4-5 shows the resulting queue when a broken down vehicle caused a tunnel closure of six minutes in the AM peak on a typical weekday.

Page 104 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-5: Indicative extent of queuing traffic on the northbound approach to the Tunnel, with and without an incident (AM peak)

4.2.7 In the southbound direction in the PM peak, queues can regularly begin to form around 2.7km from the Tunnel portal, at a point north of the A11 Bow Interchange. In the event of an incident, the length of the queue can often quickly build up to around 3.2km from the Tunnel portal. The example in Figure 4-6 shows the resulting queue when a pedestrian attempting to access the tunnel caused a tunnel closure of three minutes in the PM peak on a typical weekday.

Page 105 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-6: Indicative extent of queuing traffic on the southbound approach to the Tunnel, with and without an incident (PM peak)

4.2.8 As a result of this congestion, speeds through the Blackwall Tunnel are very slow with consequential delays during peak periods. Data for a number of strategic cross-river routes in November 2012 was collated to calibrate the strategic highway model (RXHAM) used in the assessment of the Silvertown Tunnel. One of these routes passed through the Blackwall Tunnel between the A205 South Circular and the A12 in , as shown in Figure 4-7. The northbound route is 11.9km long, while the southbound route is 11.6km.

Page 106 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-7: RXHAM Blackwall Tunnel journey time assessment route

Northbound Southbound

4.2.9 Averaged across all weekdays in November 2012, the northbound speed recorded along the whole route in the AM peak period was 26.1kph. However, the breakdown of speed per link, illustrated in Figure 4-8, shows that average speed falls considerably beyond the Sun-in-the-Sands Roundabout, some 3.5km from the southern tunnel portal. The significant dip in speed at the point just over 1km from the start of the route occurs at the Interchange, where traffic on the A2 Rochester Way meets traffic on the A2213 Kidbrooke Park Road.

Page 107 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-8: Observed average weekday AM peak speed northbound (Nov 2012)

Figure 4-9: Observed average weekday AM peak cumulative journey time northbound (Nov 2012) v unconstrained (speed limit) journey time

Page 108 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.2.10 On the section between the A206 junction and the Tunnel portal, average AM peak speed across the month was less than 8kph. This congestion results in a delay of approximately 15 minutes along the route compared with the unconstrained journey time at current designated speed limits (assuming no additional delays due to red lights at the signal junctions on the route: the A2/A2213 Kidbrooke Park Road junction, the A102/A13 East India Dock Road junction, the A12/Lochnagar Street junction, and the part-time signals on the approach to the tunnel), as shown in Figure 4-9. Delays during periods when incidents and closures occur at the Blackwall Tunnel can be considerably longer. The time profile shown in Figure 4-9 clearly indicates delay building on the approach to the tunnel as a result of congestion, with the aforementioned signal junctions having comparatively little impact on journey time.

4.2.11 Along the full length of the route in the southbound direction in the weekday PM peak, average speed was only 16.4kph in the same month, and the data indicates that average speed falls considerably from a point around 1km to the north of the A11 Bow Interchange.

4.2.12 Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11, which show the average speed profile and cumulative journey time respectively along the route, indicate that average speed reduced to 6.4kph along this section, resulting in a delay of approximately 20 minutes when compared with the unconstrained journey time at current designated speed limits by the time traffic reaches the A13 East India Dock Road junction. Average speed increases to around 20 kph between the A13 East India Dock Road and the tunnel portal as traffic merges and speeds increase, and then increases again to over 40 kph through the tunnel portal as traffic becomes more free-flowing.

Page 109 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-10: Observed average weekday PM peak speed southbound (Nov 2012)

Figure 4-11: Observed average weekday PM peak cumulative journey time southbound (Nov 2012) v unconstrained (speed limit) journey time

4.2.13 Average delay along the route compared with unconstrained (speed limit) journey time is approximately 20 minutes on the section before traffic enters the southbound tunnel bore, and increases further to the south due to congestion between the A206 Woolwich Road junction and the Sun-in-the-

Page 110 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Sands Roundabout. Again, delays during periods when incidents and closures occur at the Blackwall Tunnel can be considerably longer.

4.2.14 The 2013 survey of Blackwall Tunnel users discussed in Chapter 3 indicates that average total journey time for car and LGV users was 76 minutes outbound and 79 minutes return with very little difference between north and southbound journeys.

4.2.15 Overall, 18% of the time for journeys using the Blackwall Tunnel is spent in stationary traffic, with a third (33%) in congested traffic, and under half (49%) in free flowing traffic. Journeys that have a departure time of between 19:00 and 20:00 spend the highest proportion of time in free flowing traffic, but even here the proportion is only some 64%.

4.2.16 In the AM peak period, journeys which depart at between 06:00 and 07:00 spend the least time in free time flowing traffic at 40% of the total journey duration. There is a noticeable drop in the free flow traffic percentage in the late afternoon and although this effect exists for trips made in both directions it is particularly pronounced for trips made southbound.

Profile of use of the Blackwall Tunnel

4.2.17 The constraints encountered in the northbound tunnel bore result in a situation where peak vehicle flow actually occurs between 06:00-07:00 and then decreases gradually through the morning as increasing congestion causes delay on the approaches to the Tunnel, which in turn results in a reduced throughput through the Tunnel. The profile of use of the northbound tunnel is shown again in Figure 4-12, with an indication given of the point at which congestion builds due to vehicle flow approaching the northbound tunnel capacity.

Page 111 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-12: Blackwall Tunnel northbound average hourly flows (2013-2015) by day36

4.2.18 The southbound tunnel bore can operate at a slightly higher capacity with the PM peak throughput reaching around 3,600 vehicles. The profile of use of the southbound tunnel is shown again in Figure 4-13, with an indication given of the point at which congestion builds due to vehicle flow approaching the southbound tunnel capacity.

36 Blackwall Tunnel Flows, 11/01/2013 to 31/08/2015

Page 112 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-13: Blackwall Tunnel southbound average hourly flows (2013-2015) by day37

4.2.19 Traffic flows through the Blackwall Tunnel are at an all time high, having risen steadily for the past thirty years. Hourly sample counts in the tunnel collected between May and July in every other year between 1986 and 2014 are summarised in Figure 4-14. As this figure is based on hourly sample counts it does not demonstrate average traffic flows during each year, but rather provides an indication of flows through the tunnel during a similar period of each surveyed year.

37 Blackwall Tunnel Flows, 11/01/2013 to 31/08/2015

Page 113 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-14: Two-way weekday daily vehicle flows at the Blackwall Tunnel, 1986-2014

4.2.20 In addition to the total daily vehicle flows increasing (reaching over 100,000 vehicles in 2014), it can be seen from Figure 4-14 that the proportion of trips made outside of the peak periods (07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00) has increased. For instance, since 1986 the proportion of trips made between midnight and 07:00 has grown from around 10% to around 13% currently. The proportion of trips made in the AM peak has reduced from around 21% to around 17% currently, while for the PM peak the proportion has reduced from around 21% to around 19%. This indicates that the majority of growth in traffic flow is being accommodated at off-peak times, as the Tunnel is operating at or close to capacity at peak times and further trips in these periods cannot be accommodated.

4.2.21 The sample data indicates that historically, the volume of traffic travelling through the Blackwall Tunnel in the peak direction during both AM and PM peak periods has been almost double the volume in the counter-peak direction. A tidal flow system implemented within the Blackwall Tunnel between 1978 and 2007, providing three lanes of northbound traffic (and one lane of southbound traffic) by means of a contraflow lane during stretches of the AM peak period.

4.2.22 Operation of the tidal flow system was withdrawn due to concerns about safety, and counts indicate that since 2000 the proportion of north and southbound volumes have gradually been reaching the same level during both AM and PM peak periods. This reflects the fact that while demand in

Page 114 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

the peak direction has long been at or above available capacity, demand in the counter-peak direction has grown in line with a general increase in traffic in the ESR.

4.2.23 One other point that can also be inferred from Figure 4-14 is that there does not appear to be a strong correlation between vehicle flows through the Blackwall Tunnel and the significant investment in cross-river PT links in east London as described in Chapter 3. For example, the opening of the Jubilee Line extension in 1999 does not seem to have resulted in a reduction in trips through the Blackwall Tunnel.

Base year model analysis

4.2.24 As described in Chapter 1, RXHAM is a strategic model that has been used to assess the impact of Silvertown Tunnel on the road network in east and south-east London. Outputs from the 2012 base year RXHAM, which has been calibrated to observed data, provide further evidence about the performance of the road network in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel.

4.2.25 Figure 4-15, Figure 4-16 and Figure 4-17 below show the modelled actual traffic flows on the strategic road network in the vicinity of Blackwall Tunnel in three different time periods as follows:

 2012 weekday AM peak hour (08:00-09:00);

 2012 weekday average inter peak (IP) hour (10:00-16:00); and

 2012 weekday PM peak hour (17:00-18:00).

4.2.26 Figure 4-15 indicates heavy flows on the strategic road network during the AM peak hour. To the south of the River Thames, flows exceed 3,000 passenger car units per hour (PCUs/hr) on much of the A2 inbound to London from its junction with the M25, and in places exceed 3,500 PCUs/hr. Flows in excess of 3,200 PCUs/hr are modelled on the A102 northbound from the Sun-in-the-Sands Roundabout to the Blackwall Tunnel itself. Also in evidence is a significant counter-peak flow, reaching in excess of 2,900 PCUs/hr through the Tunnel and reaching approximately 70-90% of the peak flow along the A2.

4.2.27 To the north of the River Thames, heavy flows are also in evidence on the A12 in both directions, reaching in excess of 3,000 PCUs/hr south of the Bow Interchange. Flows are higher still on the A13 inbound to London, reaching in excess of 5,500 PCUs/hr through Canning Town, although the counter-peak flow is significantly lower at approximately 50% of the peak.

Page 115 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

High flows are also in evidence to the west of the Tunnel portal on Aspen Way inbound to Canary Wharf and the City.

4.2.28 In the Inter-Peak (IP) average hour (Figure 4-16), flows are generally lower than in the AM peak hour across the network but are still high on the strategic routes approaching the Tunnel, including the A2, A102, A12 and A13. The flow northbound through the Tunnel is close to 2,900 PCUs/hr with over 3,000 PCUs/hr southbound.

4.2.29 In the PM peak hour (Figure 4-17) the same roads carry the highest volumes of traffic in the area but a tidal flow outbound from London is in evidence. Southbound flow through the Tunnel reaches over 3,700 PCUs/hr with just under 3,000 northbound. On the A102 approaching Sun-in-the-Sands Roundabout southbound, flows exceed 3,900 with over 2,900 in the opposite direction, and on the A2 southbound (shown on the inset plan in the figure) flows exceed 5,100 with over 3,600 in the opposite direction. North of the River Thames, flows on the A13 reach over 4,600 PCUs/hr eastbound east of its junction with the A406 North Circular, with close to 3,800 westbound.

4.2.30 Larger versions of these plots are available in Appendix I.

Page 116 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-15: 2012 AM peak hour actual flow

Figure 4-16: 2012 IP average hour actual flow

Figure 4-17: 2012 PM peak hour actual flow

Page 117 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.2.31 Figure 4-18, Figure 4-19 and Figure 4-20 illustrate the Volume/Capacity Ratios (VCRs) calculated for each link in the 2012 base year model in each of three time periods assessed. VCR is a means of measuring traffic flows relative to the theoretical maximum traffic flow that can use a highway link or junction in reasonable traffic conditions. Essentially each highway link or junction is assumed to have a maximum theoretical carrying capacity, and as traffic volumes on a particular link approach its capacity the performance of that link or junction worsens.

4.2.32 A VCR of below 80% generally indicates no or low congestion, between 80- 90% indicates moderate congestion, and between 90-100% indicates heavy congestion. A VCR of over 100% means that the flow arriving at a link or junction exceeds theoretical capacity, restricting the volume that can pass through the link or junction in the modelled time period, resulting in severe congestion. Effectively the link or junction is not operating efficiently thereby resulting in substantial queuing and delay occurring on the network.

4.2.33 The AM peak hour plan indicates that demand through the Blackwall Tunnel northbound bore exceeds theoretical capacity in the 2012 base year, with the capacity constraint identified as the section between the A102/Blackwall Lane junction on the approach to the south and the A102/A13 East India Dock Road junction to the north. In particular the left-turn slip northbound from the A102 to the A13 is highlighted as a particular capacity issue at this junction.

4.2.34 On the wider network south of the River Thames there are also capacity issues evident on the A206 Woolwich Road, the A207 Shooters Hill Road, the A2 Rochester Way and the A20 Road. To the north, sections of the A13, the A118 Romford Road and the A1205 Burdett Road are also operating above theoretical capacity and there are also issues in evidence on many other more minor roads in the vicinity of the tunnel portals and beyond. In most cases these capacity issues are not linked to capacity constraints at the Blackwall Tunnel; rather they represent other constraints across the wider network.

4.2.35 In the IP average hour, the capacity issues are less evident than in the AM peak hour. It is however worth noting that flow through the Blackwall Tunnel northbound bore during this period is still forecast at between 80 and 90% of capacity.

Page 118 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-18: 2012 AM peak hour VCR

Figure 4-19: 2012 IP average hour VCR

Figure 4-20: 2012 PM peak base VCR

Page 119 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.2.36 In the PM peak hour, both tunnel bores operate at between 90% and 100% of theoretical capacity, and a number of key approach links on the north side are reported as in excess of 100% of capacity, including the A12 southbound and the slip roads to the A102 northern Blackwall Tunnel portal at the junction with the A13 East India Dock Road. Capacity issues are also in evidence on sections of the strategic road network to the south of the River Thames, including the A2 and A20.

4.2.37 Figure 4-21 to Figure 4-23 show the 2012 model outputs for the base year in terms of vehicle delay for the three time periods assessed, measured in passenger car unit hours (PCU-hours), for junctions in the model network. This metric identifies the time spent in queued traffic in congested conditions, taking in to account the arrival flow and delay at the junction.

4.2.38 The model (calibrated to observed conditions) indicates high levels of delay on the network in 2012 in all three time periods. In the AM peak hour, delay reaches in excess of 200 PCU-hours, which is considered severe, on key junctions approaching the southern tunnel portal. This delay is greater than at any other junction in the central London during the morning peak. To the north of the River Thames, high levels of delay also occur at the A102/A13 East India Dock Road junction and further afield delay is evident across the network, notably on the A20, the A2, sections of the A13, and on junctions to the north of Canary Wharf including on the A1205 Burdett Road.

4.2.39 In the IP average hour, delay is less prevalent than in the AM peak but still excessive delays at junctions before river crossings like Tower Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge. Delays of over 150 PCU-hours are also in evidence on the A12 southbound in the PM peak (the VCR plot indicates that the southbound tunnel bore is above 80% of capacity during this time period).

4.2.40 During peak times, significant levels of delay are also evident on the approaches to other east London river crossings, including the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the Woolwich Ferry and the Dartford Crossing, although only the latter experiences similar levels of delay to the Blackwall Tunnel.

Page 120 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-21: 2012 AM peak hour junction delay

Figure 4-22: 2012 IP peak hour junction delay

Figure 4-23: 2012 PM peak hour junction delay

Page 121 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Crossing performance

4.2.41 Figure 4-24 and Figure 4-25 summarise the difference between demand (the traffic that would be allocated to the link irrespective of capacity) and actual flow (the traffic that is assigned accounting for capacity constraints) at river crossings in the 2012 base year model38. Where demand significantly exceeds actual flow, this suggests that the crossing link itself (as opposed to or as well as the approach roads) is acting as a constraint which leads to queuing to use the crossing. Queuing and congestion also occurs to a lesser extent at crossings where VCR is less than 100%, although the difference between demand and actual flow may not be as significant in these instances.

Figure 4-24: 2012 AM Demand vs Actual flow for East London River Crossings (PCUs)

AM Northbound actual flows AM Northbound demand flows

6000

5000

4000

3000

PCUs/hr

5,231

2000 5,210

3,613

1,024

1,013

3,236

678

675

1000

339

337

818 827 164 181 0 Southwark London Tower Rotherhithe Blackwall Woolwich Dartford Bridge Bridge Bridge Tunnel Tunnel Ferry Crossing

38 Further discussion on the difference between demand and actual flow reported by the RXHAM is provided in Figure 1-4 in Chapter 1.

Page 122 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-25: 2012 PM Demand vs Actual flow for East London River Crossings (PCUs)

PM Northbound actual flows PM northbound demand flows 7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

PCUs/hr

6,313

5,400

2000

3,106

2,992

674

1000 664

266 219 887 909 976 988 181 183 0 Southwark London Tower Rotherhithe Blackwall Woolwich Dartford Bridge Bridge Bridge Tunnel Tunnel Ferry Crossing 4.2.42 As can be seen from the figures above, in the northbound direction in the AM peak the Blackwall Tunnel has the highest level of demand relative to actual flow (112%). In the PM peak the Dartford Crossing has the highest level of demand relative to actual flow (117%). This suggests that these crossing links are unable to accommodate forecast demand, and further illustrates the capacity constraints of these crossings in the base year modelling.

4.2.43 Demand slightly exceeds actual flows in both peak periods at all of the other crossings, although the difference in most cases is negligible.

4.3 Network reliability and resilience

4.3.1 The cross-river highway network in the ESR is notoriously unreliable. The congestion issues summarised above are a key factor underlying this sub- optimal performance, and affect the performance of much of the strategic road network in the ESR.

4.3.2 This state of affairs can be seen to be attributable largely to the relative scarcity of highway crossings (illustrated in Chapter 3), which results in cross-river traffic from across the entire ESR converging at one of four crossings, all of which have capacity constraints. Of the four, the Blackwall Tunnel has the highest capacity and the greatest importance for the accommodation of cross-river strategic traffic.

4.3.3 As well as giving rise to congestion, this lack of crossing capacity reduces the reliability of the network, limits its resilience to disruption and compounds traffic congestion and safety concerns when incidents and crossing closures

Page 123 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

occur. The factors that negatively impact on the reliability and resilience of the existing cross-river highway network in the ESR can be summarised as follows:

 the small number of crossings and the distance between them;

 the lack of capacity of existing crossings to meet demand; and

 the susceptibility of existing crossings to incidents and closures.

4.3.4 These factors are summarised in the remainder of this section. A detailed discussion of the reliability and resilience issues affecting the ESR road network can be found in Appendix D.

4.3.5 Incidents that cause obstruction and delay are a common occurrence at the Blackwall Tunnel, including those that necessitate an unplanned closure of the tunnel so that the incident can be dealt with safely and effectively. Table 4-2 shows the number of incidents recorded by the London Streets Tunnels Operation Centre (LSTOC) on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel between 2013 and 2015, by category of incident and direction (including incidents that required a closure of the tunnel and incidents that did not).

Table 4-2: Incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel between 2013 and 2015

Type of incident Number % of total

N/b S/b Total

Congestion39 1,483 974 2,457 39%

Over-height vehicle 1,465 7 1,472 23%

Broken down vehicle 669 506 1,175 19%

Road traffic incident 169 139 308 5%

Other (pedestrians, debris, etc.) 365 522 887 14%

Total 4,151 2,148 6,299 100%

4.3.6 In total almost 6,300 incidents were recorded at or in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel between 2013 and 2015, equating to almost six incidents recorded per day. Congestion incidents and those involving over-height

39 Congestion incidents are logged by LSTOC when levels of congestion on the approach to the tunnel are observed to be particularly high, but the reason for the congestion is not immediately clear to staff monitoring the approaches. Consequently, such incidents do not include congestion caused by identifiable incidents on the Blackwall Tunnel corridor (as these are logged in an appropriate category), but may for example be related to congestion on the corridor caused by other incidents occurring elsewhere on the road network.

Page 124 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

vehicles accounted for over 60% of all incidents, with broken down vehicles, road traffic incidents (RTIs) and other incidents accounting for the other third. ‘Other’ incidents include pedestrians attempting to access the tunnel portals, debris being dropped by vehicles onto the carriageway, emergency roadworks and fuel/oil spills.

4.3.7 The highest number of incidents were recorded at the northbound tunnel bore, amounting to a total of over 4,100 between 2013 and 2015. Over- height vehicles accounted for over 1,460 incidents affecting the northbound tunnel bore (compared to just seven for the southbound tunnel bore). Other frequent occurrences related to vehicle breakdowns and RTIs.

4.3.8 Incidents affecting the southbound tunnel bore tend to occur less frequently as the southbound bore does not have the same constraints (most notably the 4.0m height restriction in place on the northbound bore). However, a total of over 2,100 incidents were recorded at the southbound bore between 2013 and 2015.

4.3.9 Where it is necessary to do so, temporary closures are implemented at the Blackwall Tunnel to enable the incident to be dealt with promptly and safely. Not all incidents require a closure of the Tunnel, for example, ‘congestion’ incidents do not necessitate closure for the reasons stated in the footnote to Table 4-2.

4.3.10 The average number of incidents per year that resulted in a closure of the Blackwall Tunnel between 2013 and 2015 is shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Average Blackwall Tunnel closures per year 2013-2015

Type of incident resulting in Number % of total closure N/b S/b N/b S/b

Over-height vehicle 483 0 55% 0%

Broken-down vehicle 239 174 27% 55%

Road Traffic Incident 47 32 5% 10%

Other (pedestrians, debris, etc.) 108 111 12% 35%

Total 877 317 100%

4.3.11 The table shows that between 2013 and 2015 an average of nearly 1,200 annual unplanned closures occurred at the Blackwall Tunnel, amounting to nearly 3,600 unplanned closures across the three years. This equates to 57% of all reported incidents. Almost 75% of the closures were implemented at the northbound tunnel bore, and a comparison with other strategic

Page 125 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

highway tunnels shows that the Blackwall Tunnel is subject to a disproportionate number of closures each year.

4.3.12 As can be seen from Table 4-3, over-height vehicle incidents account for about 55% of all unplanned closures of the northbound bore (483 out of a total of 877) and 40% of all closures of the tunnel in both directions. Such closures are implemented where it is necessary to extract an over-height vehicle from the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach, which may require the vehicle to reverse, or in the worst case to deal with a vehicle striking an overhead structure.

4.3.13 Broken down vehicles either within either of the tunnel bores or their approaches accounted for just over 35% of all closures in both directions (413 out of a total of 1,194), with the closures often implemented to facilitate timely recovery of the vehicle by the on-call recovery service. Road traffic collisions and other incidents accounted for the remaining closures.

4.3.14 As well as the number of closures, the duration can also have a significant bearing on reliability. Figure 4-26 summarises the average duration of each type of closure recorded between 2013 and 2015.

Figure 4-26: Average duration of Blackwall Tunnel closures between 2013 and 2015

4.3.15 The graph indicates that closures relating to RTIs were recorded as occurring for an average of 13 minutes northbound and 19 minutes southbound, while closures related to broken-down vehicles lasted for 6 minutes and 3 minutes respectively and those categorised as ‘other’ lasted for 7 minutes and 6 minutes respectively. The average duration of over- height vehicle-related closures affecting the northbound tunnel bore was two minutes.

Page 126 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.3.16 Overall between 2013 and 2015, the average northbound tunnel closure lasted five minutes while the average southbound closure lasted eight minutes, resulting in the loss of the tunnel for a total of 349 hours (219 northbound and 130 southbound) across the three years, an average of 116 hours per year.

4.3.17 When the Tunnel is closed (or indeed heavily congested), drivers will frequently seek alternative routes. The four principal diversion routes from the Blackwall Tunnel to alternative river crossings are shown in Figure 4-27.

Figure 4-27: Blackwall Tunnel diversion routes

4.3.18 The closest routes are via Tower Bridge, Rotherhithe Tunnel or the Woolwich Ferry, all of which have little spare capacity to accommodate diverted traffic. The other diversion route via the Dartford Crossing is a substantial distance and again has limited spare capacity during peak hours. Any diversion of traffic from the Blackwall Tunnel therefore has a direct adverse impact on already very congested sections of the strategic highway network.

4.3.19 As well as tunnel incidents and associated closures, which make a significant contribution to unreliable journey times, congestion itself can lead to a high degree of journey time variability on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel during certain time periods. This reflects the fact that, in

Page 127 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

general, as congestion increases, the road network has less spare capacity to accommodate minor fluctuations in traffic flow40.

Evidence of unreliable journey times

4.3.20 The issues above manifest in significant variability in journey times for journeys using the Blackwall Tunnel.

4.3.21 Figure 4-28 and Figure 4-29 illustrate the spread of northbound journey times recorded on weekdays during three-hour AM and PM peak periods between 2013 and 2015 from the Sun-in-the-Sands Roundabout (A2/A102 junction) and the Bow Interchange (A11/A12 junction).

4.3.22 The AM peak graph indicates significant variability in journey time through the northbound bore during this time period. The average time across the period was 29 minutes but approximately one in four trips on this route is not within ten minutes of this journey time during this hour, and while journey times of between around 20 and 40 minutes account for a significant proportion of trips, no single journey time (rounded to the nearest minute) accounts for more than about 6% of all observations.

4.3.23 The PM peak graph indicates significantly less variability in journey time, primarily because northbound traffic congestion in this time period is significantly lower than in the AM peak.

40 The link between congestion and variability is well established from previous research listed in WebTAG (UNIT A1.3: User and Provider Impacts (November 2014)

Page 128 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-28: Average weekday AM peak (07:00-10:00) northbound journey times (Sun- in-the-Sands to Bow Interchange), school term time only (2013-2015)

Figure 4-29: Average weekday PM peak (16:00-19:00) northbound journey times (Sun- in-the-Sands to Bow Interchange), school term time only (2013-2015)

4.3.24 While journey time reliability is a challenge on many of London’s roads, and in particular on the heavily used radial roads on the Transport for London

Page 129 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Road Network (TLRN), poor journey time reliability is a particular problem at the Blackwall Tunnel.

4.3.25 Figure 4-30 below shows that journey time reliability (measured as a percentage of nominal 30 minute journeys completed within five minutes of that time in the AM peak period) is lower at the Blackwall Tunnel than any other radial corridor on the TLRN, in most cases significantly so. This same is true in the PM peak, as evidenced by the graph included in Appendix D.

Figure 4-30: AM peak direction journey time reliability (TLRN radial corridors)

4.3.26 As well as impacting on journey time variability on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel, incidents that result in tunnel closures also have wider network impacts as traffic diverts to other adjacent crossings. These impacts are as follows:

 journey time disbenefits suffered by diverting traffic, which has to take lengthy and circuitous routes to use alternative river crossings; and

 knock-on disbenefits for other traffic already using the routes that Blackwall Tunnel traffic diverts to, in the form of additional congestion and delays.

4.3.27 Analysis undertaken using daily average peak journey time data from December 2013 to June 2015 sourced from the London Congestion Analysis Project (LCAP) suggests that re-assignment of traffic from the Blackwall Tunnel begins to occur as a result of relatively minor incidents and closures during peak times.

Page 130 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.3.28 This is demonstrated in Figure 4-31, which shows the correlation between northbound AM peak journey times through the Blackwall Tunnel over this period (plotted on the horizontal access) and journey times on other links in south London (colour coded according to the link in question). Each point on the graph represents the daily average AM peak journey time recorded for dates between December 2013 and June 2015.

Figure 4-31: Impact of Blackwall Tunnel northbound AM journey times on other links in south London

4.3.29 Although there is a lot of ‘noise’ in the data, Figure 4-31 indicates that as a result of incidents and journey time variation occurring elsewhere on the network, there does appear to be a link between delay at the Blackwall Tunnel and delay in some locations elsewhere on the network.

4.3.30 A comparison of journey times indicates that most of the extra delay occurring on these links when delay occurs at the Blackwall Tunnel is experienced to the west of the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach, suggesting that delays at the Blackwall Tunnel result in diversion to alternative routes. Links that are seriously affected are the A20 Lewisham Way/Lee High Road (north-west bound), the A2 East Rochester Way to New Cross Road (north- west bound) and the A2 Shooters Hill (westbound). These links are highlighted in Figure 4-32.

Page 131 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-32: Additional delays experienced on links when there is delay at the Blackwall Tunnel northbound

4.3.31 The analysis suggests that for every additional minute of delay for journeys northbound through the Blackwall Tunnel, vehicles travelling on the A20 Lewisham Way/Lee High Road corridor experience an increased journey time of one minute 15 seconds. Vehicles on A2 East Rochester Way corridor experience an increased journey time of 50 seconds, while vehicles on the A2 Shooters Hill corridor experience an increased journey time of 30 seconds. As can be seen in Figure 4-31, other links are less affected and the slope for the London average trend line suggests an increase of four seconds per minute of northbound Blackwall Tunnel delay, which is considered negligible.

4.3.32 Overall, the data provides a strong indication that higher delays on the northbound approach to the Blackwall Tunnel cause more traffic to reassign to the A20 and the A2 in the AM peak. As these routes are sensitive to diversion, they can be adversely affected when there is higher than usual delay to use the Blackwall Tunnel (for instance due to heavy congestion or incidents). There is less evidence of diversion in the PM peak, which is likely to be largely due to delays being lower across the network.

Page 132 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.3.33 The impact of tunnel closures with and without the Silvertown Tunnel in place has been modelled using the 2021 RXHAM. The results of these model tests are summarised in Appendix D.

4.4 Road safety

4.4.1 A final important aspect of the performance of the road network concerns Road Safety. Road traffic collision data for a three-year period between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2015 was obtained for an area covering the main road network along both approaches to the proposed Silvertown Tunnel, as well as the existing Blackwall Tunnel and approaches. This area is shown in Figure 4-33.

Figure 4-33: Collision review area

Collision review area Key junction

Page 133 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.4.2 As indicated in Table 4-4, there were 485 recorded collisions involving one or more casualties in the three year period reviewed, of which four collisions resulted in at least one fatality and 37 resulted in serious injuries. The remaining 444 collisions resulted in slight injuries. There were no clear trends over the three year period, with both the overall number of collisions and the percentage of those resulting in the most serious injuries reducing slightly in Year 2 before increasing again in Year 3. The annual average number of collisions of all severities over the period was 162 with 8.5% of collisions resulting in death or serious injury.

Table 4-4: Collisions by severity and year in defined study area41 Year Fatal Serious Slight TOTAL % KSI Year 1: 1 September 2012 – 31 2 11 144 157 8.3% August 2013 Year 2: 1 September 2013 – 31 1 11 141 153 7.8% August 2014 Year 3: 1 September 2014 – 31 1 15 159 175 9.1% August 2015 TOTAL 4 37 444 485 8.5% Annual average 1.3 12.3 148 162

4.4.3 The 485 collisions together resulted in 604 casualties, of which there were four fatalities and 37 serious injuries. The remaining 563 casualties sustained slight injuries. Vehicle drivers (excluding pedal cycles and powered two wheelers) accounted for the highest proportion of casualties in the study area, with 46%, compared to an average of 31% for all casualties across Greater London in 2014.

4.4.4 Within the Silvertown study area, 7% of all casualties were pedestrians and 8% were pedal cyclists. Both these proportions were lower than the published 2014 Greater London figures of 18% and 17% respectively.

4.4.5 In the three years to 31 August 2015, 19% of all collisions within the Silvertown study area involved a goods vehicle (considerably higher than the 2011-2013 Greater London average of 13%, as reported in 2015). In contrast, the percentages of collisions involving pedestrians, pedal cyclists and right-turn manoeuvres within the Silvertown area were lower than in Greater London as a whole. This is likely to be a reflection of the more strategic function of many of the routes in the area.

41 Note that where a collision results in more than one casualty, the collision is graded according to the most severe level of injury sustained by any party involved. Hence the number of collisions does not correspond with the number of casualties.

Page 134 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.4.6 A total of 48% of collisions of all severities, and 46% of the most serious injury collisions recorded within the Silvertown area in the three years to 31 August 2015 occurred at 14 key interchanges. The percentage of collisions resulting in the most serious injuries was slightly lower (at 8.2%) at these interchanges than in the remainder of the area, where 8.7% of collisions resulted in death or serious injury.

4.4.7 The analysis identified 20 separate cluster sites within which 6 or more collisions occurred during the 36-month period to 31 August 2015. Six of these clusters were located on the A13 East India Dock Road or Newham Way, and four were located on the A206 Woolwich Road.

4.4.8 Five of these sites (two of which were at junctions with the A13 East India Dock Road) recorded an average of three or more collisions per year, and these are listed in Table 4-5. Further details of the analysis undertaken are provided in Appendix A.

Table 4-5: Cluster analysis summary Location description Collisions Involving % pedestrian Pedestrians Pedal or pedal cyclists cyclist East India Dock Road j/w 15 2 1 20% Cotton St and to approx. 30m east of the junction Woolwich Rd/Charlton 13 5 1 46% Church Lane/Anchor and Hope Lane East India Dock Road 10 1 1 20% / Rd and approx. 50m to the SW of the junction Silvertown Way/Barking 10 2 0 20% Rd south side Shooters Hill 10 0 0 0% Rd/Kidbrooke Park Rd

Page 135 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.5 Current public transport performance

4.5.1 The level of crowding on the London Underground and DLR networks in 2011 is shown in Figure 4-3442. Figure 4-35 shows levels of crowding on the National Rail and London Overground networks.

Figure 4-34: AM peak period (07:00-10:00) London Underground and DLR crowding (2011)43

42 2011 is the latest base year for TfL’s Railplan model, which forecasts crowding on PT services in the Greater London and south-east England regions, hence more recent base data is not available. Further details on this model are provided in section 1.5.14. 43 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2010)

Page 136 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-35: PM peak period (07:00-10:00) National Rail and London Overground crowding (2011)

4.5.2 Figure 4-34 and Figure 4-35 show that there is capacity on the cross-river Underground and DLR links east of Canary Wharf, but higher levels of crowding to the west. While the investment in cross-river rail links has vastly improved PT connectivity between east and south-east London, previous responses to the river crossings consultation highlighted some disparity with communities in south-east London in terms of access to employment growth in the Docklands area by PT.

4.5.3 Figure 4-36 sets out the 2015 Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) in the area around the Blackwall Tunnel – further details on PTALs are provided in paragraph 1.5.16. The Figure indicates that while there are some areas in south-east London with good access to the PT network (notably around Woolwich, Lewisham and New Cross), many other areas have poor levels of accessibility. Access to the PT network is also poor north of the River Thames in the Silvertown area south of the Royal Docks.

Page 137 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-36: 2015 PTALs (all modes)

4.5.4 Figure 4-37 shows 2015 PTALs for bus services only, indicating that while some areas have good accessibility to the bus network (notably Woolwich and Lewisham) many areas have poor levels of accessibility.

Page 138 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-37: 2015 PTALs (bus only)

4.5.5 The very limited existing cross-river bus network in east London reflects the relative lack of highway crossing provision to the east of Tower Bridge. The bus networks on either side of the River Thames in east and south-east London operate largely independently of one another due to the physical severance of the river.

4.5.6 Bus route 108, which uses the Blackwall Tunnel, can be subject to major disruption when the Tunnel is closed, whether planned or unplanned, causing inconvenience to passengers. The queues experienced by bus route 108 cause delays to passenger journeys and increase the cost of operating the service. In addition, the route can only be operated with single-deck vehicles due to the height restrictions in the northbound tunnel bore.

Page 139 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.5.7 TfL measures reliability for high-frequency bus routes (five buses per hour or higher) based on the time waited by passengers at stops in excess of the average scheduled wait time. This is known as the excess wait time (EWT) and is measured in minutes. EWT on the route 108 for the period from 3 July 2013 to 2 July 2014 was 1.21 minutes, which was 25% longer than the average EWT for all high frequency bus routes in RB Greenwich and LB Newham44 for the same period. This figure is an annual average and EWT during the peak periods would be higher. Overall journey times in the peaks are affected by day to day congestion as well as incident related congestion.

4.5.8 Figure 4-38 shows the journey time difference of Route 108 in the AM peak compared to more free-flowing conditions between 22:00 and 23:00. The northbound end-to-end journey takes an additional 20 minutes in the AM peak compared to the late evening and the southbound journey an additional 15 minutes.

Figure 4-38: Route 108 journey time

44 LB Newham was selected over LB Tower Hamlets as being more representative because Tower Hamlets includes parts of the Central Activities Zone.

Page 140 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.5.9 The experience of the constraints affecting this service, together with the Tunnel’s low headroom which prevents the operation of double-deck vehicles, inhibit the potential for TfL to provide further services across the river in this location.

4.5.10 The congestion effects are also experienced by some other bus services – which do not cross the river. Some services terminating at North Greenwich bus station experience a drop in average speeds, delay and excess journey time as a consequence of congestion on the Blackwall Tunnel approach roads caused by unplanned closures at the Tunnel.

4.5.11 Consideration has been given to the performance of one such route - the Route 13245 - on occasions where congestion has built up due to closures of the Blackwall Tunnel. On 16 January 2014, for example, a 34 minute closure in the AM peak led to average bus speeds on this route reducing to almost half their normal running over the course of the day, with a much more significant dip (to around 8kph) in the immediate period following the closure.

4.6 Walking and cycling network

4.6.1 The EAL provides a pedestrian river crossing on the alignment of the Silvertown Tunnel that is accessible to both pedestrians and cyclists, and carries passengers close to their most likely onward destinations (on the north side of the River Thames between the Crystal building and the ExCeL centre near the Royal Victoria DLR station, rather than the industrial river frontage). There is adequate capacity for the majority of the time, especially on weekdays, but queues do occur at the busiest times (for example during major events at The O2 or ExCeL, and during school holidays). There is a charge to use the crossing.

4.6.2 The Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels are accessible 24 hours per day to both pedestrians and cyclists, although cyclists are required to dismount and push their bicycles. The tunnels were refurbished in 2011 and 2012.

4.6.3 Pedestrians and cyclists are able to use the Woolwich Ferry, with ample space provided for pedestrians, and the Hilton Ferry provides a direct cross- river shuttle service between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf seven days per week (there is a charge to use this service).

4.6.4 A Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) audit was undertaken in a study area around the proposed sites of the two Silvertown Tunnel portals, to assess the current quality of the pedestrian network. Further details of the

45 The full route is Market Place / Bexleyheath Clock Tower – North Greenwich station

Page 141 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

PERS audit can be found in Appendix G. The PERS system scores the quality of the environment based on a red, amber, green (RAG) rating.

4.6.5 The audit indicated the following key findings with regard to current pedestrian quality on the North Greenwich side:

 links to the east of the Peninsula are generally of a reasonable to good quality;

 sections of Tunnel Avenue constitute a threatening environment for pedestrians with high levels of fumes, dust, pollution, and a general lack of permeability as a result of vehicle domination – no tactile paving is provided and there are maintenance, litter, debris, and surface quality issues in evidence; and

 sections of Blackwall Lane were also identified as ‘Amber’ for similar issues described above, plus inadequate footway width in part.

4.6.6 On the Silvertown side, the following conclusions were drawn about the quality of the pedestrian network:

 the areas around the docks and Western Gateway were generally identified as high quality pedestrian environments;

 sections of the A1020 Lower Lea Crossing were scored as ‘Red’ with generally unacceptable widths provided for pedestrians and poor permeability, exacerbated by a poor general environment with overgrown vegetation, safety and security issues and evidence of rough sleeping; and

 Dock Road and North Woolwich Road were also flagged as ‘Amber’ issues due to inconsistent provision of paving materials, inconsistent provision and design of dropped kerbs, high HGV traffic levels, dust, fumes, debris, litter and obstructions on footways (including parked cars) – this area is currently dominated by light industry.

4.6.7 Similarly, an assessment of current cycling facilities in the same areas was undertaken based on the principles of Cycling Level of Service (CLoS). Full details of this assessment are provided in Appendix H. The key findings on the North Greenwich side were as follows:

 Tunnel Avenue – the current cycling facilities are of a particularly poor standard (cluttered, frequently interrupted, incorrectly signed);

Page 142 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 Blackwall Lane south of Millennium Way/John Harrison Way Roundabout – the junction with the A102 is intimidating for cyclists due to heavy traffic and sub-standard existing cycling facilities (with a cluttered shared-use footway on one side) – there is also no provision for cyclists on the western side (a group of cyclists observed using the footway indicates that it is a desire line);

 Millennium Way/John Harrison Way Roundabout – several movements at this roundabout received a ‘Red’ RAG rating in the junction assessment, and a number of recent cycling collisions have been recorded (one in the last three years, several in the last five) – many of the existing cycling facilities are indirect and sub-standard; and

 Direct access to North Greenwich Bus and Underground station – cyclists are currently forced to make relatively circuitous journeys into North Greenwich with roads restricted to busy traffic and authorised vehicles only.

4.6.8 On the Silvertown side the key findings were as follows:

 Lower Lea Crossing/Leamouth Road Roundabout – cycling facilities are provided on part of the roundabout but they are incomplete, and this junction has had several recorded cyclist collisions in the most recent three years of casualty data;

 Leamouth Road – cycling provision is only in place on the western side that carries CS3 for a short section – cycling is not currently permitted on the eastern footway despite a relatively generous width, and the likelihood of low pedestrian flows;

 Silvertown Way – advisory cycle lanes are in place with coloured surfacing but appear to be of sub-standard width; and

 Tidal Basin Roundabout – there is currently a two-way cycle track around most of the perimeter of the roundabout with uncontrolled crossings of each arm.

4.7 Access to labour market and jobs

4.7.1 While rail connections are crucial in supporting the density of jobs in London’s major employment zones, across London the road network plays an important role in providing connectivity between the labour market and places of employment. The capacity and performance of the road network therefore has an impact on the number of jobs that are considered to be accessible by the labour market, and vice versa.

Page 143 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.7.2 Employment and labour market accessibility across London has been modelled using RXHAM to indicate the level of connectivity at an individual borough level, represented both as origins (places of residence) and as destinations (places of employment).

4.7.3 TfL uses a 45-minute standard threshold to assess employment connectivity in London, as per the ‘Travel in London’ annual reports46. If the modelled travel time between an origin zone (i) and a destination zone (j) was less than the 45-minute threshold, then the number of jobs in zone j was added to the jobs connectivity figure for the origin zone i. Similarly the size of the labour force in zone i was added to the labour force connectivity figure for the destination zone j.

4.7.4 Applying this methodology, Figure 4-39 and Figure 4-40 show job connectivity levels (by car) across London during the 2012 weekday AM peak hour and the PM peak hour.

46 https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/travel-in-london-reports

Page 144 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-39: Base year job accessibility by car – AM Peak

Figure 4-40: Base year job accessibility by car – PM peak

Page 145 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

4.7.5 The figures show that higher levels of connectivity between jobs and labour markets occur in west and north-west London, while connectivity in the east and particularly the south-east of London is much lower, especially during peak periods. Table 4-6 summarises the number of jobs considered to be accessible via car (within a 45-minute journey time) for a number of key boroughs in the vicinity of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme, including the three host boroughs, for all three modelled time periods.

Table 4-6: Number of accessible jobs by car within 45 minutes (millions, base year)47

Borough AM Inter- PM peak

Barking and Dagenham 2.25 3.08 2.32

Greenwich 1.65 2.57 2.21

Hackney 3.49 3.60 2.87

Lewisham 2.06 2.77 2.54

Newham 2.98 3.40 2.74

Tower Hamlets 3.50 3.57 2.98

Waltham Forest 2.50 3.37 2.65

4.7.6 The relatively poor level of highway access for boroughs south of the River Thames directly reflects the limited availability, capacity and performance of highway crossings. This has the effect of impeding access to the large numbers of jobs, businesses and other opportunities that are concentrated in parts of inner and central London north of the River Thames. The implication is that residents and businesses based south of the river in the ESR are at a disadvantage in competing for employment and labour market opportunities in London when compared with residents and businesses located north of the river.

4.7.7 Figure 4-41 illustrates how the River Thames can particularly act as a barrier for the workforce in the ESR when compared with areas in west London. In Richmond, for example, where there are many opportunities to cross the river, around half of the labour force in the town centre travels to work from the other side of the River Thames. The picture is very different in the Royal Docks, where around 20% come from the other side of the river.

47 Figures are rounded to the nearest 100,000

Page 146 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 4-41: Workforce catchment areas of Richmond town centre and Royal Docks

4.8 Key points

4.8.1 The Blackwall Tunnel is one of the most heavily congested major traffic routes in the whole of London. While all three highway river crossings in the ESR are operating close to or at maximum capacity at peak times, high levels of demand at the Blackwall Tunnel in particular mean that peak vehicle flow in the northbound direction is reached early in the AM peak, and in the southbound direction the flow of vehicles is close to the maximum capacity of the tunnel for a significant duration of the PM period.

4.8.2 As a result, there are long queues on the approach roads to the tunnel particularly in peak periods, and average speeds are low. In the northbound direction in the AM peak, queues routinely stretch back 3.2km from the tunnel portal while in the southbound direction in the PM peak queues can often stretch back 2.7km. This congestion can add, on average, up to 20 minutes to users’ journey times and often more when incidents occur.

4.8.3 Coupled with the day-to-day congestion issues, the cross-river highway network is notoriously unreliable. While congestion and the scarcity of existing crossings are key factors that underlie the sub-optimal performance of the network, an additional major factor is the susceptibility of the Blackwall Tunnel to incidents and closures that cause added delay and congestion. Between 2013 and 2015 there were almost 6,300 incidents recorded at the Tunnel, of which nearly 3,600 resulted in an unplanned closure. A significant

Page 147 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

proportion of these incidents were associated with over-height vehicles attempting to use the northbound tunnel bore, which has a height restriction.

4.8.4 When incidents and closures do occur, the adjacent crossings are some distance away (particularly the Dartford Crossing, which has the highest capacity). Moreover they have little spare capacity to accommodate diverted traffic; hence the adverse impact of incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel in terms of congestion and delay on the wider network can be significant.

4.8.5 The consequence of these issues is that there is significant variability in journey times for journeys made via the Blackwall Tunnel, in particular in the northbound direction in the AM peak. In fact, journey time reliability on the Blackwall Tunnel corridor is notably lower than for any other radial corridor on the TLRN both in the AM and PM peak periods. This has knock-on adverse traffic impacts on other strategic road corridors, as users re-route away from the Blackwall Tunnel when congestion is particularly heavy and when there are closures.

4.8.6 The PT network is better able to accommodate demand; however the coverage of PT (and particularly bus services) is relatively limited in some parts of the ESR as a result of the very limited cross-river bus network. Bus route 108, the one bus service that uses the Blackwall Tunnel, can suffer from slow peak journey speed, poor reliability and major disruption during times the tunnel is closed. It also has to operate with single deck vehicles due to the height restrictions on the northbound tunnel bore.

Page 148 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5 FUTURE ‘BASELINE’ GROWTH AND IMPACTS

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 This chapter outlines forecast growth in population and jobs in London, and particularly in the ESR, together with an overview of committed investments in transport infrastructure. It then sets out how transport network performance is expected to change in future without the Silvertown Tunnel scheme in place, referred to within this document as the Reference Case.

5.1.2 Within this chapter forecast growth is considered over the period to 2021, 2031, and 2041. Where data is derived from RXHAM, the period to 2021 has been presented to reflect the focus of the analysis on this year48.

5.2 Changes in population and employment

5.2.1 The forecast growth in population and jobs described in this chapter has formed the primary basis of medium and long-term transport demand forecasting for TfL’s public transport and highway project planning, including the Silvertown Tunnel, since the development of the Further Alterations to the London Plan (FALP) published in March 2015.

5.2.2 The London Plan anticipates that population growth between 2011 and 2041 in the ESR will be considerably greater than in the other sub-regions. The population forecast used for TfL’s modelling of future year Reference Cases was agreed by the GLA and TfL and is based on the 2013 round GLA Scaled-SHLAA population projection. This projection incorporates development assumptions derived from the 2013 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) to determine initial local authority population. The results for all local authorities were then scaled such that the total London population (by age and sex) matches the results of the 2013 round Central Trend projection used as the basis for the FALP.

5.2.3 Table 5-1 shows that the resulting forecast population growth in the majority of the nine boroughs in the ESR is expected to exceed the London average in each forecast year. Across the three Silvertown Tunnel host boroughs (Greenwich, Newham, and Tower Hamlets) the average growth rate is around double the London average.

48 See section 1.5.2

Page 149 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 5-1: Population growth in the ESR49 Population % growth Borough 2011- 2011- 2011- 2011 2021 2031 2041 2021 2031 2041 Greenwich 255,000 321,000 358,000 369,000 26% 40% 44% Newham 312,000 382,000 437,000 462,000 22% 40% 48% Tower 257,000 339,000 386,000 408,000 32% 50% 59% Hamlets Bexley 233,000 240,000 247,000 250,000 3% 6% 7% Hackney 248,000 276,000 305,000 336,000 12% 23% 36% Havering 238,000 271,000 288,000 296,000 14% 21% 24% Barking and 187,000 226,000 246,000 282,000 21% 31% 50% Dagenham Redbridge 282,000 312,000 330,000 342,000 11% 17% 21% Lewisham 278,000 313,000 332,000 348,000 13% 20% 25% ESR 2,289,000 2,680,000 2,930,000 3,091,000 17% 28% 35% Greater 8,217,000 9,203,000 9,839,000 10,355,000 12% 20% 26% London

5.2.4 Together, the boroughs in the ESR are expected to account for around 40% of London's total population growth between 2011 and 2041, depending on the forecast year assessed. The four boroughs with the highest rates of growth (the three Silvertown Tunnel host boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham, and Greenwich as well as Barking and Dagenham) are expected to account for around 25% of London’s population growth.

5.2.5 The employment forecast used for TfL’s modelling of future year Reference Cases was also agreed by the GLA and TfL and is based on the 2013 employment projections prepared for the FALP. For transport modelling, employment projections were required that set out the demand challenge. This meant taking account of the potential growth that transport should support, without transport itself acting as a constraint. Therefore the employment projections include two aspects of the GLA triangulation process, excluding changes in future transport accessibility.

5.2.6 The ESR’s resulting share of expected total employment growth in London is around 40% as shown in Table 5-2. Forecast employment growth is highly concentrated, with three of the nine boroughs in the ESR expected to experience growth rates above the London average. By 2041, growth of between 60% and 100% on 2011 levels is envisaged in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets (the Silvertown Tunnel host boroughs).

49 GLA 2013 round population projection, scaled SHLAA

Page 150 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 5-2: Employment growth in the ESR50 Employment % growth Borough 2011- 2011- 2011- 2011 2021 2031 2041 2021 2031 2041 Greenwich 79,000 97,000 111,000 126,000 22% 40% 59% Newham 87,000 109,000 139,000 176,000 26% 61% 103% Tower 246,000 314,000 363,000 408,000 28% 47% 66% Hamlets Bexley 76,000 76,000 79,000 83,000 1% 4% 9% Hackney 109,000 111,000 120,000 133,000 2% 11% 23% Havering 81,000 84,000 86,000 88,000 3% 6% 8% Barking and 52,000 54,000 57,000 61,000 4% 9% 16% Dagenham Redbridge 74,000 81,000 84,000 88,000 9% 14% 19% Lewisham 73,000 80,000 86,000 93,000 10% 19% 28% ESR 877,000 1,006,000 1,127,000 1,256,000 15% 28% 43% Greater 4,896,000 5,224,000 5,573,000 5,946,000 7% 14% 21% London

5.2.7 A significant proportion of the growth within the host boroughs is expected to be accommodated within the Greenwich Peninsula and Royal Docks area.

5.2.8 The plans for the Peninsula are set out in the Greenwich Peninsula and Greenwich Peninsula West masterplans, which are summarised in Figure 5-1. In addition, the Charlton Riverside masterplan (summarised in Figure 5-2) envisages further growth in the vicinity of the Scheme.

50 GLA 2013 borough employment projections, excluding accessibility

Page 151 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-1: Greenwich masterplans

The Greenwich Peninsula has been identified as an Opportunity Area within the London Plan, capable of delivering significant numbers of new homes and jobs. A masterplan was originally developed and approved for the 46 hectare Greenwich Peninsula site in 2004, paving the way initially for a comprehensive development of some 10,000 residential units together with office, hotel and retail, community and new school uses, and generating some 12,000 new jobs. At present, nearly 3,000 residential units are in the process of being delivered under this original Masterplan approval.

In March 2015, the Royal Borough of Greenwich received proposals for a revised masterplan for the Peninsula. Outline planning permission was subsequently granted in December 2015, providing the go-ahead for 12,900 new residential units (bringing the total on the Peninsula to around 15,800 units), the provision of a brand new North Greenwich transport hub, a new river bus pier, a 40,000 square metre film studio, 60,000 square metres of business space, 24,000 square metres of retail/food/drink space, hotels, schools, healthcare, recreational facilities, a 20,000-square-metre visitor attraction, and a new 2,000 space car park. Agreement of the revised masterplan secures £110-£115 million funding for community benefits through a Section 106 agreement and the Community Infrastructure Levy.

The future development expected to be delivered by the Greenwich Peninsula masterplan will be in addition to the established land uses located in the area; including The O2, InterContinental Hotel, offices at Pier Walk and Mitre Passage, Ravensbourne College and energy centre to the south of the Peninsula.

In addition, Greenwich Council has also promoted the Greenwich Peninsula (West) masterplan, which they adopted in April 2012, setting out a vision for leisure, education, employment and housing.

Figure 5-2: Charlton Riverside masterplan

A masterplan has recently been adopted by the Royal Borough of Greenwich for an area located to the southeast of the Greenwich Peninsula known as Charlton Riverside.

Adopted in April 2012, planning documents for the masterplan indicate the borough’s aspirations for the creation of a new neighbourhood of 3,000- 5,000 new homes alongside the consolidation of existing industry, business and retail uses, improvements to public space, and new educational facilities. Some redevelopment within the area has already commenced, with a new retail park (featuring a Sainsbury’s and Marks & Spencers) recently being developed between Woolwich Road and Bugsby’s Way.

The further development of the masterplan, forecast for development over the next 15-20 years, is subject to a review of strategic transport implications as well as individual planning applications.

Page 152 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5.2.9 Masterplanning of the Royal Docks area is also underway driven by growth assumptions associated with the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone, summarised in Figure 5-3. Plans have been published for Silvertown Quays and the ABP ‘Business Port’ proposals, and a ‘parameters for development’ document has also been prepared by the GLA and LB Newham. An OAPF for the Royal Docks area is expected to be adopted during 2016.

Figure 5-3: Royal Docks Enterprise Zone

The Royal Docks Enterprise Zone was established in 2012, covering an area of approximately 125 hectares and providing an opportunity to develop in excess of 5 million square foot of commercial space along with new homes and jobs.

A Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has a strategic oversight role for the Zone, and is due to retain business rates growth generated within the Royal Docks for at least 25 years for reinvestment in local economic growth. The benefits for businesses locating to the Zone include 50 hectares of Business Rate relief for five years, enhanced Capital Allowances at Royal Albert Dock, simplified planning, and enhanced broadband connections.

A number of large-scale schemes are proposed, including the development of Europe’s largest Asian business park on the Royal Albert Dock site (which now has planning consent and a S106 agreement signed, providing 3.5 million square foot of commercial space, retail and serviced apartments, creating up to 20,000 jobs); a new innovation quarter for global brands and businesses at Silvertown Quays (which has planning consent with S106 and associated legal agreements close to completion, providing 7 million square foot of development including over 2,500 new homes and up to 14,000 new jobs); and Britain’s first ‘floating village’ at Royal Victoria Dock (which is in the early stages of development) with 50 residential homes, a large multi- purpose events space and a mix of non-residential uses including restaurants, cafes, shops, leisure and office space, a floating Lido and an ice rink.

In total, the Zone has the potential to create 11,000 new homes and more than 37,000 new jobs.

5.2.10 As the resident and working populations grow, additional cross-river trips can be expected to impact on the operation of the cross river transport networks, as employment growth is expected to be concentrated on the north side of the River Thames, while much of the population growth will be on the south side.

5.3 Total trips made and mode share

5.3.1 Taking into account the forecast growth in population and jobs described above, the total volume of trips will continue to rise in the ESR. The total

Page 153 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

number of trips originating in the ESR between 2012 and 2021 is expected to rise by almost 600,000 trips per day, which represents a very significant increase of almost 10%. Most of the new trips will be made on the PT network, and the increase in PT trips is expected to be almost ten times that of the increase in trips made by car. This is illustrated in Figure 5-4 below.

Figure 5-4: Total 24-hour trips by mode in ESR, 2012 and 2021 Reference Case

Private vehicle PT

8,000,000

7,000,000 6,000,000 4,136,600 5,000,000 3,597,200 (59.0%)

4,000,000 (56.1%) hour person trips person hour

- 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,815,400 2,873,000

1,000,000 (43.9%) (41.0%) Total 24 Total 0 Base year 2012 Ref Case 2021 (total trips: 6,412,600) (total trips: 7,009,600)

5.3.2 The rise in PT trips is forecast to be greater than the rise in car trips largely due to the significant planned investment in the PT network, which will deliver improvements in PT capacity and connectivity. As a result, the PT mode share in the ESR is expected to rise from around 56% in the base year to 59% in 2021.

5.3.3 The same broad pattern of an overall increase in trips and a greater increase in PT trips can be seen in all three modelled time periods, both within the three boroughs of Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets and for the ESR as a whole. This is evident in the tables below.

5.3.4 Table 5-3 shows the number of AM peak hour trips originating in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets by mode. It can be seen from this table that across the three boroughs, the total number of trips is forecast to increase by almost 30,000 trips and the PT mode share in is expected to rise from 54% to 58%.

Page 154 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 5-3: AM peak hour person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets 2012 base trips 2021 Reference Case (mode share %) trips (mode share %) Private Private Borough vehicle PT vehicle PT 24,200 18,800 27,700 25,400 Greenwich (56%) (44%) (52%) (48%) 19,500 27,000 21,900 34,100 Newham (42%) (58%) (39%) (61%) 15,300 24,500 17,600 32,200 Tower Hamlets (38%) (62%) (35%) (65%) 59,100 70,400 67,200 91,700 Sub-total (46%) (54%) (42%) (58%) 211,700 192,000 226,300 230,000 ESR (52%) (48%) (50%) (50%)

5.3.5 Table 5-4 provides the same information for the average IP hour. As with the AM peak, it can be seen that the number of PT trips increases to a greater degree than the increase in the number of car trips. PT mode share in the three boroughs is expected to rise from 41% to 44%.

Table 5-4: IP person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets 2012 base trips 2021 Reference Case (mode share %) trips (mode share %) Private Private Borough vehicle PT vehicle PT 28,200 11,800 31,900 15,200 Greenwich (71%) (30%) (68%) (32%) 25,900 19,200 28,300 23,600 Newham (58%) (43%) (55%) (46%) 19,600 20,600 22,100 25,900 Tower Hamlets (49%) (51%) (46%) (54%) 73,700 51,500 82,300 64,700 Sub-total (59%) (41%) (56%) (44%) 248,100 120,400 262,100 142,900 ESR (67%) (33%) (65%) (35%)

5.3.6 Table 5-5 provides the same information for the average PM peak hour. Again, the number of trips made by private vehicles increases to a lesser degree than the increase in the number of PT trips. The total increase in trips across the three boroughs is just over 26,000 trips and PT mode share is expected to rise from 59% to 62%.

Page 155 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 5-5: PM peak person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets 2012 base trips 2021 Reference Case (mode share %) trips (mode share %) Private Private Borough vehicle PT vehicle PT 23,300 12,700 25,800 16,400 Greenwich (65%) (35%) (61%) (39%) 18,200 25,400 19,900 30,200 Newham (42%) (58%) (40%) (60%) 17,000 45,500 18,700 57,400 Tower Hamlets (27%) (73%) (25%) (75%) 58,400 83,600 64,400 103,900 Sub-total (41%) (59%) (38%) (62%) 193,500 159,300 202,700 189,100 ESR (55%) (45%) (52%) (48%)

5.3.7 The following sections set out the anticipated changes in performance on the ESR transport networks.

5.4 Road network

5.4.1 Despite significant increases in PT mode share (accompanied by an uplift in walking and cycling mode share), forecast growth in population and employment in the ESR is such that absolute growth in vehicle trips is inevitable. The tables above indicate that private vehicle trips with an origin in the ESR are forecast to increase by 7% in the AM peak hour from 2012 to the 2021 Reference Case (211,700 trips increasing to 226,300), 6% in the IP average hour, and 5% in the PM peak hour.

5.4.2 Within this overall uplift, the composition of private vehicle trips is also forecast to change, with goods vehicles accounting for an increasing proportion as shown in Figure 5-5.

Page 156 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-5: Goods vehicle trips originating in ESR, as a proportion of all private vehicle trips (2012 v 2021 Reference Case)

HGV LGV 25.0%

20.0%

15.0% 11.1% 12.4% 10.0% 10.9% 10.0% 8.6% 9.7% 5.0% 7.1% 6.7% 8.3% 7.9% 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% 2012 2021 Ref 2012 2021 Ref 2012 2021 Ref Case Case Case AM peak hour (08:00- IP average hour (10:00- PM peak hour (17:00- 09:00) 16:00) 18:00)

5.4.3 The graph indicates that the proportion of all private vehicle trips originating in the ESR that are made by goods vehicles (LGVs and HGVs) is forecast to rise from 17.1% to 17.6% in the AM peak hour between 2012 and the 2021 Reference Case. In the IP average hour, the corresponding increase is from 19.4% to 20.3%, with the proportion in the PM peak hour increasing from 11.8% to 12.8%. In each time period, the increase in the proportion of trips made by LGVs exceeds a forecast decrease in the proportion of trips made by HGVs.

5.4.4 This overall forecast increase in goods vehicle ‘mode share’ is more noticeable at the Blackwall Tunnel, which is an important route for delivery and servicing traffic. As a result, goods vehicles make up a larger proportion of all trips through the tunnel than on the overall road network in the ESR. Figure 5-6 for example indicates that goods vehicles account for 25.4% of all road vehicle trips northbound through the Blackwall Tunnel in the AM peak hour in 2012. This proportion is forecast to increase to 27.5% in the 2021 Reference Case and 29.3% in the 2031 Reference Case.

Page 157 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-6: AM peak hour (08:00-09:00) northbound cross-river road vehicle trips (base 2012 and Reference Case 2021 and 2031)

5.4.5 The forecast increase in goods vehicle mode share is significant, since servicing and delivery trips are generally more difficult to transfer to other modes than other trips (for example, many delivery and servicing trips involve the transit of heavy loads). In addition, as indicated in Chapter 3, the origins and destinations of Blackwall Tunnel users are currently widely dispersed and this is not expected to change in future, meaning that no viable PT alternative will exist for many of these trips.

5.4.6 Figure 5-7 to Figure 5-9 illustrate the change in actual flow forecast by the RXHAM in the 2021 Reference Case (i.e. the model run without the Silvertown Tunnel in place but with forecast growth and committed investments) when compared to the 2012 base year in each of the three time periods assessed. The plots indicate that traffic is forecast to increase on all strategic links in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel (including the A102, the A2, the A12, the A13, the A206 Woolwich Road and the A1261 Aspen Way) in all three time periods.

5.4.7 Larger versions of these plots are available in Appendix I.

Page 158 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-7: AM peak forecast change in actual flow (2021 Reference Case – 2012 base)

Figure 5-8: IP forecast change in actual flow (2021 Reference Case – 2012 base)

Figure 5-9: PM peak forecast change in actual flow (2021 Reference Case – 2012 base)

Page 159 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5.4.8 These figures also demonstrate the base year capacity constraints affecting the Blackwall Tunnel. Despite increases in actual flow on the approach roads in 2021 when compared with the base year, there is no significant forecast increase in actual flow through the northbound bore in the AM peak hour or through the southbound bore in the PM peak hour as these links are currently already at capacity during these time periods. Increases in traffic through the tunnel itself are evident in the IP period and the counter-peak flow direction during the peak hours.

Crossing performance

5.4.9 The extent of the river crossings capacity constraints in the ESR is demonstrated by comparing the demand flow forecasts with the actual flow forecasts51 from the 2021 RXHAM Reference Case. The difference between the two is effectively the traffic that could not be assigned to the network in the modelled hour as a result of these capacity constraints, resulting in queued traffic remaining on the network at the end of the hour.

5.4.10 Figure 5-10 illustrates the difference between demand and actual flow for northbound river crossings in the AM peak hour in the 2021 Reference Case, clearly highlighting the capacity constraints at all crossings in east London, but notably at the Blackwall Tunnel and the Dartford Crossing. Demand flow relative to actual flow at the Blackwall Tunnel rises from 112% in the base year to 120% in the Reference Case, which as the northbound tunnel is already operating at capacity in the AM peak represents a notable increase in demand that would manifest in further delay.

51 Further explanation on the difference between demand and actual flow is provided in Figure 1-4 in Chapter 1.

Page 160 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-10: 2021 Reference Case AM peak hour northbound actual v demand flow (PCUs)

AM northbound actual flows AM northbound demand flows 7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

PCUs/hr

6,102

5,612

2000

1,201

1,164

3,894

843

805

739 3,236

1000 711

203 205 205 230 0 Southwark London Tower Rotherhithe Blackwall Woolwich Dartford Bridge Bridge Bridge Tunnel Tunnel Ferry Crossing

5.4.11 Figure 5-11 summarises the same data for southbound flows in the PM peak hour, showing that by far the greatest differential between cross-river demand and capacity in east London during this time period is found at the Blackwall Tunnel. Demand flow relative to actual flow at the Blackwall Tunnel rises from 104% in the base year to 142% in the Reference Case, a significant increase. Demand flow would significantly exceed available capacity and resultant levels of delay would hence be significantly higher than current levels.

Figure 5-11: 2021 Reference Case PM peak hour southbound actual v demand flow (PCUs)

PM southbound actual flows PM southbound demand flows 8000 7000 6000

5000

4000

7,513 PCUs/hr

3000 7,128

5,261

2000

1,126

1,046

1,014

977

3,704

808

1000 787

253 257 205 269 0 Southwark London Tower Rotherhithe Blackwall Woolwich Dartford Bridge Bridge Bridge Tunnel Tunnel Ferry Crossing

Page 161 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5.4.12 The graph in Figure 5-6 illustrating the composition of traffic using the Blackwall Tunnel and adjacent crossings further demonstrates the capacity constraint at the Blackwall Tunnel, indicating no forecast increase through the tunnel northbound in the AM peak hour from 2012 through to 2031. The graph also shows that both the Rotherhithe Tunnel and the Woolwich Ferry will be at capacity by 2021, with no significant growth in flow evident by 2031.

5.4.13 Due to the introduction of free-flow charging, there is anticipated to be some additional peak capacity growth on the Dartford Crossing prior to 2021, although strategic modelling suggests that this will not have a material impact on demand for the river crossings in east London.

Congestion and delay in 2021

5.4.14 The forecast increase in highway trips between 2012 and 2021, coupled with the river crossing capacity constraints in the Reference Case, are expected to result in increasing levels of congestion on the road network, and in particular in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel.

5.4.15 Figure 5-12 and Figure 5-13 illustrate the AM peak and PM peak change in Volume/Capacity Ratios (VCRs) evident in the 2021 Reference Case RXHAM outputs when compared to the 2012 base year outputs described in the previous chapter. The colour denotes whether the change results in a link crossing an identified threshold, in this case either 80% or 100% saturation

5.4.16 These figures indicate that traffic demand for the Blackwall Tunnel northbound is forecast to exceed capacity in both the AM and PM peak hours due to the forecast increase in throughput in the PM peak hour (the northbound bore is already in excess of capacity in the AM peak hour at 100%). Southbound, VCR reaches in excess of 80% in the AM peak hour and in excess of 90% in the PM peak hour.

5.4.17 Further afield from the Blackwall Tunnel, the plans indicate numerous links where VCR increases above 90% and 100% capacity on both sides of the River Thames in the AM and PM peak hours.

Page 162 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-12: 2012 base vs 2021 Reference Case AM peak VCR change

Figure 5-13: 2012 base vs 2021 Reference Case PM peak VCR change

Page 163 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5.4.18 These changes are anticipated to lead to increases in congestion around the network. Figure 5-14 to Figure 5-16 illustrate the level of delay, measured in PCU- hours, forecast at junctions in the three assessed time periods in the 2021 Reference Case.

5.4.19 The figures show that significant delay in excess of 1.5 minutes per km is likely to affect many sections of the strategic network. During both peak periods, high levels of delay are expected to affect the approaches to Tower Bridge, London Bridge and the Rotherhithe Tunnel.

5.4.20 In the AM peak hour, extensive delays of over 240 PCU-hours occur on the approach to the Blackwall Tunnel southern portal (on the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach and Blackwall Lane). This delay is higher than anywhere else on the wider network. The wider area insets also indicate delays on the A20 Sidcup Road and on the A206, the main access to the Woolwich Ferry from the east. North of the River Thames, delays are evident on sections of the A13 and the A118 through Ilford.

5.4.21 In the IP average hour, delays are less prevalent across the network but are still significant on the approach to river crossings such as Tower Bridge and London Bridge.

5.4.22 In the PM peak hour, significant delays are evident on the A12 and A13 approaches to the A102/A13 East India Dock Road junction, and also on the approach to the southern portal from south of the River Thames. The plot shows a number of key junctions with significant delays across much of the network.

Page 164 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-14: 2021 AM peak hour Reference Case junction delay

Figure 5-15: 2021 IP peak hour Reference Case junction delay

Figure 5-16: 2021 PM peak hour Reference Case junction delay

Page 165 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5.5 Network reliability and resilience

5.5.1 As described in Chapter 4, the Blackwall Tunnel is currently particularly susceptible to high levels of congestion and the frequent occurrence of disruptive incidents and tunnel closures. These factors contribute to poor journey time reliability for traffic using the tunnel, and the wider network dis- benefits caused by traffic diverting due to frequent unplanned closures are symptomatic of the lack of resilience in the cross-river ESR strategic road network.

5.5.2 The assessment summarised in Chapter 4 demonstrates the established link between congestion (expressed as a function of average speed) and reliability. It is evident that the forecast increased congestion on the road network in the ESR in the 2021 Reference Case (and the increasing pressure on available river crossings) will therefore lead to increasing unreliability on the road network, and particularly at the Blackwall Tunnel.

5.5.3 This added congestion will also result in more severe wider network impacts in terms of journey time delay when an unplanned closure of the Blackwall Tunnel occurs, as there will be less available spare capacity to accommodate diverting traffic. During both peak periods in 2021, high levels of delay are evident on the approaches to all crossings in the ESR and at the Dartford Crossing in the Reference Case, and consequential diversions will add to congestion on the approaches to these crossings.

5.6 Road safety

5.6.1 Due to the overall increase in traffic volumes forecast, and the likelihood that these will follow the existing distribution of traffic on different road types, it is expected that there would be an increase in accidents in the Reference Case when compared to recent years (as reported in section 4.4). However, it is likely that the patterns and rate of traffic collisions would not change significantly when compared with the base year, as planned changes to the Reference Case highway network in the vicinity of the tunnel are limited when compared with the base year.

5.6.2 TfL has on-going programmes in place that seek to address road safety issues, and the collision clusters identified in Chapter 4 will be considered as part of those programmes independently of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme.

5.7 Public transport network

5.7.1 The forecast increase in population and employment in the ESR will result in an increase in trips on the available PT networks.

Page 166 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5.7.2 In addition, the rail PT network in east London will be enhanced by Crossrail coming into service in 2018 (Figure 5-17), which will provide a new crossing of the River Thames at Woolwich. This will increase capacity for trips by rail, and significantly reduce journey times to Canary Wharf and central London from its stations in south-east London at Woolwich and and associated areas with walking, bus or rail connections to those stations.

Figure 5-17: Crossrail route map

5.7.3 Other committed rail PT enhancements include increasing capacity and service levels on the London Underground Jubilee line, and on the DLR.

5.7.4 This additional rail capacity will see total cross-river PT capacity rise to almost 80,000 northbound passengers in the AM peak hour (as shown in Figure 3-4). Further capacity enhancements may be achievable through the provision of additional and/or longer trains.

5.7.5 As a result of this investment, forecast peak PT demand can generally be accommodated on cross-river PT links in future despite the forecast growth in population and employment, albeit with some degree of standing and crowding.

5.7.6 Figure 5-18 shows the expected crowding levels on the London Underground and DLR networks in 2031 following the implementation of measures in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS)52. The Jubilee line between Canary Wharf and Canada Water, in particular, is expected to remain among the busiest sections of the London Underground network.

52 Details on the London Underground upgrade programme are available on the TfL website at https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/tube-improvements

Page 167 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-18: Forecast morning peak (0700-1000) crowding levels on the London Underground and DLR networks (2031)

5.7.7 Figure 5-19 shows levels of crowding on the National Rail, London Overground and Crossrail networks.

Figure 5-19: Forecast morning peak (0700-1000) crowding levels on the National Rail, London Overground and Crossrail networks (2031)

Page 168 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

5.7.8 In terms of access to the bus network, the low PTALs evident in some areas on either side of the River Thames in the ESR at present are likely to remain low in future years in the Reference Case scenario – 2031 bus PTALs are shown in Figure 5-20. Note that some areas for instance around are largely undeveloped open spaces and/or low density, which accounts for the low PTAL scores which are unlikely to change significantly in the period to 2031.

Figure 5-20: 2031 Reference Case bus PTALs

5.7.9 Current constraints on the optimal use of buses in the area around the Blackwall Tunnel (i.e. the physical limitations of the tunnel itself, associated road network congestion and unreliability, and the general lack of road- based river crossings serving the ESR) mean that it will be very difficult to

Page 169 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

plug identified gaps in rail network provision in future years by improving bus services without the provision of new river crossings.

5.7.10 There is one bus route that uses the Blackwall Tunnel (route 108 Lewisham Centre to Stratford bus station, a 24-hour service) and due to the height restrictions at the tunnel it is only possible to operate single-deck buses, which limits the capacity of the service. As indicated in Chapter 4, the route also performs poorly based on TfL’s measure of reliability, Excess Wait Time.

5.7.11 The forecast increase in traffic volumes in future years and the associated added congestion and lack of resilience on the highway network in the Reference Case described earlier will likely have a significant negative impact on the performance of the route 108 bus service and coach services that use the tunnel, in particular in terms of increasing journey time variability.

5.7.12 Variable journey time reduces the ability of bus services to keep to timetable, leading to an unsatisfactory passenger experience and also making it necessary to incorporate longer ‘recovery times’ in schedules to mitigate the impact. This in turn results in higher operating costs as more buses and drivers are needed to operate the service.

5.7.13 Opportunities for further increasing the number of coach services that use the Blackwall Tunnel in future are also limited by the congestion and resilience issues outlined above.

5.8 Walking and cycling network

5.8.1 Due to the forecast increases in population and employment referred to above, a large increase in overall trips undertaken in the study area is expected to occur over the coming years. As with PT and road-based trips, this will result in an increase in local pedestrian and cycling trips above current numbers. An increase in cross-river cycling trips is also expected to be driven by significant background growth in cycling in London.

5.8.2 Without improvement to pedestrian and cycling facilities therefore, the issues identified by the PERS and CLoS assessments undertaken for this TA and referred to in Chapter 4 would either be exacerbated by an increase in pedestrian and cycling activity, or would inhibit growth in the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists.

5.8.3 However, the walking and cycling networks in the study area are expected to have changed significantly by 2021 and beyond as a result of several major developments. The Greenwich Peninsula Masterplan and the Greenwich

Page 170 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Peninsula West Masterplan will result in a transformation of the area around the southern portals of the Blackwall Tunnel, including improvements to the public realm. On the north side, development associated with the Royal Docks Enterprise Zone is expected to result in a similar transformation that would create a much improved environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

5.8.4 In the medium term, outline planning consent has been granted for the Blackwall Reach development, which would reconfigure local movements around the northern Blackwall Tunnel portal. The area around the northern portal of the Silvertown Tunnel is likely to be brought forward for redevelopment and could include a new DLR station in the Silvertown area, which would create new pedestrian routes and desire lines. Cycle Superhighway 4 is also planned to broadly follow the A206 between Woolwich and Greenwich to the south of the Greenwich Peninsula.

5.8.5 A cross-London network of high-quality ‘Quietways’ is also being constructed, which will provide more direct and better serviced cycle routes than the London Cycle Network. The planned network in the area is shown in purple in Figure 5-21 and runs up to the EAL terminals on the Greenwich Peninsula. The existing Cycle Super Highways are shown in blue and the EAL is highlighted in red.

Figure 5-21: Proposed cycle Quietways and existing Cycle Superhighways

Emirates Air Line

5.8.6 Improvements delivered through the planned development and schemes outlined above are likely to address some of the issues highlighted by the PERS and CLoS assessments. Other issues may need to be addressed

Page 171 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

through on-going TfL programmes to improve pedestrian and cycling facilities across London.

5.9 Access to jobs and labour market

Public transport

5.9.1 Figure 5-22 shows the change in PT connectivity expected by 2021. The largest improvements in journey time are seen along the Crossrail alignment, particularly in south-east London.

Figure 5-22: Change in PT journey times (AM peak hour, 2011 to 2021)

Change in average journey Decrease in minutes

5.9.2 However, despite the capacity and connectivity increases in rail PT in the ESR, there are some locations where access to employment is still likely to be lower in future.

5.9.3 For example, Figure 5-23 shows expected AM peak hour journey time to Canary Wharf from different stations in south-east London in 2021. This shows areas with good connections to Abbey Wood, Greenwich or Lewisham will in future benefit from relatively rapid journey times to Canary Wharf. Areas with poorer connections to those interchange stations (such as those on train lines bypassing Lewisham) will continue to have higher average journey times into Canary Wharf.

Page 172 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-23: Approx. rail journey times to Canary Wharf from SE London (peak hour, 2021)53

Private vehicles

5.9.4 The future year congestion described earlier in this chapter will contribute to an overall reduction in cross-river connectivity for private vehicles when compared to today’s levels, which will be more critical in future than at present in the context of the growth potential of key regeneration areas in the ESR.

5.9.5 To illustrate this, Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25 show the change in highway access to jobs within 45 minutes journey time expected in the period from

53 Based on average wait times taking account of line frequencies through interchange stations. Journeys may be quicker or slower depending on route choice and connections (e.g. some faster but more expensive/ congested routes are available via London Bridge, and for infrequent lines some connections between lines will be more efficient if trip start times are planned around known timetabled connections, or may be slower if connections are missed). Stations shown have direct or single change access to Canary Wharf; for other lines/stations the journey times are less straightforward as an additional change is required.

Page 173 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

2012 to 2021 during the AM and PM peak hours respectively in the Reference Case, without the Silvertown Tunnel.

5.9.6 Average journey times to each zone generally lengthen in east London due to increased congestion, resulting in a decrease in the number of jobs located within the 45 minute ‘standard threshold’ and thus poorer connectivity to jobs via car. The figures indicate that these impacts are particularly acute in boroughs located in the ESR.

Figure 5-24: Change in job accessibility by car from 2012 to 2021 Reference Case – AM peak

Page 174 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 5-25: Change in job accessibility by car from 2012 to 2021 Reference Case – PM peak

5.9.7 Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 show the number of jobs within a 45-minute journey time by car by borough comparing the Base Year with the 2021 Reference Case without the Silvertown Tunnel scheme during the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

Table 5-6: Number of accessible jobs by borough (millions, by car) – AM peak hour No. of accessible jobs 2021 Borough % Change Base year Reference Case Barking and Dagenham 2.25 1.85 -18% Greenwich 1.65 1.29 -22% Hackney 3.49 3.53 +1% Lewisham 2.06 1.63 -21% Newham 2.98 2.70 -9% Tower Hamlets 3.50 3.48 -1% Waltham Forest 2.50 2.38 -5%

Page 175 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 5-7: Number of accessible jobs by borough (millions, by car) – PM peak hour No. of accessible jobs 2021 Borough % Change Base year Reference Case Barking and Dagenham 2.32 2.08 -10% Greenwich 2.21 1.84 -17% Hackney 2.87 2.94 +3% Lewisham 2.54 2.43 -4% Newham 2.74 2.70 -2% Tower Hamlets 2.98 2.96 -1% Waltham Forest 2.65 2.54 -4%

5.9.8 The data indicates that without further intervention, significant absolute reductions in connectivity can be expected in east and south-east London, as increased congestion on the road network results in large parts of London becoming increasingly unreachable by car within the 45 minute car journey time threshold.

5.10 Key points

5.10.1 Population and employment is forecast to rise rapidly across London between 2011 and 2041, but particularly in the ESR. Population in ESR boroughs is forecast to grow by 35% over this period (compared to 26% across London) while employment is forecast to grow by 43% (compared to 21% across London). Forecast growth is higher still in the three Silvertown Tunnel host boroughs of Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets, with population rising by 50% and employment rising by 72%.

5.10.2 As a result of this growth, it is forecast that between 2012 and 2021 the total volume of trips will continue to rise across the ESR by nearly 10%. Most of these new trips will be made on the PT network, and the planned investment in PT capacity and connectivity means these trips can be accommodated on the network albeit with some degree of standing and crowding.

5.10.3 Nonetheless, there will also be growth in trips made by private vehicles and demand for the existing river crossings will increase. At the Blackwall Tunnel, demand relative to capacity will increase significantly at peak times, and in particular in the southbound direction of the PM peak where demand relative to actual flow is forecast to increase from 104% in 2012 to 142% in the Reference Case. The resultant levels of delay and congestion on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel would be significantly higher than current levels.

5.10.4 In a future year scenario without the Silvertown Tunnel scheme, therefore, in the absence of new road crossing capacity there will be limited capacity for

Page 176 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5 growth in road vehicle trips across the river between east and south-east London, which will lead to increased levels of queuing and congestion on the approaches to existing crossings. As a result, average journey times and delays are expected to increase significantly across the area, with knock-on negative impacts for network resilience and connectivity to labour market (for businesses) and jobs (for residents).

Page 177 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

Page 178 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6 IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED SCHEME

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This chapter provides a delivery overview of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme, as well as the construction environmental management approach that would be adopted by the appointed contractor. It then sets out the highways work phases envisaged at the tunnel portals, together with the anticipated impacts of these works on road users, PT users, pedestrians and cyclists.

6.1.2 Trip generation associated with the construction of the Scheme has been estimated for the two main worksites, one of which would be sited close to the tunnel portal location in Silvertown and the other close to the tunnel portal location on the Greenwich Peninsula. This takes account of traffic forecasts for both Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs), and estimates of staff travel by mode of transport (based on Census journey-to-work data) to and from each worksite over the four year construction programme.

6.1.3 HGV routes to both worksites have been identified, and informed assumptions have been made regarding the distribution of LGV trips (which would not be subject to the same constraints on route choice as HGVs). Forecast Scheme construction traffic generation in the AM peak hour, inter- peak hour and PM peak hour has been compared with traffic on the network in the 2021 Reference Case to determine the likely traffic effects of the construction of the Scheme.

6.1.4 Estimates of staff travel by mode of transport during the AM and PM peaks have been compared with data obtained from TfL’s Railplan PT Assignment Model to assess the likely impact on passenger numbers alighting from and boarding different modes of PT.

6.2 Scheme delivery overview

6.2.1 TfL proposes to deliver the Silvertown Tunnel though a private finance contract, as this would best meet the project objectives and constraints, and achieve an appropriate risk balance between the public and private sector. The contract would be competitively tendered in accordance with EU procurement procedures.

6.2.2 The successful tenderer, herein referred to as the Project Company (Project Co), would be responsible for the detailed design, construction, financing and maintenance of the tunnel and supporting infrastructure for a contract

Page 179 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

concession period (to be determined). TfL would retain control of traffic management for the Silvertown Tunnel and the Blackwall Tunnel as part of the strategic road network in London, and would continue to maintain and operate the Blackwall Tunnel and approach roads under existing arrangements.

6.2.3 Subject to the DCO being granted, the Project Co would be responsible for undertaking the detailed design and constructing the works in compliance with the constraints and parameters of the DCO application; TfL’s specifications; and the requirements, protective provisions and commitments confirmed by the DCO. The Project Co’s detailed proposals would be subject to further detailed review and approval prior to construction to ensure that the final design and construction methodology have no greater significant adverse effects than those assessed for the DCO.

6.3 Construction environmental management approach

6.3.1 A Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) (Document Reference: 6.10) for the Scheme has been prepared to accompany the DCO application. The purpose of the CoCP is to set a framework to control possible impacts arising from the construction of the Scheme. The CoCP covers environmental, public health and safety aspects of the Scheme that may affect the interests of local residents, businesses, the general public and the surroundings in the vicinity of the Scheme.

6.3.2 The CoCP has been prepared following consultation with stakeholders as part of the Scheme development, with due consideration taken to minimise the environmental impact of the Scheme proposals on local residents. The control measures set out in the CoCP are based on the findings and mitigation measures set out in the Environmental Statement (Document Reference: 6.1).

6.3.3 Contractual arrangements would require the Project Co to provide suitably qualified environmental staff to manage and execute works for which they are responsible. TfL would require that the Project Co demonstrates an appropriate awareness of local sensitivities, expected codes of conduct, working knowledge of relevant legislation, codes of practice, and guidance relevant to the various construction activities in which they are engaged. TfL would require the Project Co to have an Environmental Management System in accordance with BS EN ISO1400154 requirements.

54 BSI (2015). BS EN ISO14001 Environmental Management Systems.

Page 180 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.3.4 Following the appointment of the Project Co for the works, it would be the Project Co’s responsibility to produce and maintain an overarching Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the construction works. The CEMP would be developed in liaison with the relevant local authorities and the relevant statutory stakeholders for each topic area. The CEMP would set out the Project Co’s roles and responsibilities, together with appropriate control measures, training and briefing procedures, risk assessments, stakeholder engagement and monitoring systems to be employed during planning and constructing the works for all relevant environmental topics.

6.3.5 In addition to the CEMP, the CoCP also requires the Project Co to produce a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) for each of the main worksites before construction commences. The CTMPs would set out the overall approach for managing construction logistics and would encompass information on the following areas, among others:

 main access/egress points for each worksite;

 construction traffic routes;

 temporary and permanent road closures and diversions;

 construction traffic management;

 anticipated vehicle movements; and

 the approach for liaising with other contractors working on other nearby construction projects.

6.3.6 Further details on the content of the CTMPs can be found in the CoCP (Document Reference: 6.10). One key component of the CTMPs is the production of Construction Site Travel Plans, which would be developed to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport to and from the worksites for those working on the project. A Framework Construction Site Travel (FCSTP) Plan has been produced and this provides a basis for the Construction Site Travel Plans that would be produced by the Project Co for the two main worksites. The FCSTP can be found in Appendix J of this document.

6.4 Indicative construction programme

6.4.1 The indicative construction programme is about four years long, as indicated in summary in Figure 6-1. Details relating to the programme are contained in

Page 181 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

the Construction Method Statement (Environment Statement Appendix 4.A, Document Reference: 6.3).

Figure 6-1: Indicative construction programme

6.4.2 A Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) would be assembled and launched at the Silvertown worksite and work towards the Greenwich worksite, where it would turn and work back to the Silvertown worksite. A TBM is a machine used to excavate tunnels with a circular cross section. All excavated material would be extracted through the Silvertown worksite.

6.4.3 Much of the first year of the envisaged construction programme is taken up with preparatory works. The main tunnel bores would take approximately 15 months to construct from delivery of the TBM to its removal. The provision of highways infrastructure included in the tunnel construction programme is divided into a series of five phases at the Silvertown worksite and eight phases at the Greenwich worksite, which are described in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 respectively. The Silvertown worksite has been chosen as the main construction site for the following reasons:

 it has a safeguarded wharf for river transport; and

 it is currently occupied by industrial and brownfield sites, meaning that tunnel construction at the Silvertown worksite would therefore have less impact on existing and committed land-uses when compared with use for those construction activities of the worksite on the Greenwich Peninsula.

Page 182 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.5 Highway works phasing

Silvertown highway works phasing

6.5.1 The proposed illustrative Silvertown worksite is shown in Figure 6-2 along with primary site access points to/from the Tidal Basin Roundabout via Scarab Close and secondary access points to/from North Woolwich Road.

Page 183 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-2: Silvertown worksite (as envisaged during Phase 1)

Secondary worksite accesses/ egresses via North Woolwich Road

Primary worksite accesses/egresses via Scarab Close

Page 184 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.5.2 The envisaged construction works required to connect the existing highway network on the Silvertown side to the new Silvertown Tunnel could be divided into five distinct construction phases as described in Table 6-1 below.

Table 6-1: Highway Construction Phases – Silvertown side Phase 1  Installing temporary traffic management to provide (Estimated alternative routes and maintain access to surrounding duration: Mar properties; 2019 to Apr  Accesses to and egresses from the worksite 2020) established; and  Section of Dock Road within the worksite closed. Phase 2  Permanent highway works commence with the (Estimated construction of the retaining wall for the realigned Dock duration: Road; April 2020 to  Elongated section of the Tidal Basin Roundabout Nov 2021) constructed; and  Realignment of Lower Lea Crossing and the link to Dock Road constructed. Phase 3  Access road, landscaping and parking for the tunnel (Estimated services building constructed; duration:  Traffic diverted onto the completed elongated Tidal Nov 2021 to Basin Roundabout; and Mar 2022)  Scarab Close accessed via new link to Dock Road.

Phase 4  Realigned section of Dock Road within the worksite (Mar 2022 to constructed; Jun 2023)  Redundant carriageway broken out; and  Tunnel systems testing and commissioning forboth bores completed. Phase 5  No major construction work undertaken; (Jun 2023  Tunnels are open for traffic; and onwards)  Minor landscaping and remedial works may be undertaken.

6.5.3 All access to properties within the local area would be maintained throughout construction. However there would be no access to properties via Dock Road from the Tidal Basin Roundabout for the majority of the construction works since the main tunnel portal construction worksite would be located here. The eastern access to Dock Road from North Woolwich Road would be maintained at all times. Access to Scarab Close/Thames Wharf from the

Page 185 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Tidal Basin Roundabout would also be maintained for properties adjacent to the worksite to the west.

6.5.4 There would be no physical or other impacts of the Scheme works on the Jubilee Line, the EAL, the DLR or Crossrail infrastructure.

Greenwich highway works phasing

6.5.5 The proposed Greenwich worksite is shown in Figure 6-3 along with the main site access point and the temporary road required for the duration of the works. Access to the worksite would be via Millennium Way.

Page 186 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-3: Proposed Greenwich worksite

Primary worksite access/egress via Millennium Way

Page 187 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.5.6 The envisaged construction works required to connect the existing highway network on the Greenwich Peninsula side to the new Silvertown Tunnel could be divided into eight distinct phases as described in Table 6-2 below.

Table 6-2: Highway construction phases – Greenwich Peninsula side Phase 1  Installing temporary traffic management to provide alternative routes and maintain access to surrounding (Estimated properties including The O2 car parking; duration:  Accesses to and egresses from the worksite established; Mar 2019 –  Edmund Halley Way closed within the worksite; Aug 2019)  Construction works necessary to allow the temporary diversion of Millennium Way and the link to West Parkway undertaken.  Access along Millennium Way to be maintained;  Satellite worksites established at Boord Street and the Blackwall Tunnel Approach (northbound) to facilitate construction of the replacement footbridge;  The existing footbridge deck at Boord Street demolished following the installation of the replacement foot and cycle bridge structure and access, to minimise disruption to users; and  Ramp access to current footbridge and replacement footbridge available at all times – work undertaken during night shifts with road closures as the works are over the live carriageway. Phase 2  Phase commences following the temporary relocation of Millennium Way and the opening of the link road to West (Estimated Parkside; and duration:  Replacement of the foot and cycle bridge completed. Aug 2019 – Jul 2020)

Phase 3  Highway works for the realigned Blackwall Tunnel Approach southbound carriageway commenced, (Estimated including construction of the bridge over the northbound duration: slip road for Silvertown Tunnel and the repositioning of Jul 2020 – the associated bus link; and Sept 2021)  Millennium Way constructed over a completed section of the cut-and-cover structure and re-opened to traffic.

Page 188 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Phase 4  Southbound traffic on the Blackwall Tunnel Approach diverted over the new bridge constructed in Phase 3; and (Estimated  New bus link between the southbound A102 Blackwall duration: Tunnel Approach and Millennium Way completed. Sept 2021 – Nov 2021)

Phase 5  Northbound Blackwall Tunnel Approach traffic diverted to the original southbound carriageway, re-joining its original (Estimated alignment at the gatehouse structure; duration:  The carriageway works required across the existing Nov 2021 – central reserve of the Blackwall Tunnel Approach Jun 2022) completed;  No access available to Tunnel Avenue off northbound Blackwall Tunnel Approach; and  Edmund Halley Way reconstructed in its original position over the TBM reception/launch chamber and cut-and- cover tunnel. Phase 6  Edmund Halley Way re-opened;  Bus link opened to traffic; and (Estimated  The Blackwall Tunnel Approach northbound and duration: southbound traffic running in permanent configuration. Jun 2022 – Mar 2023)

Phase 7  Tunnel systems testing and commissioning for both bores completed. (Estimated duration: Mar 2023 – Jun 2023)

Phase 8  No major construction work undertaken;  Tunnels open for traffic; and (Estimated  Minor landscaping and remedial works undertaken if duration: necessary. Jun 2023 onwards)

6.5.7 For the duration of the highways works, the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach would be operational at all times with the exception of some night closures at key stages in the construction process, such as for the demolition of the existing footbridge at Boord Street and the erection of the proposed replacement pedestrian and cycle bridge and gantry structures. Advanced

Page 189 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

notice to motorists would be provided for any closures that are required of the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach.

6.5.8 Edmund Halley Way would be closed for a period during the Scheme’s construction works to enable the cut and cover section of the tunnel to be constructed. An alternative access road would be created to the south, running parallel with Edmund Haley Way, and this would be available to all road users.

6.5.9 Access along Millennium Way would be maintained with temporary localised diversions required during some periods of construction. The cut and cover tunnelling works would initially stop short of Millennium Way, and then a temporary road diversion would be constructed to ensure access is maintained along the road for all users. Traffic would then move back to the original alignment once the cut-and-cover section has been completed and the road reinstated.

6.5.10 The existing footbridge over the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach at Boord Street would need to be demolished at the start of the works to enable construction of the realigned A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach southbound carriageway. The work phasing would ensure that ramped access is maintained either for the existing footbridge or the proposed pedestrian and cycle bridge throughout the construction programme. The new permanent footbridge including the ramps would take approximately 20 weeks to construct. Once the new footbridge was completed and opens for use, the demolition of the existing footbridge would take approximately 4 weeks.

6.6 Impacts of highway works on the network

6.6.1 Table 6-3 and Table 6-4 summarise the envisaged impacts of construction on different sections of the road network in the vicinity of each worksite during each of the identified work phases. The impacts are summarised on plans in Figure 6-4 and Figure 6-5 for the phases when works would impact significantly on the surrounding transport networks – Phase 5 at Silvertown (minor landscaping and remedial works if required) and Phases 7 and 8 at Greenwich (tunnel systems testing and commissioning, and minor landscaping and remedial works if required) have not been drawn up in plan form as it is not expected that road users would be impacted during these work phases.

Page 190 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-3: Silvertown worksite impact matrix Road/junction Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 • New elongated layout opened • General access to roundabout • New elongated layout opened and connected to a new link to • General access to roundabout maintained during construction of and connected to a new link to Lower Lea Crossing maintained elongated circulatory Lower Lea Crossing • No access to section of Scarab • No access for peds or cyclists carriageway Tidal Basin • No access to section of Scarab Close within the worksite • Full ped and cyclist access through the worksite • No access to section of Scarab Roundabout Close within the worksite boundary available • No access to section of Scarab Close within the worksite boundary • No access for peds or cyclists Close within the worksite boundary • No access for peds or cyclists through the worksite boundary • No access for peds or cyclists through the worksite • Worksite reduced in size to through the worksite allow access to peds and cyclists

• Section of Dock Road within • Section of Dock Road within • Section of Dock Road within • Section of Dock Road within • Access to realigned Dock Road worksite boundary closed worksite boundary closed worksite boundary closed worksite boundary closed reinstated Dock Road • National Cycle Network • National Cycle Network • National Cycle Network • National Cycle Network • National Cycle Network diverted diverted diverted diverted reinstated

• All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained (although there may be minor (although there may be minor (although there may be minor (although there may be minor (although there may be minor Lower Lea Crossing temporary diversions during the temporary diversions during the temporary diversions during the temporary diversions during the temporary diversions during the junction tie-in works) junction tie-in works) junction tie-in works) junction tie-in works) junction tie-in works) North Woolwich • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained Road

Silvertown Way • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained • All access to be maintained

Page 191 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-4: Greenwich worksite impact matrix Road/ Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 Phase 8 junction • Access maintained • Access maintained • Construction of • Bus link completed • Northbound traffic • Northbound traffic • No impact • No impact on current alignment on current alignment temporary alignment • Southbound traffic diverted on to transferred to new • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 of A102 southbound shifted on to new original southbound Blackwall Tunnel southbound southbound closed, and bus link alignment with carriageway just Approach (Dreadnought bus route 108 to use • Northbound traffic access maintained before Gatehouse, • Southbound traffic A102 Street) closed, bus A102 off-slip to access maintained maintaining access shifted on to new route 108 to use Blackwall Lane • Work to remove for all users. alignment with A102 off-slip to central reserve and • Southbound traffic access maintained Blackwall Lane beginning of shifted on to new • Access for all construction of full alignment with users maintained depth carriageway access maintained • Bus link along • Access to be • Access maintained • Access maintained • No access with • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained Tunnel Avenue onto maintained Tunnel Avenue • Bus access re- A102 northbound • Bus link onto A102 junction instated on new closed, bus stop MV northbound re- • Bus link along two-way Tunnel closed, bus route opened with bus Tunnel Avenue onto Avenue with access Tunnel 108 to use Blackwall stop MV moved to A102 northbound to A102 northbound Avenue Lane to access new location permanently closed, A102 northbound bus route 108 to use • Traffic Blackwall Lane to management during access A102 footbridge northbound construction • Access maintained • Construction of • Re-constructed • Access along • Access along • Access along • Access along • Access along for all users temporary diversion and traffic routed original route original route original route original route original route Millennium • Temporary completed, traffic back onto current maintained for all maintained for all maintained for all maintained for all maintained for all Way diversion diverted to alignment users users users users users constructed temporary alignment • Stopped-up to • Stopped-up • Stopped-up • Stopped-up • Stopped-up • Access re-instated • Pedestrian and • Pedestrian and enable cut and • Temporary link • Access via • Access via • Access via for all users cycle access cycle access Edmund cover tunnel completed temporary link temporary link temporary link • Temporary link remains restricted remains restricted Halley construction closed due to worksite due to worksite Way • Temporary link created to maintain access for all users

Page 192 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Road/ Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 Phase 8 junction West • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained Parkside for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users

East • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained Parkside for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users for all users Boord • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 • Bus link for A102 Street (and southbound southbound southbound southbound southbound southbound southbound southbound footbridge) (Dreadnought (Dreadnought (Dreadnought (Dreadnought (Dreadnought (Dreadnought (Dreadnought (Dreadnought Street) closed, bus Street) closed Street) closed Street) closed Street) closed Street) closed Street) closed Street) closed route 108 to use • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained • Access maintained A102 off-slip to for all other users for all other users for all other users for all other users for all other users for all other users for all other users Blackwall Lane • Construction of • Access maintained new footbridge for all other users complete • Construction of new footbridge deck and ramps prior to demolition of existing bridge

Page 193 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-4: Silvertown worksite construction phasing

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

Page 194 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

PHASE 3

PHASE 4

Page 195 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-5: Greenwich worksite construction phasing

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

Page 196 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

PHASE 3

PHASE 4

Page 197 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

PHASE 5

PHASE 6

Page 198 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Impacts of the highway works on motorised users

Silvertown

6.6.2 Vehicular access around the Tidal Basin Roundabout would be maintained for the duration of the works, although there would be periods where certain movements are subject to minor diversions. It is also envisaged that temporary weekend or overnight closures would be necessary at key stages in the construction of the highway tie-in at Tidal Basin Roundabout and Lower Lea Crossing.

6.6.3 The current alignment of Dock Road from Tidal Basin Roundabout through to Waterfront Studios would be permanently stopped up from the start of the construction. All vehicles would need to access Dock Road from the southern end via its junction with North Woolwich Road and Silvertown Way. A temporary turning facility would be provided at the northern end of North Woolwich Road. Access to Scarab Close would be maintained to local businesses at all times.

Greenwich

6.6.4 It is important for access to be retained along Millennium Way, as any closure would have a significant impact on the local network around the Greenwich worksite.

6.6.5 The worksite would require changes to parking arrangements at The O2. The Scheme construction works would require the temporary occupation of car parking facilities currently utilised by The O2. Approximately 600 spaces would be lost during the construction of the Scheme; TfL would re-provide these spaces at other suitable locations, local to The O2. Further car parking facilities may become unavailable at the same time due to construction works associated with the Greenwich Masterplan Developments being undertaken by Knight Dragon. In this case TfL may implement a joint replacement car parking plan together with Knight Dragon.

6.6.6 There would be no impact on local access to the southern section of Tunnel Avenue for the duration of the work phases. For the northern section of Tunnel Avenue, local access would be maintained via Millennium Way and Ordnance Crescent. Controlled access from the northbound Blackwall Tunnel Approach to Tunnel Avenue would be maintained throughout construction where possible to assist diversion of any over-height vehicles heading towards the northbound bore of the Blackwall Tunnel.

Page 199 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Impacts of the highway works on public transport users

Silvertown

6.6.7 The Silvertown worksite would not impact on the operation of DLR services or the EAL, and there are currently no scheduled bus services on the Tidal Basin Roundabout.

6.6.8 For the duration of the works, important access routes to PT services would remain open. These include the stairwell between the Tidal Basin Roundabout and the Charrington Steps bus stop on Silvertown Way situated above the roundabout. The pedestrian access route between the West Silvertown DLR station and the employment sites around Dock Road would also remain open.

Greenwich

6.6.9 The Greenwich worksite would not impact on the operation of North Greenwich Bus Station, the Jubilee Line station, or the EAL. However, there would be some diversions to existing bus routes during the works as set out in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5: Bus route diversions during Greenwich construction phases  The closure of Edmund Halley Way means that the northbound 108 would need to be re-routed on to the temporary access route running parallel to the south Route 108 of Edmund Halley Way; and towards  The access route to the northbound A102 Blackwall Stratford Tunnel Approach via Tunnel Avenue would be closed and the northbound 108 would need to join the Blackwall Tunnel Approach from Blackwall Lane (Phases 1 and 5).  Buses would be permanently prevented from exiting the southbound A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach at Dreadnought Street/Boord Street, and would instead Route 108 initially be diverted via the main slip road to reach towards Blackwall Lane; and Lewisham  From Phase 6 onwards, buses would be able to exit the southbound A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach via the new bus link to Millennium Way. Route 188  Similar diversion required to Stratford-bound 108 towards service highlighted above to accommodate closure of Russell Square Edmund Halley Way.

Page 200 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Impacts of the highway works on pedestrians

Silvertown

6.6.10 Pedestrian routes around the Tidal Basin Roundabout would remain open for the duration of the works, although there may be minor temporary route diversions during this time. For the duration of the works, pedestrian access to Dock Road from the roundabout would be closed. The alternative pedestrian route to and from the southern section of Dock Road is along the Silvertown Way off-slip and down a stairwell. The nearest step-free access route would be via The Crystal and through a shared path passage under Silvertown Way. The Project Co would ensure a safe pedestrian route linking the Royal Docks area with North Woolwich Rd throughout the construction programme.

Greenwich

6.6.11 Pedestrians would continue to be able to use Millennium Way via a temporary diversion or along its existing alignment throughout the entire works programme. Provision for pedestrians would be included in the alternative access road running parallel to Edmund Halley Way.

6.6.12 The existing Boord Street footbridge would be demolished as part of the works and a replacement foot and cycle bridge constructed. The existing footbridge would not be demolished until the new foot and cycle bridge is constructed, and ramped access would be maintained throughout construction.

6.6.13 The existing pedestrian route along the Thames Path would be unaffected by the works.

Impacts of the highway works on cyclists

Silvertown

6.6.14 The cycle route linking Lower Lea Crossing and Tidal Basin Road around the south of the Tidal Basin Roundabout would remain open for the duration of the works, although there may be minor temporary route diversions during the junction tie-in works. However, for the duration of the works, cycle access on the National Cycle Network Route 13 via Dock Road from the roundabout would be closed. Cyclists would instead be diverted onto the cycle route around the south of the roundabout to Tidal Basin Road and Western Gateway. The shared-path passage under Silvertown Way would remain open for those wishing to access the section of Dock Road to the east of the worksite.

Page 201 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Greenwich

6.6.15 Cyclists would continue to be able to use Millennium Way via a temporary diversion or along its existing alignment throughout the entire works programme. Provision for cyclists would be included in the alternative access road running parallel to Edmund Halley Way.

6.6.16 The existing Boord Street footbridge would be demolished as part of the works and a replacement foot and cycle bridge constructed. The existing footbridge would not be demolished until the new foot and cycle bridge is constructed, and ramped access would be maintained throughout construction.

6.6.17 The cycle route along the Thames Path would be unaffected by the works. During phase 5, cycle access to properties on the closed section of Tunnel Avenue would be restricted at times although access to businesses would be guaranteed through the management of access points.

Impacts of the highway works on river users

6.6.18 The proposed highways works set out in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 are not expected to have an impact on river users. The impacts of using the river for transporting materials to and from the worksites are set out later in this chapter.

6.7 Construction traffic

6.7.1 Each construction element of the Scheme would require principal bulk material and other materials to be delivered to both worksites. Spoil and other excavated material would also be required to be transported away from both worksites during the bored tunnelling and cut and cover works.

6.7.2 The construction element generating the greatest transport impact is the disposal of spoil off-site from the tunnel bores. The total volume of spoil produced by the TBM for disposal is estimated at around 490,000 tonnes. The duration of the tunnel bore works (excluding installation, turnaround at Greenwich and removal) would be about 11 months. It is forecast that the TBM would operate six-and-a-half days per week with half a day allowed for maintenance. During this period tunnelling is estimated to produce around 1,780 tonnes of material per operational day, which would be temporarily stored and sorted at the Silvertown worksite prior to removal. Over a full week, the average volume of spoil removed per day would equate to around 1,530 tonnes.

Page 202 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.7.3 Following further investigation into the potential for river transportation, and to reduce the impacts of the Scheme’s construction on the highway network, TfL has committed to transporting at least 50% of materials by weight associated with the Scheme by river. The river would be used to transport excavated material and large bulky construction materials and goods (for example aggregates and tunnel segments) to/from both worksites. Further details on river transport targets can be found in the CoCP (Document Reference: 6.10).

6.7.4 The Silvertown worksite contains a safeguarded wharf facility known as Thames Wharf, from which the majority of excavated material from both tunnel bores and some from the cut and cover works could be transported. The area around the wharf and sea wall would be protected for storage prior to removal. TfL have undertaken a series of assessments to identify suitable receptor sites for excavated material and other waste streams transported by river from Thames Wharf. Further details of these assessments are provided in Chapter 13 of the Environmental Statement (Document Reference: 6.1).

6.7.5 The Greenwich worksite does not have direct wharf access. Accordingly, principal bulk materials and other construction materials transported by river to the Greenwich worksite or any spoil or other excavated material transferred out of the Greenwich worksite by river would involve an onward or initial short haul HGV journey by road to a suitable wharf near the site.

6.7.6 Use of the river would help to reduce the overall number of HGV movements on the road network during the construction of the Scheme55. Based on the commitment to use the river outlined above, the approximate number of HGV movements (i.e. a one-way movement to or from a worksite, including empty HGV movements) by works element and worksite are presented in Table 6-6.

6.7.7 The table indicates that with 50% of all material by weight being transported by river, HGV traffic is estimated to be 58,000 movements for the Silvertown worksite and 65,700 movements for the Greenwich worksite, which equates to 123,700 movements in total. Of the movements for the Greenwich worksite, 15,500 movements are estimated to be short haul HGV trips to and from a suitable wharf in the vicinity.

55 The Preliminary TA published in October 2015 assessed a worst case scenario that envisaged all materials being transported to and from both worksites by road. The commitment to using the river for transporting a proportion of materials associated with the Scheme’s construction means the number of HGV movements on the road network is now less than previously assumed.

Page 203 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-6: Estimated HGV movements over four year construction period (with 50% by weight of all materials associated with the Scheme by river) Works element Silvertown Greenwich worksite worksite Site buildings 850 4,740 Cut and cover tunnel 22,720 33,180 Bored tunnel 25,000 - Highways 4,830 9,480 Mechanical and electrical 1,000 1,000 Landscaping 800 800 Site establishment 2,000 1,000 TBM delivery/removal 800 - Total long haul HGV movements 58,000 50,200 Short haul HGV movements - 15,500 Total HGV movements 58,000 65,700

6.7.8 There would also be a number of LGV (van) movements in and out of both worksites, in addition to the HGV movements. These LGV movements are principally associated with sub-contractors working on either of the worksites that need to transport construction related equipment and tools that are too bulky to be transported by PT, and servicing trips. In terms of LGV movements, it is estimated there would be around 50,000 movements for the Silvertown worksite and 25,000 movements for the Greenwich worksite over the four year construction programme.

HGV routeing and impacts on the highway network

6.7.9 As set out earlier in this chapter, CTMPs would be produced by the Project Co for each of the main worksites and these would specify the routes to be used by HGVs in consultation with the relevant local authorities. The specified routes would take into account the location of sensitive sites such as schools and hospitals. As a general rule, routes to the worksites would be via the TLRN as these roads are best suited to accommodating high volumes of traffic. Local roads would only be used to directly access the worksites.

6.7.10 The vehicular access points for the Silvertown worksite would be via the Tidal Basin Roundabout and off Dock Road/North Woolwich Road. The principal indicative HGV routes are the A13 and A12 via Leamouth Road and the Lower Lea Crossing, and the A1020, Connaught Bridge and North Woolwich Road (shown in Figure 6-6).

6.7.11 The vehicular access point to the Greenwich worksite would be from Millennium Way. HGVs could access the worksite from the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach via Blackwall Lane and Millennium Way (also shown in Figure 6-6).

Page 204 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-6: Proposed HGV access routes to worksites

6.7.12 The CTMPs would also confirm arrangements for a HGV holding facility near to the Silvertown worksite entrance if one is required, which could be located on part of the current Crossrail site accessed from Lower Lea Crossing. There is also space for a small HGV holding facility near to the Greenwich worksite entrance if required. This facility could be provided in liaison with other Greenwich Peninsula developers to accommodate their construction programmes.

6.7.13 From the river transportation investigation undertaken a number of working wharves have been identified as feasible options to serve the Greenwich worksite. To ensure the worst case scenario is being assessed for construction traffic assessment purposes, Brewery Wharf, which is furthest from the Greenwich worksite, has been selected. Brewery Wharf is situated approximately 2.5 kilometres south-west of the Greenwich worksite on the east side of Deptford Creek.

6.7.14 Due to the weight restriction along Romney Road to the east of Brewery Wharf through Greenwich Town Centre, any short haul HGV trips to and

Page 205 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

from the wharf would access the Greenwich worksite from the A102 via the A206 Greenwich High Street and A2 Blackheath Hill (Figure 6-6).

6.7.15 For the purpose of assessing the impacts of construction HGVs on the highway network, the following assumptions were made to calculate daily traffic generation:

 Five and a half working days per week, ten hours (08:00 to 18:00) per Monday to Friday and six hours (08:00 to 14:00) on Saturday, with HGV traffic spread evenly across the hours;

 For the Silvertown worksite, the following distribution assumptions were made:

o 80% of HGVs would use the worksite accesses off Tidal Basin Roundabout, of which 70% would travel to/from the east via the A13 and 30% to/from north via the A12; and

o 20% of HGVs would use the worksite accesses off Dock Road/North Woolwich Road and would travel via the A13, A1020, Connaught Bridge and North Woolwich Road.

 For the Greenwich worksite, it is assumed that all construction vehicles would access the worksite via the A102, Blackwall Lane and Millennium Way.

6.7.16 Figure 6-7 shows the total forecast weekday HGV movements for the Silvertown worksite based on the indicative construction programme outlined in Figure 6-1. It can be seen that peak HGV activity is anticipated to occur during month 25, with approximately 81 movements per weekday.

Figure 6-7: Weekday daily HGV movements during construction – Silvertown site

Page 206 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.7.17 Table 6-7 to Table 6-9 show the increases over the Reference Case of construction traffic movements during the peak construction HGV activity month on the highway network during the AM, inter-peak and PM peak hours. The RXHAM 2021 Reference Case scenario was used to provide background traffic estimates on each link.

Table 6-7: AM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Silvertown site Reference Case Peak % increase in movements 2021 construction movements Link Total movements Total HGV HGV vehicles (HGVs) vehicles A12 4,808 457 2 0.04 0.44 A13 East 6,610 701 5 0.08 0.71 A13 West 3,327 260 2 0.06 0.77 Leamouth Road 1,462 195 7 0.48 3.59 Lower Lea 2,069 79 7 0.34 8.86 Crossing North Woolwich 1,908 237 2 0.11 0.84 Road Connaught 1,593 242 2 0.13 0.83 Bridge A1020 Royal 2,223 383 2 0.09 0.52 Dock Road Table 6-8: Inter-peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Silvertown site Reference Case Peak % increase in movements 2021 construction movements Link Total movements Total HGV HGV vehicles (HGVs) vehicles A12 4529 540 2 0.04 0.37 A13 East 5798 706 5 0.09 0.71 A13 West 2978 297 2 0.07 0.67 Leamouth Road 1522 254 7 0.46 2.76 Lower Lea 1400 77 7 0.50 9.09 Crossing North Woolwich 1470 196 2 0.14 1.02 Road Connaught 1318 215 2 0.15 0.93 Bridge A1020 Royal 2371 391 2 0.08 0.51 Dock Road

Page 207 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-9: PM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Silvertown site Reference Case Peak % increase in movements 2021 construction movements Link Total movements Total HGVs HGVs vehicles (HGVs) vehicles A12 4,567 153 2 0.04 1.31 A13 East 6,498 223 5 0.08 2.24 A13 West 2,147 79 2 0.09 2.53 Leamouth Road 1,846 94 7 0.38 7.45 Lower Lea 1,992 45 7 0.36 15.56 Crossing North Woolwich 1,846 94 2 0.11 2.13 Road Connaught 1,609 104 2 0.12 1.92 Bridge A1020 Royal 2,182 97 2 0.09 2.06 Dock Road

6.7.18 Table 6-7 to Table 6-9 indicate that the impact of Silvertown worksite construction traffic on total traffic on the A12, A13, North Woolwich Road, Connaught Bridge Road and A1020 would be negligible throughout the construction period (less than 0.2% of total traffic during the AM peak, inter- peak and PM peak hours). The scale of the impact on Leamouth Road and Lower Lea Crossing is estimated as less than 0.5% of total Reference Case 2021 traffic during the AM peak, inter-peak and PM peak hours. The relative increases in HGV traffic are higher, with a maximum 16% increase in HGV traffic on Lower Lea Crossing during the PM peak, but this is off a low base figure.

6.7.19 Figure 6-8 shows the total forecast weekday HGV movements for the Greenwich worksite based on the indicative construction programme. The figure indicates that peak weekday construction vehicle traffic movements are anticipated to occur at the Greenwich worksite during month 33, where approximately 66 long-haul movements and 20 short-haul movements would be expected per day.

Page 208 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-8: Weekday daily HGV movement during construction – Greenwich site

6.7.20 Table 6-10 to Table 6-12 shows the increases over the Reference Case of the Greenwich worksite construction traffic movements during the peak construction HGV activity period on the highway network during the AM peak, inter-peak and PM peak hours. The RXHAM 2021 Reference Case scenario was used to provide background traffic estimates on each link.

Table 6-10: AM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Greenwich site Reference Case Peak construction % increase in total traffic 2021 traffic movements construction traffic (two-way) (HGVs) movements Total Long- Short- Total Link vehicles HGV haul haul vehicles HGV Millennium Way 1,154 115 7 2 0.78 7.83 Blackwall Lane 2,083 240 7 2 0.43 3.75 A102 5,274 381 7 2 0.17 2.36 A2 (south of 6,506 979 7 - 0.11 0.72 roundabout) A2 (west of Sun in the Sands 2,318 434 - 2 0.09 0.46 roundabout)

Page 209 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-11: IP hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Greenwich site Reference Peak construction % increase in total Case traffic traffic movements construction traffic 2021 (two-way) (HGVs) movements Total Long- Short Total Link vehicles HGV haul -haul vehicles HGV Millennium Way 1,351 167 7 2 0.67 5.34 Blackwall Lane 2,148 255 7 2 0.42 3.53 A102 4,913 524 7 2 0.18 1.72 A2 (south of Sun 1,13 in the Sands 6,346 7 - 0.11 0.62 6 roundabout) A2 (west of Sun in the Sands 2,355 485 - 2 0.08 0.41 roundabout) Table 6-12: PM peak hour traffic increase due to construction traffic – Greenwich site Reference Case Peak construction % increase in total traffic 2021 traffic movements construction (two-way) (HGVs) traffic movements Total Long- Short- Total Link vehicles HGV haul haul vehicles HGV Millennium Way 1,289 45 7 2 0.70 20.00 Blackwall Lane 2,028 92 7 2 0.44 9.78 A102 6,367 179 7 2 0.14 5.02 A2 (south of Sun 6,948 410 7 - 0.10 1.71 in the Sands roundabout) A2 (west of Sun 2,539 167 - 2 0.08 1.20 in the Sands roundabout)

6.7.21 Tables 6-10 to 6-12 indicate that the impact of peak construction traffic on Millennium Way, Blackwall Lane, the A102 and the A2 would be negligible (less than 0.8% of total traffic during the AM peak, inter-peak and PM peak hours). The relative increases in HGV traffic area higher, with a maximum 20% increase in HGV traffic on Millennium Wau during the AM peak, but this is off a low base.

6.7.22 The Reference Case + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic scenario in 2021 for both AM and PM peak hours has been tested using RXHAM, for the purpose of assessing the impacts of construction traffic on the strategic highway network. The modelling results indicate that the impact of peak Scheme construction traffic on the AM and PM peak highway network is negligible, and there are no material adverse impacts on the highway network as a result of the additional trips generated.

Page 210 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Road safety requirements for construction vehicles

6.7.23 In 2012 TfL implemented ‘Work Related Road Risk’ (WRRR) requirements into existing and new contracts. These requirements were introduced as part of a commitment to improve road safety and minimise the risk of commercial vehicles being involved in a collision with vulnerable road users on London’s roads. The requirements are now part of standard TfL contract ‘terms and conditions’ and are applicable to all contracts that require the use of commercial vehicles, including construction contracts.

6.7.24 As part of the construction of the Silvertown Tunnel, TfL would mandate that all contractors, suppliers and sub-contractors comply with the latest WRRR requirements available at the point of agreeing contracts. These requirements cover aspects such as vehicle and driver accreditation, driver training, vehicle safety equipment (including blind spot minimisation aids, side guards and proximity warning systems) and collision reporting procedures.

6.7.25 TfL recognises that the construction of a major infrastructure scheme such as the Silvertown Tunnel provides an opportunity to raise standards, and as such would require that contractors are accredited to Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme gold levels (or equivalent) and would set targets on the use of HGVs with the highest standards of driver visibility. Further information on the measures that would be taken to minimise road safety risks during construction of the Scheme can be found in the CoCP (Document Reference: 6.10).

River traffic

6.7.26 To facilitate the transport of materials by river, it is envisaged that the Project Co would make use of the existing Not Afloat But Safely Aground (NABSA) berth at Thames Wharf, and a temporary jetty with associated dredging facilities would be constructed at the Silvertown worksite. Any vessel movements to and from the Silvertown worksite would be new trips and would therefore represent an increase in river traffic. The transport of materials by river to and from the Greenwich worksite would be via an existing working wharf that already generates river trips.

6.7.27 On the basis of 50% of all materials by weight being transported by river, it is estimated that the Scheme would generate approximately 3,910 river movements over four years (3,350 to/from the Silvertown worksite and 560 to/from a wharf in the vicinity of the Greenwich worksite), with peaks as shown in Figure 6-9. The figure shows monthly and cumulative river movements to/from the worksites on the left axis and right axis respectively.

Page 211 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 6-9: Estimated Scheme construction river movements Silvertown worksite

Vessels Cumulative vessels

120 3,500

100 3,000 2,500 80 2,000 60 1,500 40 1,000

20 500 movementsCumulative

Movements per calendar monthcalendarperMovements 0 0

Jul-21

Oct-18 Apr-21 Oct-21

Jun-20 Jan-21

Mar-20 Mar-23

Feb-19 Feb-22

Dec-19 Dec-22

Aug-19 Sep-20 Aug-22 May-22 May-19 Greenwich worksite

Vessels Cumulative vessels

120 3,500

100 3,000 2,500 80 2,000 60 1,500 40 1,000 20 500 movementsCumulative

Movements per calendar monthcalendarperMovements 0 0

Jul-21

Oct-18 Apr-21 Oct-21

Jun-20 Jan-21

Mar-20 Mar-23

Feb-19 Feb-22

Dec-19 Dec-22

Aug-19 Sep-20 Aug-22 May-22 May-19

6.7.28 The peak in river traffic equates to around 110 movements per calendar month at the Silvertown worksite (four to five movements per day) and 20 movements at the Greenwich worksite. This expected peak in river traffic movements would coincide with construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Page 212 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

and Northern Line extension projects, which are also planning to make use of river transport.

6.7.29 A Navigational Issues and Preliminary Risk Assessment (NIPRA) (Environmental Statement Appendix 7.A, Document Reference: 6.1) has been carried out to identify risks associated with constructing the proposed temporary jetty and the increased river movements associated with the movement of materials to and from the worksites.

6.7.30 The assessment has incorporated historic accident incident data supplied by the Port of London Authority (PLA) and the findings of a river traffic survey. The risk assessment identified potential hazards and suitable mitigation measures to reduce the impact on existing wharf and river users in the area. By implementing the mitigation measures envisaged, the NIPRA found that the risks could be adequately reduced. River transport logistics and details of the proposed structures would be further developed in consultation with the PLA once the Project Co is appointed. Further information on river transport and the approach to managing navigational risk can be found in the CoCP (Document Reference: 6.10).

6.8 Construction staff travel

6.8.1 The estimates of construction traffic presented above do not include workforce access to each worksite. As explained earlier in this chapter, a Framework Construction Site Travel Plan (FCSTP) has been produced and this sets out some principles around discouraging the construction workforce from travelling by car. The FCSTP can be found in Appendix J and provides a basis for the Construction Site Travel Plans that would be produced by the Project Co for the two main worksites.

6.8.2 There would be limited car parking available at both sites. The Silvertown site would have 100 car parking spaces with the Greenwich site providing 50 car parking spaces. This car parking would be used by sub-contractors who may be carrying tools and bulky materials, and visitors to the worksites.

6.8.3 Construction would take place over a four year period at both the Silvertown and Greenwich worksites, starting in early 2019 and finishing in early 2023. Working hours for surface construction activity would be restricted to 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 14:00 on Saturday, with no work taking place on Sundays or bank/public holidays.

6.8.4 It is estimated that 682 staff would be expected on the Silvertown site every day during the busiest period in late 2021 with the average staff level over the whole construction programme being 441 staff per day.

Page 213 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.8.5 Census 2011 travel-to-work data for mid-layer super output areas 034 and 037 in Newham (the areas including the Silvertown worksite), summarised in Table 6-13, were used to provide a first indication of how the workforce may be expected to travel to the site during peak times in the site’s most labour intensive month, excluding those listed as ‘not in employment’ or ‘working mainly at home’.

6.8.6 Since the proposed Silvertown worksite would have limited access to car parking, the modal split has been adjusted and reassigned proportionally to PT modes.

Table 6-13: Silvertown worksite mode of travel to work, based on 2011 Census (mid- layer super output areas 034 and 037 – LB Newham) Travel mode Mode Amended Total one-way share mode share daily trips (limited (amended parking) mode share) Underground, metro, light rail or tram 21.0% 32.4% 221 Train 9.4% 20.8% 142 Bus, minibus or coach 9.4% 20.8% 142 Taxi 0.2% 0.2% 1 Motorcycle, scooter or moped 1.6% 1.6% 11 Driving a car or van 48.9% 14.7% 100 Passenger in a car or van 2.2% 2.2% 15 Bicycle 2.1% 2.1% 14 On foot 4.7% 4.7% 32 Other method of travel to work 0.5% 0.5% 4 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 682

6.8.7 It is estimated that approximately 300 staff would be expected on the Greenwich site every day during the busiest period in the construction programme in mid 2021, with the average staff level over the whole construction programme being approximately 225 staff per day.

6.8.8 Census 2011 travel-to-work data for mid-layer super output area 036 in Greenwich (the area including the worksite), summarised in Table 6-14, was used to provide a first indication of how the workforce may be expected to travel to the site during peak times in the site’s most labour intensive month, excluding those listed as ‘not in employment’ or ‘working mainly at home’.

6.8.9 Since the proposed Greenwich site would have limited access to car parking, the modal split has been adjusted and reassigned proportionally to PT modes.

Page 214 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-14: Greenwich worksite mode of travel to work, based on 2011 Census (mid- layer super output area 036 – RB Greenwich) Travel mode Census Amended Total one-way mode mode share daily trips share (limited (amended parking) mode share) Underground, metro, light rail or tram 21.8% 27.85% 84 Train 14.2% 20.2% 61 Bus, minibus or coach 17.5% 23.6% 71 Taxi 0.1% 0.1% 0 Motorcycle, scooter or moped 1.1% 1.1% 3 Driving a car or van 34.6% 16.5% 50 Passenger in a car or van 2.2% 2.2% 7 Bicycle 2.7% 2.7% 8 On foot 5.3% 5.3% 16 Other method of travel to work 0.5% 0.5% 1 TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 303

6.8.10 The preliminary forecasts summarised above would be revised during the development of Construction Site Travel Plans, which would be a requirement of the DCO.

Construction staff impacts on PT

6.8.11 The assessment of the impacts of the construction workforce on the PT networks serving both worksites are set out in this section. The assessment has been undertaken during the most labour intensive month at each worksite.

DLR – Silvertown worksite

6.8.12 Royal Victoria DLR Station is the closest DLR station to the Silvertown worksite. Data obtained from TfL’s Railplan PT Assignment Model has been used to determine the scale of impact on passenger numbers alighting from and boarding services at Royal Victoria, as outlined in Table 6-15.

Table 6-15: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on DLR services (Silvertown worksite) Scenario AM (08:00-09:00) PM (17:00- 18:00) Alight Board Alight Board 2021 Reference Case 4810 5362 5896 5376 Silvertown worksite 221 - - 221 Scale of impact 4.59% - - 4.11%

6.8.13 As shown in the table, it is expected that additional passengers during the construction of the Scheme would have a negligible impact on the DLR, amounting to less than 5% of all expected passengers using the Royal Victoria station at peak times.

Page 215 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Rail – Silvertown worksite

6.8.14 Crossrail will be coming into service in 2018. Data on likely Crossrail usage has been obtained from Railplan, and the impact of additional construction worker travel during peak periods at Custom House station is set out in Table 6-16.

Table 6-16: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on Crossrail services (Silvertown worksite) Scenario AM (08:00- PM (17:00- 09:00) 18:00) Alight Board Alight Board 2021 Reference Case 7157 7652 7350 6925 Silvertown worksite 142 - - 142 Scale of impact 1.98% - - 2.05%

6.8.15 As indicated, the predicted scale of impact of construction staff from the Silvertown worksite on Crossrail at Custom House is minimal and would cause no detrimental impact on the network.

Bus – Silvertown worksite

6.8.16 Canning Town Bus Station is situated within 1 kilometre of the Silvertown worksite. Data from Railplan has been used to assess the scale of impact of Scheme construction workers added to Reference Case passenger numbers alighting from and boarding bus services at the bus station. The numbers are set out in Table 6-17.

Table 6-17: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on bus services from Canning Town Bus Station (Silvertown worksite) Scenario AM (08:00- PM (17:00- 09:00) 18:00) Alight Board Alight Board 2021 Reference Case 1266 787 1044 1798 Silvertown worksite 142 - - 142 Scale of impact 11.23% - - 7.90%

6.8.17 As indicated in the table, it is expected that there would be no detrimental impact to the bus network. Although the % increases are higher than those predicted on the rail network, the Reference Case forecasts indicate that there will be spare capacity on the bus network operating in this area in 2021.

Rail – Greenwich worksite

6.8.18 The closest railway station to the Greenwich worksite is Westcombe Park. The Scheme’s construction workers were added to Railplan forecast

Page 216 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Reference Case passenger numbers alighting from and boarding services at this station. The numbers are set out in Table 6-18.

Table 6-18: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on Westcombe Park rail services (Greenwich worksite) Scenario AM (08:00- PM (17:00- 09:00) 18:00) Alight Board Alight Board 2021 Reference Case 3120 3395 2321 2142 Greenwich worksite 61 - - 61 Scale of impact 1.96% - - 2.86%

6.8.19 The predicted scale of impact of construction staff from the Greenwich worksite on rail passenger numbers at Westcombe Park would cause no detrimental effects on the operation of the railway network.

Bus – Greenwich worksite

6.8.20 North Greenwich Bus Station is within 500 metres of the Greenwich worksite. The scale of impact of Scheme construction workers added to Railplan forecast Reference Case passenger numbers alighting from and boarding bus services at North Greenwich Bus Station is set out in Table 6-19.

Table 6-19: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on bus services from Greenwich Bus Station (Greenwich worksite) Scenario AM (08:00- PM (17:00- 09:00) 18:00) Alight Board Alight Board 2021 Reference Case 1926 1926 1069 2559 Greenwich worksite 71 - - 71 Scale of impact 3.71% - - 2.79%

6.8.21 The predicted scale of impact of construction staff from the Greenwich worksite on bus passenger numbers at North Greenwich is small and not likely to cause any detrimental impact to the operation of the bus network.

Underground – Greenwich worksite

6.8.22 North Greenwich Underground Station is the closest underground station to the Greenwich worksite. The scale of impact of Scheme construction workers added to Railplan forecast Reference case passenger numbers alighting from and boarding services at North Greenwich is set out in Table 6-20.

Page 217 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-20: Scale of impact of Scheme construction workers on North Greenwich underground services (Greenwich worksite) Scenario AM (08:00- PM (17:00- 09:00) 18:00) Alight Board Alight Board 2021 Reference Case 27860 19216 20802 26616 Greenwich worksite 84 - - 84 Scale of impact 0.30% - - 0.32%

6.8.23 The expected scale of impact of construction staff from the Greenwich worksite on underground passenger numbers at North Greenwich is minimal, and would not cause any detrimental impact to the operation of the underground network.

Other services

6.8.24 Should there be a need for construction workers to travel between the two main worksites at Silvertown and Greenwich during the working day, consideration would also be given to encouraging construction workers to travel via the Emirates Air Line. The potential for providing shuttle minibus services between the worksites and PT hubs such as could also be considered by the Project Co.

6.9 Cumulative construction traffic impacts

6.9.1 In addition to background traffic forecasts derived from the RXHAM and construction workforce traffic generated by the Silvertown Tunnel works, there is also the potential that development sites in the vicinity of the tunnel portals will generate construction traffic flows that could have cumulative impacts on the function and operation of the road network.

6.9.2 The list of relevant development sites taken into account correlates with those sites considered in the Environmental Statement (Document Reference: 6.1). The period assessed was from 2019 to 2023, corresponding to the planned construction programme for the tunnel. The following data was collated for each site:

 Average daily forecast of construction vehicle trips;

 Average AM peak forecast of construction vehicle trips; and

 Average PM peak forecast of construction vehicle trips.

6.9.3 Where possible, information on expected construction traffic was sourced directly from the respective TAs for each development. Sites were excluded in cases where construction is expected to be completed before 2019, as

Page 218 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

construction traffic associated with such sites would not conflict with the current assumed works programme for the Silvertown Tunnel.

6.9.4 In cases where construction traffic details were not included in a TA or the information provided was not clear, the following broad assumptions were applied to provide an estimate based on the quantum of development proposed and the length of the anticipated construction period:

 0.58 one-way trips per sqm of development, regardless of type of development – this includes demolition, excavation and construction;

 each residential unit assumed to be 65 sqm – an additional 40% of floorspace was added to each unit to take into account communal areas, car parking and other ancillary uses;

 five working days in a week (Monday to Friday) and 65 working days in a quarter;

 no allowance made for peaks in construction activity, hence construction traffic is spread evenly over construction phases; and

 ten hours per working day between 08:00 to 18:00 for HGVs.

6.9.5 Figure 6-10 shows the cumulative daily one-way construction movements generated by the schemes described above.

Figure 6-10: Daily one-way cumulative with Scheme construction HGV movements

Page 219 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Cumulative construction traffic trip assignment

6.9.6 Where routes to be used by construction traffic were specified in development sites’ TAs, the traffic generated by these specific schemes was assigned to the network accordingly. Where routes were not specified, traffic was assigned on routes around the northern and southern tunnel portals as shown in Figure 6-6 depending on the location of the development scheme under consideration.

6.9.7 Table 6-21 and Table 6-22 summarise the hourly level of construction traffic on the local highway network within the vicinity of the Silvertown and Greenwich worksites in 2021.

Table 6-21: Hourly cumulative two-way construction traffic – Silvertown site Links Total vehicles (HGVs) A12 26 A13 East 38 A13 West 32 Leamouth Road 0 Lower Lea Crossing 0 North Woolwich Road 54 Connaught Bridge 28 A1020 Royal Dock Road 28 Table 6-22: Hourly cumulative two-way construction traffic – Greenwich site Link Total vehicles (HGVs) Millennium Way 12 Blackwall Lane 22 A102 24 A2 (south of Sun in the Sands roundabout) 33 A2 (west of Sun in the Sands roundabout) 0

6.9.8 The cumulative traffic numbers set out in Table 6-21 and Table 6-22 above were combined with the Silvertown site traffic (Table 6-7 to Table 6-9) and Greenwich site traffic (Table 6-10 to Table 6-12) to estimate ‘cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic’ vehicle numbers. This is summarised in Table 6-23 to Table 6-28.

Page 220 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-23: AM peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Silvertown site Reference Case Peak % increase in movements 2021 construction movements Link traffic Total Total HGV movements HGV vehicles vehicles (HGVs) A12 4,808 457 27 0.56 5.91 A13 East 6,610 701 42 0.64 6.01 A13 West 3,327 260 35 1.05 13.37 Leamouth Road 1,462 195 7 0.48 3.59 Lower Lea Crossing 2,069 79 7 0.34 8.86 North Woolwich Road 1,908 237 56 2.94 23.63 Connaught Bridge 1,593 242 30 1.88 12.36 A1020 Royal Dock Road 2,223 383 30 1.35 7.81 Table 6-24: Inter-peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Silvertown site Reference Case Peak % increase in movements 2021 construction movements Link traffic Total Total HGV movements HGV vehicles vehicles (HGVs) A12 4529 540 27 0.60 5.00 A13 East 5798 706 42 0.72 5.95 A13 West 2978 297 35 1.18 11.78 Leamouth Road 1522 254 7 0.46 2.76 Lower Lea Crossing 1400 77 7 0.50 9.09 North Woolwich Road 1470 196 56 3.81 28.57 Connaught Bridge 1318 215 30 2.28 13.95 A1020 Royal Dock Road 2371 391 30 1.27 7.67 Table 6-25: PM peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Silvertown site Reference Case Peak % increase in movements 2021 construction movements Link traffic Total Total HGV movements HGV vehicles vehicles (HGVs) A12 4,567 153 27 0.59 17.65 A13 East 6,498 223 42 0.65 18.83 A13 West 2,147 79 35 1.62 44.30 Leamouth Road 1,846 94 7 0.38 7.45 Lower Lea Crossing 1,992 45 7 0.36 15.56 North Woolwich Road 1,846 94 56 3.03 59.57 Connaught Bridge 1,609 104 30 1.86 28.85 A1020 Royal Dock Road 2,182 97 30 1.37 30.92

Page 221 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 6-26: AM peak hour increase in traffic due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Greenwich site Reference Case Peak % increase in total traffic 2021 (two- construction construction traffic way) traffic movements Total movements Total Link vehicles HGV (HGVs) vehicles HGV Millennium Way 1,154 115 21 1.82 18.26 Blackwall Lane 2,083 240 31 1.49 12.92 A102 5,274 381 33 0.63 8.66 A2 (south of Sun in the Sands 6,506 979 40 0.61 4.09 roundabout) A2 (west of Sun in the Sands 2,318 434 2 0.09 0.46 roundabout) Table 6-27: Inter-peak increase in traffic on roads due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Greenwich site Reference Case Peak % increase in total traffic 2021 (two- construction construction traffic way) traffic movements Total movements Total Link vehicles HGV (HGVs) vehicles HGV Millennium Way 1,351 167 21 1.55 12.57 Blackwall Lane 2,148 255 31 1.44 12.16 A102 4,913 524 33 0.67 6.30 A2 (south of Sun in the Sands 6,346 1,136 40 0.63 3.52 roundabout) A2 (west of Sun in the Sands 2,355 485 2 0.08 0.41 roundabout) Table 6-28: PM peak increase in traffic on roads due to cumulative development + Silvertown Tunnel construction traffic – Greenwich site Reference Case Peak traffic 2021 (two- construction % increase in way) traffic traffic movements Total movements Total Link vehicles HGV (HGVs) vehicles HGV Millennium Way 1,289 45 21 1.63 46.67 Blackwall Lane 2,028 92 31 1.53 33.70 A102 6,367 179 33 0.52 18.44 A2 (south of Sun in the Sands 6,948 410 40 0.58 9.76 roundabout) A2 (west of Sun in the Sands 2,539 167 2 0.08 1.20 roundabout)

Page 222 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

6.9.9 As indicated above, the most significant impact of the total cumulative plus Scheme construction traffic is approximately +4% of the 2021 Reference Case flows on North Woolwich Road, during the IP period. The assessment indicates accordingly that the impact of cumulative plus Scheme construction traffic on the road network in East London is negligible.

6.9.10 The Reference Case + cumulative construction traffic + Scheme construction traffic scenario in 2021 for both AM and PM peak hours has been examined using RXHAM. The modelling results indicate that the impact of peak construction traffic on the AM and PM peak highway network is negligible.

6.10 Construction mitigation

6.10.1 The assessment of the Scheme construction impacts has highlighted a number of potentially adverse impacts, as follows:

 construction traffic-related impacts;

 business and surface access at Dock Road;

 business and surface access on the Greenwich Peninsula; and

 travel to work for construction staff and contractors to worksites.

6.10.2 The DCO would include a requirement for a CEMP and CTMPs to be developed before works commence at the northern and southern portals. The CEMP and CTMPS would address mitigation of a variety of environmental impacts of construction activities, including construction traffic- related impacts.

6.10.3 TfL has made a commitment to transport 50% by weight of all construction materials by river, and the use of a safeguarded wharf is available for this purpose. Therefore the remaining 50% by weight of the excavated spoil and materials would require HGV route mapping to facilitate a total of approximately 123,700 movements over the four year construction period (see Table 6-6). This would necessitate suitable mitigation measures to minimise adverse impacts on the surrounding residential and business communities.

6.10.4 The CEMP would set out a business engagement strategy to ensure that local businesses can be actively involved in minimising the impact of construction activities on their businesses.

6.10.5 Measures to ensure continuation of access for premises along Dock Road in Silvertown would include:

Page 223 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 Requirements for complementary measures to ensure that all delivery and servicing access can take place from the junction of Dock Road and North Woolwich Road;

 Provision and management of a turning facility for large vehicles in Dock Road; and

 Signage of alternative pedestrian and cycle access routes between the Tidal Basin Roundabout and Dock Road (via Royal Victoria Dock).

6.10.6 Measures to ensure continuation of access on the Greenwich Peninsula would include:

 Preparation of a strategy to manage the impact of the worksite on events parking and access at The O2, North Greenwich Station and other local businesses and organisations;

 Signage of alternative pedestrian and cycle access routes around the worksite (Edmund Halley Way and Millennium Way diversions); and

 Active management of access arrangements to Tunnel Avenue during the construction phase when access is restricted.

6.10.7 The DCO would also include a requirement for the production of and commitment to Construction Site Travel Plans for each worksite prior to the commencement of construction. While materials and equipment would be delivered to worksites using goods vehicles and river vessels, both worksites are easily accessible by PT and TfL would seek suitable mode share targets for workforce travel by sustainable modes. The success of the London 2012 Olympic Park Construction Travel Plan highlights what can be achieved through early planning and the setting of ambitious targets.

6.11 Key points

6.11.1 The indicative construction programme for the Scheme is around four years, and the programme would require the establishment of a worksite around each proposed tunnel portal location.

6.11.2 The construction of the Silvertown Tunnel would require the transport of a large volume of excavated material. The Silvertown worksite north of the River Thames is likely to be the main worksite as; it would minimise the impact of the works on sensitive land uses and maximise the potential for use of river transport. River transport of excavated material, known as spoil, and construction materials and goods could therefore be used to minimise the number of HGV movements on the road network, and it is estimated that

Page 224 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

spoil removal by river could significantly reduce HGV movements over the four year construction period. In the DCO application, TfL has committed to transport 50% by weight of all materials associated with the Scheme by river, as further described in the Code of Construction Practice (Document Reference: 6.10).

6.11.3 Construction traffic routes to the worksites would primarily be along strategic routes such as the A12, the A13, the A102 and the A2, and forecast construction traffic would constitute a small proportion of total flow expected on these routes during the construction work phases.

6.11.4 The tunnel worksites at Greenwich and Silvertown would lead to some localised impacts e.g. access to residences and businesses in the immediate area. A range of mitigation measures have been identified as a result, including temporary diversions for vehicular traffic, pedestrians and cyclists.

6.11.5 In general, the impacts on the surrounding networks for all transport modes would be relatively small for a scheme of this size as the construction worksites would be conveniently located in relation to the river and the strategic road network.

Page 225 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

Page 226 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7 TRANSPORT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED SCHEME

7.1 Overview

7.1.1 This chapter describes the traffic and transport-related impacts following the opening of the Scheme on all modes of transport by reference to the Assessed Case scenario presented in Chapter 1. Where appropriate, consideration is also given to the Reference Case (without Scheme scenario) as a comparator.

7.1.2 The assessment presented in this chapter is predominantly based on projections derived from TfL’s suite of strategic models, notably the LoRDM Demand Model, the RXHAM, and Railplan. All projections should therefore be read with reference to section 1.5 in Chapter 1 on assessment tools, modelling and data, in particular paragraph 1.5.14 with regard to projections derived from the RXHAM.

7.1.3 The Assessed Case scenario represents TfL’s best estimate of the most likely impacts of the Scheme, which forms a single point within a range of possible outcomes. This wider range of possible outcomes has been assessed through a series of sensitivity tests as outlined in section 7.5 and set out in more detail in the Traffic Forecasting Report (Document Reference 7.9).

7.1.4 As with the base year and the Reference Case, the detailed assessment of road network impacts in the Assessed Case covers three key weekday time periods as follows, in line with the modelled time periods in RXHAM (described in section 1.5):

 AM peak hour (08:00-09:00);

 Inter-peak (IP) average hour (between 10:00 and 16:00); and

 PM peak hour (17:00-18:00).

7.1.5 The assessment of PT impacts in the Assessed Case, however, focusses on the following weekday time periods, in line with the periods modelled in TfL’s Railplan model (also described in section 1.5):

 AM peak period (07:00-10:00);

 Inter-peak period (10:00-16:00); and

 PM peak period (16:00-19:00).

Page 227 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.1.6 The focus of the traffic and transport analysis is on the modelled opening year of 2021. A summary of projected changes in 2031 and 2041 is also provided.

7.2 Daily demand and mode share

7.2.1 Several influences combine to affect daily traffic demand, in particular, cross- river demand on the road network in the study area56 with the Scheme in operation. The tunnel would add highway capacity that would go some way towards addressing the transport problems of the Blackwall Tunnel, but the provision of this additional capacity on its own could generate 'induced traffic', offsetting the benefits (as described in Appendix B). A user charge is therefore proposed to suppress the emergence of induced demand by managing traffic demand for both the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels, thereby preserving the benefits of the additional capacity created in terms of reduced congestion and delays, and improved traffic flow.

7.2.2 The Scheme would also bring benefits in terms of creating the opportunity to provide new bus services (described later in this chapter) and an alternative route option for over-height vehicles (which cannot pass through the northbound Blackwall Tunnel bore, as described in Chapter 4).

7.2.3 These benefits of the Scheme have been taken into account in consideration of the following elements affecting decision-making relative to how and when people travel and the assessment of the overall impacts of the Scheme:

 Trip distribution – whether drivers choose to make an alternative road journey, for example, either choosing to cross the river due to improved road network conditions associated with the Scheme, or choosing not to because of the impact of the user charge;

 Route choice – whether drivers choose to make the same cross-river journey via an alternative route; for example, where the origin and destination of the journey remain the same but an alternative road crossing is used with the Scheme in place. This could involve re-routeing to the Blackwall or Silvertown tunnels due to improved traffic conditions, or re-routeing away from the tunnels to avoid paying the user charge);

 Time of travel – whether drivers choose to make the same journey via the same route but at a different time of day in response to the user charge varying according to the time of day; and

56 See Figure 1-5 in Chapter 1.

Page 228 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 Mode share – whether users of the crossing choose to make the same journey by an alternative mode of transport due to the improved PT provision associated with the Scheme.

7.2.4 The attractiveness of the different options presented to users of the crossing with the Scheme in operation summarised above varies depending on the origin, destination, and time of each journey; the vehicle type (taking into account the applicable user charge and the physical restrictions on route choice for some vehicles); and the journey purpose (which affects how time and cost savings are assessed when making decisions on how and when to travel).

7.2.5 In addition to these considerations, Scheme impacts have been assessed in the context of an overall forecast growth in trips expected between now and 2021 (as described in Chapter 5), and a shift in travel behaviour from private car to PT consequent upon committed transport schemes, for example Crossrail, coming into operation.

7.2.6 The complexity and inter-related nature of the aforementioned choices and considerations affecting Scheme impacts has meant that it has not been possible to isolate the precise impact of any one factor individually on highway demand with any degree of accuracy. However, the available evidence indicates that the overall impact of the Scheme is a reduction in daily traffic demand on the road network in the study area, and in particular a reduction in and a moderating regulation of, cross-river highway demand.

7.2.7 The evidence underpinning the assessment of the Scheme’s traffic and transport effects is principally derived from the Demand Model component of LoRDM, which accounts for the improved journey times resulting from increased capacity, the cost of the user charge and its impact in suppressing induced traffic, and the impact of new PT services. As described in Chapter 5, a significant increase in PT trips and a smaller but still significant increase in total private vehicle trips is forecast between 2012 and 2021. By contrast, the impact of the Scheme on increased overall trip volumes (both for PT and for private vehicle trips) is extremely small, and its consequential impact on mode shares across the ESR is considered negligible. This is illustrated in Figure 7-1 below.

Page 229 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-1: Total daily (24-hour) person trips by mode between/within areas in ESR, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case

Private vehicle PT 8,000,000

7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,136,600 4,142,800 (59.0%) (59.1%) 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,873,000 2,871,700 Total person trips person Total 1,000,000 (41.0%) (40.9%) 0 Ref Case (total trips: Assessed Case (total trips: 7,009,600) 7,014,500)

7.2.8 The figure shows that across the ESR, the total number of trips made with the Scheme in operation would change very marginally. Private vehicle trips would reduce by around 1,300, while trips made by PT would increase by 6,200 (as a result of the improvements to the bus network that would be made possible by the Scheme). Overall, therefore, around 4,900 additional trips would be made in the Assessed Case over the course of a 24-hour weekday, and this growth can be seen to be attributable to new PT trips.

7.2.9 Figure 7-2 indicates that the impact of the Scheme is similarly negligible with regard to daily cross-river demand. Total cross-river person trips by private vehicle reduces by 1,800 in the Assessed Case across the 24-hour weekday period (-0.22%), while PT demand increases by 2,500 (0.13%), leading to an overall uplift of 600 trips (0.02%). The graph indicates that no significant mode shift occurs in the Assessed Case.

Page 230 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-2: Total daily (24-hour) cross-river person trips (both directions) by mode in ESR, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case

Private vehicle PT 3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000 1,905,700 1,908,200 (69.6%) (69.6%) 1,500,000

1,000,000 Total person trips person Total 500,000 833,300 831,500 (30.4%) (30.4%) 0 Ref Case (total trips: Assessed Case (total trips: 2,875,600) 2,876,200)

7.2.10 Cross-river demand from the Demand Model is determined by identifying trip origins and destinations on either side of the River Thames, but the model does not determine route choice.

7.2.11 Daily highway demand at each individual crossing in the wider study area was therefore derived from the RXHAM (with PT forecasts derived from Railplan as described below in this chapter). Projected demand flows57 on each crossing for the three RXHAM time periods described earlier were converted to Annual Average Weekday Traffic (AAWT)58 demand flows (measured in number of vehicles) using a standard methodology described in the Environmental Statement (Document Reference: 6.1). Figure 7-3 summarises the results of this process.

57 See Figure 1-4 in Chapter 1 for an explanation of demand flow from RXHAM. 58 Forecasts derived from the Demand Model and RXHAM are not directly comparable: the Demand Model reports person-trips while RXHAM reports vehicle trips; RXHAM provides link-specific data while Demand Model forecasts are area-wide; and the calculation of AAWT includes peak-to-day and seasonality factors based on observed counts at specific locations, while the Demand Model provides a 24-hour weekday forecast.

Page 231 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-3: AAWT demand by river crossing (vehicles, both directions), 2021 Assessed Case (with Scheme) and Reference Case (without Scheme)

2021 Ref Case 2021 Assessed Case

200,000

180,000 160,000

140,000

109,300

120,000 105,600

100,000

80,000

180,000

179,400

60,000

36,100

35,200 24,900

40,000 24,500 5,200 20,000 5,100

0

Tower Bridge Tower

Tunnels

Woolwich Ferry Woolwich

Dartford Crossing Dartford Rotherhithe Tunnel Rotherhithe Blackwall/Silvertown 7.2.12 It can be seen in Figure 7-3 that the most significant traffic reduction occurs at the Blackwall and Silvertown crossing: in the Reference Case (with the Blackwall Tunnel alone) AAWT demand is 109,300 vehicles, but this reduces by 3.4% to 105,600 through both the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the Assessed Case. Marginal reductions are also evident at Tower Bridge (-400 vehicles, -1.6%) and the Woolwich Ferry (-100, -1.9%).

7.2.13 These changes indicate that, while the user charge and PT enhancements serve to reduce daily vehicle demand to an extent through the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor, the additional capacity and consequently the improved network performance means the corridor is also able to attract an element of traffic demand from other crossings. The overall increases in AAWT demand at the Rotherhithe Tunnel (+900 vehicles, +2.6%) and the Dartford Crossing (+600 vehicles, +0.3%) also indicates that a small degree of the reduction in demand at Blackwall/ Silvertown is made up of vehicles switching to those crossings due to the increased cost of using the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor in the Assessed Case, associated with the user charge.

7.2.14 The Scheme would also have a minor impact on the composition of river crossing traffic in the ESR when compared with the Reference Case. Figure 7-4 summarises 2021 AAWT demand split by vehicle type, indicating that on

Page 232 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor there is no change in the proportion of heavy vehicles between the two cases, and only minor changes at other crossings.

Figure 7-4: Impact of the Scheme on traffic composition (demand AAWT, 2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case)59 Light Heavy 100% 12% 13% 8% 8% 90% 17% 20% 16% 17% 80%

70%

60% 50% 100% 100% 88% 87% 92% 92% 40% 83% 80% 84% 83% 30%

20%

10%

0% 2021 Ref 2021 2021 Ref 2021 2021 Ref 2021 2021 Ref 2021 2021 Ref 2021 Case Assessed Case Assessed Case Assessed Case Assessed Case Assessed Case Case Case Case Case Tower Bridge Rotherhithe Tunnel Blackwall/Silvertown Woolwich Ferry Dartford Crossing Tunnels 7.2.15 In terms of the split of traffic demand between the Blackwall and Silvertown London tunnels, the Blackwall Tunnel would remain a strategic cross-river highway link with the Scheme in operation, and would continue to accommodate the majority of traffic through the corridor due to its connections to strategic routes including the A12, A13 and A2. The Silvertown Tunnel would provide optimum access to the Royal Docks area and Canary Wharf (via the Lower Lea Crossing) on the north side of the River Thames. Of the 105,600 AAWT demand forecast through the corridor in the Assessed Case, 80,800 would be made via the Blackwall Tunnel with 24,800 via the Silvertown Tunnel, the latter being roughly a quarter of the total.

7.2.16 The number of person trips across all modes through the tunnels would be more evenly split, as the majority of bus services (which carry a higher number of passengers per vehicle) would be routed via the Silvertown Tunnel (further information on proposed enhancements to the bus network can be found in Appendix F).

7.2.17 The choice of which tunnel to use would be largely dependent on the user’s origin or destination north of the River Thames, as the tunnels would share a

59 Heavy vehicles are defined as HGVs, buses and coaches. Light vehicles are categorised as all other vehicle types modelled on the road network.

Page 233 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

common approach on the A102 south of the river. Figure 7-5 shows the expected tunnel use based on northbound trips (i.e. those with a destination north of the river). Figure 7-6 shows the expected tunnel choice based on southbound trips (with an origin north of the river). On both plans, red shading denotes the areas where the Silvertown Tunnel would provide the shortest journey time in uncongested conditions, while areas shaded in blue would have a shorter journey time via the Blackwall Tunnel. Those in grey would have roughly equal journey time through both tunnels.

7.2.18 In broad terms, cross-river trips with origins or destinations in the Royal Docks area, in the majority of the Isle of Dogs and in areas along the river to the east of the City, are likely to use the Silvertown Tunnel as a first preference in uncongested conditions. The choice of the Silvertown Tunnel for trips with origins or destinations in the Isle of Dogs or further to the west along the river is due to the improved connectivity the tunnel provides to the A1261 Aspen Way and the A1203 Limehouse Link/The Highway via the Lower Lea Crossing.

7.2.19 Trips with an origin or destination in any other area (including longer-distance strategic trips that are routed on the A12 or the A13) would be quicker via the Blackwall Tunnel, indicating that it is unlikely that the Silvertown Tunnel would be used as a rat-run to reconnect with strategic routes such as the A13.

Figure 7-5: Northbound trips: Tunnel preference by destination north of the River Thames (2021 Assessed Case, uncongested conditions)

Page 234 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-6: Southbound trips: Tunnel preference by origin north of the River Thames (2021 Assessed Case, uncongested conditions)

Demand by time period

7.2.20 The same broad pattern of a marginal decrease in the number of private vehicle trips and marginal increase in PT trips evident in the daily demand figures referred to above in the Assessed Case can also be seen in the following tables for all three modelled time periods, both within the host boroughs of Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets and for the ESR as a whole.

7.2.21 Table 7-1 shows the number of AM peak hour trips originating in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets by mode, with and without the Scheme. It shows that across the host boroughs, and the wider ESR, the total number of trips by private transport would marginally reduce in the Assessed Case compared with the Reference case whereas the total number of PT trips would marginally increase.

Page 235 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-1: AM peak hour person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets 2021 Reference Case 2021 Assessed Case trips (mode share %) trips (mode share %) Private Private Borough vehicle PT vehicle PT 27,700 25,400 27,700 25,500 Greenwich (52%) (48%) (52%) (48%) 21,900 34,100 21,800 34,300 Newham (39%) (61%) (39%) (61%) 17,600 32,200 17,600 32,200 Tower Hamlets (35%) (65%) (35%) (65%) 67,200 91,700 67,100 92,000 Sub-total (42%) (58%) (42%) (58%) 226,300 230,000 226,200 230,500 ESR (50%) (50%) (50%) (51%)

7.2.22 Table 7-2 provides the same information as Table 7-1 but for the average IP hour. As is the case for the AM peak hour, the number of trips by private vehicles reduces very marginally while the number of PT trips increases within all host boroughs and the wider ESR.

Table 7-2: IP hour person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets 2021 Reference Case 2021 Assessed Case trips (mode share %) trips (mode share %) Private Private Borough vehicle PT vehicle PT 31,900 15,200 31,800 15,300 Greenwich (68%) (32%) (68%) (33%) 28,300 23,600 28,300 23,900 Newham (55%) (46%) (54%) (46%) 22,100 25,900 22,100 26,600 Tower Hamlets (46%) (54%) (46%) (54%) 82,300 64,700 82,200 65,200 Sub-total (56%) (44%) (56%) (44%) 262,100 142,900 262,000 144,000 ESR (65%) (35%) (65%) (35%)

7.2.23 Table 7-3 provides the same information as in Table 7-1 but for the average PM peak hour. It can be seen that the number of trips made by PT increases slightly while the number of trips by private vehicles is largely unchanged.

Page 236 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-3: PM hour peak person trips with an origin in Greenwich, Newham and Tower Hamlets 2021 Reference Case 2021 Assessed Case trips (mode share %) trips (mode share %) Private Private Borough vehicle PT vehicle PT 25,800 16,400 25,700 16,600 Greenwich (61%) (39%) (61%) (39%) 19,900 30,200 19,900 30,500 Newham (40%) (60%) (40%) (61%) 18,700 57,400 18,800 57,400 Tower Hamlets (25%) (75%) (25%) (75%) 64,400 103,900 64,400 104,500 Sub-total (38%) (62%) (38%) (62%) 202,700 189,100 202,600 189,700 ESR (52%) (48%) (52%) (48%)

Impact on the timing of journeys (peak contraction)

7.2.24 Across London as a whole there are pronounced peaks in highway trips in the morning (between 07:00 and 10:00) and evening (between 16:00 and 19:00). However, at present, and as indicated in Chapter 3, the weekday peaks at the Blackwall Tunnel are spread over much longer periods than are typical elsewhere in London, with traffic starting to build noticeably earlier from around 06:00 as motorists seek to avoid the extremes in congestion that affect the northbound bore, with traffic conditions that remain close to peak levels for much of the day. Also, in the afternoon traffic flows recede later than the London average, and in the southbound direction are still at over 80% of the peak level at 19:00.

7.2.25 As indicated above in this chapter, daily highway traffic demand is expected to decrease with the Scheme in operation, both across the wider study area and at most river crossings. In particular, forecast AAWT demand flow through both the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the Assessed Case is lower than through the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case.

7.2.26 However, the Silvertown Tunnel significantly increases capacity along this river-crossing corridor and, as reported below in this chapter, an uplift in actual flow60 is forecast through the tunnels during peak hours with the Scheme in operation. This occurs primarily because queued traffic on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case is released by the extra capacity provided in the Assessed Case.

60 See Figure 1-4 in Chapter 1 for an explanation of actual flow from RXHAM.

Page 237 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.2.27 The combination of falling daily traffic demand and increasing peak-hour actual flows indicates that the Scheme is likely to bring about a contraction of the observed peak at the Blackwall Tunnel to a period more typical of that observed on the wider road network in London. Figure 7-7 illustrates how the character of the peaks is likely to change at the Blackwall Tunnel as a result of the Scheme. While traffic flows would increase in the peak hour, flows in the hours either side of the peak hour are likely to fall.

Figure 7-7: Illustration showing how traffic flows could change at the Blackwall Tunnel in peak periods

7.2.28 The changes in actual flows forecast by the model during peak hours in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel reflect the likely reduction in the duration of the peaks as a result of the additional throughput capacity and reduced congestion that the Scheme delivers. The forecast changes in traffic flows in the peak periods are a function of the changes that motorists are likely to make to the timing of their journeys.

7.2.29 With the Scheme in operation motorists would no longer have to allow for extra time to use the corridor in busy times. Effectively the Scheme would enable more motorists to travel when they want, rather than earlier or later to avoid the worst of the traffic.

7.3 2021 road network impacts by time period

7.3.1 This section describes the road network impacts that come about with the Assessed Case scheme in operation in each modelled time period. The most pronounced network impacts of the Scheme generally occur at the site of the

Page 238 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Scheme itself (i.e. the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels and their approach roads).

7.3.2 Consideration has also been given to the likely road network impacts of the Scheme in 2031 and 2041. A brief overview of these assessments is included in section 7.4.

Trip distribution and vehicle routeing (Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels)

7.3.3 The Scheme will give rise to changes in the distribution of trips across the road network. This reflects the impact of travellers changing their travel behaviour in response to changes in connectivity, journey times, and financial costs.

7.3.4 The most significant change in trips is expected at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels. Figure 7-8 shows the expected change between the actual traffic volumes through the Blackwall Tunnel in the 2021 Reference Case and the combined traffic volumes through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the Assessed Case, for the three modelled time periods. The table shows that actual combined flows at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels are expected to increase relative to flows at the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case in some directions/periods, and to reduce in others.

Figure 7-8: Blackwall Tunnel only 2021 Reference Case traffic volumes vs combined Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels 2021 Assessed Case traffic volumes (PCUs)

Page 239 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.5 The greatest increase in actual flows is forecast in the southbound direction in the PM peak hour in the Assessed Case, with increases also forecast in the northbound direction of the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Smaller reductions in actual flows are forecast in the southbound direction of the AM peak hour and in both directions in the IP average hour.

7.3.6 While the increase in actual flows at the busiest times (northbound direction in the AM peak hour and southbound direction in the PM peak hour) is made possible by the additional crossing capacity provided by the Silvertown Tunnel, the Scheme gives rise to no overall increase in future traffic demand to use the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels as set out in section 7.2.

7.3.7 Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6 above demonstrate the complementary function of each tunnel in serving traffic using strategic routes north of the River Thames, and trips with origins or destinations in areas in the vicinity of the northern portal for example, Canary Wharf and the Royal Docks. These complementary functions result in the overall distribution of all cross-river trips on the corridor not changing significantly from current observed patterns (summarised in section 3.6). Many trips travelling to/from areas such as Canary Wharf and the Royal Docks make a minor alteration to their route to use the Silvertown Tunnel in the Assessed Case.

7.3.8 Figure 7-9 presents the origins and destinations of northbound cross-river traffic through both tunnels in the 2021 AM peak hour. The plot shows that some 1,620 northbound trips originate in Greenwich; that is, 41% of the total peak-hour flow of 3,900 through the corridor in this time period (see Figure 7-8). This compares with the situation at present, where approximately 44% of all AM peak hour users originate in Greenwich.

7.3.9 The plot also shows that 2,050 northbound trip destinations are located in Tower Hamlets and Newham in this time period, some 52% of the total peak- hour flow. At present approximately 55% of all AM peak hour users have a destination in Tower Hamlets or Newham.

7.3.10 Figure 7-10 presents the origins and destinations in the 2021 Assessed Case for the other weekday peak direction, southbound in the PM peak hour. The figure indicates that 3,020 trips (62% of the total flow in this time period) originate in either Tower Hamlets or Newham, and 2,000 (41%) have a destination in Greenwich. This compares with figures of 63% and 40% at present.

Page 240 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-9: Origins and destinations of northbound trips through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the AM peak hour61

Figure 7-10: Origins and destinations of southbound trips through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the PM peak hour

61 Boroughs with less than 50 trip origins or destinations in the time period not shown.

Page 241 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.11 Figure 7-11 and Figure 7-12 summarise the length of peak direction cross- river trips through the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor in the AM and PM peak hours respectively in the 2021 Reference and Assessed Cases. Around 48% of trips in the AM peak hour and 42% in the PM peak hour cover a distance of 20km or less in both scenarios, although a significant proportion of much longer distance trips skews the overall distribution and increases the mean average trip length. However, in both time periods there is little change in the mean average trip length in the Assessed Case when compared with the Reference Case. AM peak hour northbound trip length reduces marginally from 34.0km to 33.0km, while PM peak hour southbound trip length increases marginally from 34.9km to 35.3km.

Figure 7-11: Trip length of cross-river trips via the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor (AM peak hour northbound, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case) Reference Case (mean average: 34.0km) Assessed Case (mean average: 33.0km) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Figure 7-12: Trip length of cross-river trips via the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor (PM peak hour southbound, 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case)

Reference Case (mean average: 34.9km) Assessed Case (mean average: 35.3km) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Page 242 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Trip distribution and vehicle routeing (all ESR crossings)

7.3.12 The following figures present these changes in the context of all east London river crossings for all three modelled time periods. Figure 7-13 shows the change in actual cross-river traffic flows at all east London crossings with the Scheme in the AM peak hour in 2021, for north and south directions combined. The flow at Silvertown of around 1,520 PCUs can be seen to be almost matched by the reduction in flow at Blackwall of around 1,490 PCUs, with the net increase of 30 PCUs considered negligible. At other crossings changes are small, and the overall change in total flow across all crossings of around 330 PCUs in the Assessed Case represents an increase of around 1%.

Figure 7-13: Cross-river actual traffic flows (PCUs) in the AM peak hour – change from 2021 Reference Case to 2021 Assessed Case62 2000

1516 1500

1000

500 332 152 15 32 94 21 0 -5 -500

-1000 Actual Actual traffic flows(PCUs) -1500 -1493 -2000

7.3.13 Figure 7-14 shows the change in actual cross-river traffic flows at all east London crossings in 2021 with the Scheme in an average IP hour, for both north and south directions combined. It can be seen that for this period the forecast reduction in flow at Blackwall of around 1,680 PCUs is greater than the total flow at Silvertown of around 1,250 PCUs, resulting in a net reduction of around 440 PCUs at the crossing overall. Changes at other crossings are minimal, with the small increase in flows at Rotherhithe, Woolwich and

62 For all existing crossings, the figures quoted represent change in actual flow between the 2021 Reference Case and the 2021 Assessed Case. For the Silvertown Tunnel, the figures quoted represent the total 2021 Assessed Case actual flow, since the tunnel does not exist in the Reference Case (the figure quoted therefore represents a change from 0 actual flow in the Reference Case).

Page 243 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Dartford occurring at a time when these crossings are operating with spare capacity. The overall reduction in total flow across all crossings is about 110 PCUs, and as this is for the average IP hour, it can be assumed that this represents the situation for much of the day.

Figure 7-14: Cross-river actual traffic flows (PCUs) in the IP average hour – change from 2021 Reference Case to 2021 Assessed Case 2000

1500 1245

1000

500 164 4 7 11 100 38 0 -114 -500

-1000

-1500

-2000 -1683 Change actual in traffic flows(PCUs)

7.3.14 Figure 7-15 shows the change in actual cross-river traffic flows at all east London crossings in 2021 with the Scheme in the PM peak hour, for both directions combined. In this period, the forecast reduction in flow at Blackwall remains significant (at around 830 PCUs) but the flow at Silvertown is around three times greater at 2,500 PCUs. The net increase in flow at these crossings combined is therefore around 1,600 PCUs in this period, the majority of the increase being due to the release of traffic that would formerly have been queueing to use the Blackwall Tunnel.

7.3.15 Small, and in most cases negligible, reductions in traffic flows can be seen at all other crossings, with Dartford seeing the most significant reduction of almost 300 PCUs (around 2% of total flow in this period), which is likely to be a result of re-routeing to the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels due to the reduction in delay at these crossings. The overall change in total flow across all crossings of around 1,200 PCUs represents an increase of around 5% in this period.

Page 244 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-15: Cross-river actual traffic flows (PCUs) in the PM peak hour – change from 2021 Reference Case to 2021 Assessed Case 3000 2446 2500

2000 1500 1213 1000 500 0 -10 -17 -68 -7 -14 -500 -289 -1000 -828

Actual Actual trafficflows (PCUs) -1500 -2000

7.3.16 For all three time periods, the figures above show that by far the most significant changes in actual traffic flows are forecast at the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels in the Assessed Case. Relative to the total number of cross-river highway trips in east London, which reaches a maximum of over 27,000 PCU trips (both directions) in the southbound Assessed Case, the changes in actual flows at other crossings are minimal as a result of the Scheme.

Crossing performance

7.3.17 As explained in Figure 1-4 in Chapter 1, the difference between demand traffic flows and actual flows represents the traffic that could not be assigned to the network in the modelled hour as a result of a capacity constraint; the greater the difference between the two, the greater the delay.

7.3.18 A clear indication of the primary effect of the Scheme can be seen when comparing the level of demand for and actual traffic flow across the Blackwall Tunnel the 2021 Reference Case with the same for Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels combined in the 2021 Assessed Case. This exercise is undertaken in Figure 7-16.

Page 245 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-16: Blackwall Tunnel Reference Case actual and demand flows vs Combined Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels Assessed Case actual and demand flows (PCUs)

6,000 Reference: demand Reference: actual Assessed: demand Assessed: actual 5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000 Demand/actual flow(PCUs) Demand/actual 0 NB SB NB SB NB SB

AM IP PM

7.3.19 The data in the figure shows that the combined actual traffic flow through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the Assessed Case exceeds the actual traffic flow that can be accommodated through the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case for the busiest movements, namely northbound in the AM peak and southbound in the PM peak).

7.3.20 However, it is also notable that the total demand for these movements is actually lower in both peaks with the Scheme than it is in the Reference Case. This demonstrates the ability of the Scheme to increase the throughput of traffic over the crossing without generating overall increases in traffic demand. This is achieved through a combination of new capacity and demand management, as set out in section 7.2 above.

7.3.21 At other times of day, including the IP which covers the longest period of the day, there are modest reductions in demand and actual flows compared to the Reference Case. This reflects the influence of the user charge in maintaining conditions that are (relatively) free-flowing over the crossing in the Assessed Case.

7.3.22 There is an increase in demand in the Assessed Case over the Reference Case in one situation – in the northbound direction during the PM peak. This reflects the fact that while this movement is charged at an ‘off-peak’ rate in

Page 246 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

the Assessed Case, in the Reference Case it experiences significant congestion.

7.3.23 In the Assessed Case as shown in Figure 7-16, the difference between demand and actual flow is much smaller for all movements when compared with the Reference Case. The Scheme would, accordingly, effectively eliminate severe delay on the network approaches to the tunnels.

7.3.24 While the Scheme would bring demand flow into line with actual flow at the Blackwall Tunnel, its impact on other crossings would be minimal. The following figures present the changes in demand flow relative to actual flow for all east London river crossings in the peak periods.

7.3.25 Figure 7-17 illustrates the difference between demand and actual flow for northbound river crossings in the AM peak hour in the 2021 Assessed Case. The difference in demand flow relative to actual flow at all crossings is negligible, with the exception of the Dartford Crossing. At Dartford, demand flow is about 9% higher than actual flow in the Reference Case and this rises very marginally to about 10% in the Assessed Case.

Figure 7-17: 2021 AM peak hour Assessed Case: Actual and Demand Flows for northbound East London River Crossings (PCUs) AM northbound actual flows AM northbound demand flows 7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

PCUs 3,000

6,201

5,612

2,000

741

711 2,736

1,000 2,696

1,210 1,252

203 205 813 835 929 943 205 227

0

Tower

Bridge

Bridge

Ferry

London

Tunnel

Dartford

Bridge

Tunnel

Crossing

Blackwall

e Tunnel e

Woolwich

Silvertown Rotherhith Southwark 7.3.26 Figure 7-18 shows the same data for southbound flows in the PM peak hour in the 2021 Assessed Case. The difference in demand flow relative to actual flow at all crossings is also negligible, with the exception of the Dartford Crossing. At Dartford, demand flow is around 5% higher than actual flow and this does not change in the Assessed Case.

Page 247 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-18: 2021 PM peak our Assessed Case: Actual and Demand Flows for southbound East London River Crossings (PCUs) PM southbound actual flows PM southbound demand flows 8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

PCUs/hr 7,168

3,000 6,839

2,000

3,350

3,232

1,000

231 246 249 784 805 954 982 205

1,039 1,089 1,607 1,642 0 Southwark London Tower Rotherhithe Blackwall Silvertown Woolwich Dartford Bridge Bridge Bridge Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel Ferry Crossing

Journey times

7.3.27 By reducing congestion and delay in the vicinity of the Blackwall and Silvertown Tunnels, the Scheme would improve journey times for users of the crossing. Average speeds would increase on the route between the A205 South Circular and the A12 at Hackney Wick shown in Figure 4-7, as severe delay on this network corridor would be virtually eliminated allowing traffic to flow freely. These changes to average speeds would largely reflect the reduction in queuing with the Scheme, rather than any increase in the average speed of uncongested traffic.

7.3.28 All users of the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels would experience shorter journey times to cross the River Thames as a result of the Scheme, with journey time savings on the network approaches to the tunnel of up to 20 minutes in peak periods. This excludes any journey time benefits the Scheme would provide through improved reliability.

7.3.29 Figure 7-19 and Figure 7-20 show the cumulative time profiles of traffic on the route between the A205 South Circular and the A12, in both directions in the peak periods in the Assessed Case. The figures show that the Scheme results in a significant reduction in average journey times along this route. In both directions the average journey time reduces significantly from the observed average journey time in the base case (November 2012); and the journey time with the Scheme is much closer to the speed limit journey time achieved in free-flowing conditions. This is particularly the case in the northbound direction in the AM peak.

Page 248 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-19: Assessed Case average weekday AM peak hour cumulative journey time northbound and observed (Nov 2012) and speed limit (unconstrained) journey time

Nov '12 journey time

Assessed Case journey time

Speed limit journey time

Figure 7-20: Assessed Case average weekday PM peak hour cumulative journey time southbound and observed (Nov 2012) and speed limit (unconstrained) journey time

Nov '12 journey time

Assessed Case journey time

Speed limit journey time

Page 249 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.30 Table 7-4 to Table 7-6 show the modelled change in 2021 journey times for a selection of highway journeys between origins and destinations in the three host boroughs (reflecting key locations identified in Local Plans) and six additional locations in neighbouring boroughs with the Scheme in operation.

7.3.31 The greatest time saving impact in the AM peak is for cross-river northbound trips, as the Scheme generates relatively free-flowing conditions on the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach as described above. While trips to all cross-river destinations would benefit from this saving, trips to the Royal Docks area would additionally benefit from the availability of a more direct route for many journeys.

7.3.32 In the PM peak hour the greatest time saving impact is cross-river in the southbound direction, and the magnitude of time savings is generally greater in the PM peak than in the AM peak.

Page 250 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-4: Highway journey time change in minutes (Assessed Case – Ref Case), 2021 AM peak hour Other (South Other (North

Greenwich London) Tower Hamlets Newham London)

Bow

-

by

-

Borough Location

GreenwichPeninsula Greenwichtown centre Woolwich Charlton /Abbey Wood Kidbrooke Eltham Peckham(Southwark) Lewisham(Lewisham) Bexleyheath(Bexley) CanaryWharf Aldgate Bow Bromley BethnalGreen Poplar Stratford Docks/London Royal City Airport CanningTown Ham East Beckton/GallionsReach GreenStreet ForestGate Manor Park Barking(Barking Dagenham) & Walthamstow(Waltham Forest) Hackney(Hackney) Greenwich Peninsula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -17 -15 -13 -13 -13 -13 -13 -18 -18 -13 -18 -13 -13 -14 -13 -13 -13 Greenwich town centre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -13 -2 -11 -11 -2 -12 -11 -16 -16 -11 -16 -11 -11 -12 -11 -11 -11 Woolwich 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 -16 -14 -12 -12 -12 -13 -12 -11 -15 -12 -8 -12 -12 -13 -12 -12 -12 Greenwich Charlton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -13 -12 -12 -12 -13 -12 -17 -17 -12 -14 -12 -12 -13 -12 -12 -12 Thamesmead/Abbey Wood 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 -16 -14 -12 -12 -12 -13 -12 -10 -14 -11 -7 -12 -12 -11 -8 -12 -12 Kidbrooke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -15 -12 -12 -12 -13 -12 -17 -17 -12 -17 -12 -12 -13 -12 -12 -12 Eltham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -14 -12 -12 -12 -13 -12 -17 -17 -12 -17 -12 -12 -13 -12 -12 -12 Other Peckham (Southwark) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 -5 1 1 -6 -4 -4 0 -4 1 -6 0 0 -4 -2 (South Lewisham (Lewisham) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -10 0 -10 -12 0 -11 -12 -16 -15 -11 -16 -10 -12 -11 -11 -12 -12 London) Bexleyheath (Bexley) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -16 -14 -12 -12 -12 -13 -12 -15 -17 -10 -10 -12 -12 -9 -7 -12 -12 Canary Wharf -1 -2 -2 -1 -2 -2 -1 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 Aldgate -1 0 -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 Tower Bow -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hamlets Bromley-by-Bow -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poplar -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 Stratford -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Royal Docks/London City Airport -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 1 -4 -4 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 0 0 1 Canning Town -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 1 -3 -3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 1 Newham East Ham -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beckton/Gallions Reach -3 -3 -2 -3 -1 -3 -3 1 -4 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 Green Street -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 -2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest Gate -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manor Park -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barking (Barking & Other Dagenham) -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -2 -1 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 (North Walthamstow (Waltham London) Forest) -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -2 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 Hackney (Hackney) -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 251 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-5: Highway journey time change (minutes, 2021 IP average hour, Assessed Case v Ref Case) Other (South Other (North Greenwich London) Tower Hamlets Newham London)

Wood

Bow

-

ow ow

by

-

Borough Location

GreenwichPeninsula Greenwichtown centre Woolwich Charlton Thamesmead/Abbey Kidbrooke Eltham Peckham Lewisham Bexleyheath CanaryWharf Aldgate Bow Bromley BethnalGreen Poplar Stratford Docks/London Royal City Airport CanningTown Ham East Beckton/GallionsReach GreenStreet ForestGate Manor Park Barking Walthamst Hackney Greenwich Peninsula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -7 -7 -3 -7 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Greenwich town centre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 -3 -3 0 -3 -3 -7 -7 -3 -7 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Woolwich 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -5 -7 -3 -1 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Greenwich Charlton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -7 -7 -3 -6 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Thamesmead/Abbey Wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -7 -3 0 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Kidbrooke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -7 -7 -3 -7 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Eltham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -7 -7 -3 -7 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Other Peckham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (South Lewisham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 -3 -3 0 -3 -3 -7 -7 -3 -7 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 London) Bexleyheath 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -7 -7 -3 -7 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 Canary Wharf -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aldgate -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower Bow -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hamlets Bromley-by-Bow -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bethnal Green -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poplar -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 Stratford -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Royal Docks/London City Airport -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 1 -4 -3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 Canning Town -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -1 -3 -3 -2 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 Newham East Ham -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beckton/Gallions Reach -1 -2 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 -2 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 Green Street -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest Gate -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manor Park -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Barking -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -2 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (North Walthamstow -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 London) Hackney -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 252 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-6: Highway journey time change (minutes, 2021 PM peak hour, Assessed Case v Ref Case) Other (South Other (North

Greenwich London) Tower Hamlets Newham London)

Bow

Peninsula -

by

-

Borough Location

Greenwich Greenwichtown centre Woolwich Charlton Thamesmead/Abbey Wood Kidbrooke Eltham Peckham(Southwark) Lewisham(Lewisham) Bexleyheath(Bexley) CanaryWharf Aldgate Bow Bromley BethnalGreen Poplar Stratford Docks/London Royal City Airport CanningTown Ham East Beckton/GallionsReach GreenStreet ForestGate Manor Park Barking(Barking Dagenham) & Walthamstow(Waltham Forest) Hackney(Hackney) Greenwich Peninsula 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 -12 -8 -6 -6 -6 -5 -6 -15 -15 -10 -15 -8 -6 -6 -9 -6 -6 Greenwich town centre 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 -6 -1 -6 -6 -1 -5 -6 -13 -13 -8 -13 -8 -6 -6 -7 -6 -6 Woolwich 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 -12 -8 -6 -7 -7 -5 -6 -8 -11 -11 -5 -9 -6 -6 -10 -6 -6 Greenwich Charlton 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 -12 -8 -6 -6 -7 -5 -6 -13 -16 -11 -10 -9 -6 -6 -10 -6 -6 Thamesmead/Abbey Wood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -12 -8 -6 -6 -6 -5 -6 -7 -10 -10 -4 -8 -6 -6 -10 -6 -6 Kidbrooke 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -12 -8 -6 -6 -6 -5 -6 -15 -15 -10 -15 -8 -6 -6 -9 -6 -6 Eltham 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -11 -8 -5 -6 -6 -5 -6 -15 -15 -10 -12 -8 -6 -6 -9 -5 -5 Other Peckham (Southwark) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 -1 -1 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 (South Lewisham (Lewisham) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 -4 0 -5 -6 -1 -4 -6 -10 -10 -6 -10 -6 -6 -6 -4 -6 -6 London) Bexleyheath (Bexley) 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 -11 -7 -5 -6 -6 -4 -5 -15 -15 -10 -15 -8 -5 -6 -9 -5 -5 Canary Wharf -23 -10 -22 -22 -21 -22 -22 -2 -7 -21 -1 -3 -2 -2 0 -4 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -3 Aldgate -17 -1 -14 -12 -15 -14 -16 0 0 -14 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 Tower Bow -19 -9 -19 -19 -18 -18 -18 -1 -7 -17 -1 0 0 0 0 0 -2 -2 -1 -2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 Hamlets Bromley-by-Bow -20 -13 -19 -19 -18 -19 -19 -1 -10 -17 -3 0 0 0 0 0 -4 -5 -5 -4 0 0 0 -4 0 0 Bethnal Green -16 -1 -12 -11 -13 -12 -14 0 -1 -13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poplar -21 -9 -20 -20 -19 -20 -20 -1 -6 -19 -3 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -2 -3 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 Stratford -20 -14 -19 -19 -18 -19 -19 -1 -11 -18 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Royal Docks/London City Airport -22 -12 -18 -22 -16 -22 -22 -1 -10 -20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Canning Town -21 -11 -20 -21 -20 -20 -20 0 -8 -19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Newham East Ham -21 -11 -19 -21 -17 -20 -20 0 -8 -19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Beckton/Gallions Reach -21 -11 -13 -19 -11 -20 -20 0 -8 -19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Street -20 -13 -19 -19 -18 -19 -19 0 -10 -17 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Forest Gate -20 -14 -19 -19 -18 -19 -19 -1 -11 -18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Manor Park -20 -14 -19 -19 -18 -19 -19 -1 -11 -18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Barking (Barking & Other Dagenham) -21 -11 -16 -21 -14 -20 -20 -1 -8 -19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (North Walthamstow (Waltham London) Forest) -19 -14 -19 -19 -12 -18 -18 0 -11 -17 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 Hackney (Hackney) -18 -3 -18 -18 -17 -17 -17 0 -1 -16 -1 0 0 1 0 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 1 0 0 0

Page 253 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

THIS PAGE HAS INTENTIONALLY BEEN LEFT BLANK

Page 254 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.33 In all time periods, cross-river time savings are significantly greater than any time costs incurred on journeys that do not cross the river. The largest time cost (a maximum of two additional minutes) associated with an individual journey that does not cross the river occurs in the PM peak, as indicated in Table 7-6. This contrasts with time savings in excess of 20 minutes for a number of cross-river trips in the same period.

7.3.34 The minor time costs that are incurred on some trips that do not cross the river are due to the additional capacity provided by the Scheme, which releases more traffic across the River Thames during peak hours, particularly in the peak direction (i.e. northbound in the AM peak hour and southbound in the PM peak hour) as the capacity constraint at these times in the Reference Case is most severe.

7.3.35 The Scheme does not, however, generate additional traffic on the network serving the crossing across the day. The additional peak hour traffic flows described above are primarily comprised of existing traffic that is queued on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case. The release of this traffic during peak hours is a function of the duration of the peaks in the vicinity of the Blackwall Tunnel contracting with the Scheme in operation.

Overall road network performance

7.3.36 When compared with the 2021 Reference Case, the traffic model shows the Assessed Case in the RXHAM simulation area (the extent of which was shown in Chapter 1) brings about an improved network performance in 2021 with the Scheme in place in the peak periods (notably the PM peak) and a broadly unchanged network performance in the IP.

7.3.37 The RXHAM simulation area includes the road network in all ESR boroughs and sections of the road network beyond, including the M25 between junction 4 (with the A21) and junction 25 (with the A10), and the A282 Dartford Crossing. As the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels represent only a fraction of the total highway network in the ESR, significant improvements on the road network approaches to the tunnels in the Assessed Case when compared with the Reference Case are reflected as relatively modest improvements across the entire RXHAM simulation area.

7.3.38 Table 7-7 shows differences comparing the Reference Case with the Assessed Case across the modelled simulation area, across all time periods, for three metrics; total travel time (measured in PCU hours), average speed (measured in kph) and the queue at the end of the modelled period (measured in PCUs).

Page 255 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-7: 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case RXHAM simulation area outputs Metric 2021 2021 Difference Reference Assessed Case Case AM peak Travel time (PCU-hours) 120,320 119,879 -441 Average speed (kph) 32.3 32.4 +0.1 Queue at the end of the hour 13,087 12,843 -244 (PCUs) IP Travel time (PCU-hours) 92,275 91,825 -450 Average speed (kph) 35.9 35.9 0 Queue at the end of the hour 3,229 3,255 +26 (PCUs) PM peak Travel time (PCU-hours) 125,969 124,417 -1,552 Average speed (kph) 31.6 32.0 +0.4 Queue at the end of the hour 15,294 13,850 -1,444 (PCUs)

7.3.39 The Scheme results in a reduction in overall travel time on the entire RXHAM simulation area road network across all time periods. The reduction is most pronounced in the PM peak, for which there is a reduction of almost 1,600 PCU hours across the modelled area. Smaller reductions of around 440 and 450 PCUs are seen in the AM peak and IP periods respectively.

7.3.40 The impact of the Scheme on average speeds across the modelled area is less pronounced, with the greatest change being a marginal improvement of around 1.5% (0.4kph) in the PM peak. Changes in average speed in the AM peak and IP are negligible. The changes to average speeds largely reflect the reduction in queuing with the Scheme, rather than increases in the average speeds of uncongested traffic.

7.3.41 The PM peak also sees the greatest change when considering total queued demand at the end of the modelled hour, with a 9% reduction (around 1,400 PCUs) across the modelled area with the Scheme in operation, and a 2% reduction (around 240 PCUs) in the AM peak. Queued demand increases very marginally in the IP, by around 1% (or around 30 PCUs), although this is from a much lower base level.

7.3.42 The greatest positive impacts of the Assessed Case with the Scheme in operation are projected to occur on the road network approaches to the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels. Queued demand indicated across the RXHAM simulation area road network in the Assessed Case, therefore, generally reflects congestion issues caused by capacity constraints remote from the crossing that are also projected to occur in the Reference Case.

Page 256 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.43 Overall the changes to travel time and queued demand, particularly in the peaks represent significant benefits attributable to the Scheme when seen in the context of the total travel time and queued traffic modelled across the entire model simulation area.

7.3.44 With reference to specific routes on the road network in the vicinity of the Scheme, the change in actual traffic flows, Volume to Capacity Ratios (VCR), and junction delays comparing the 2021 Reference Case and the Assessed Case are shown in Figure 7-21 to Figure 7-28.

7.3.45 Figure 7-21 shows the change in actual flows in the AM peak hour. It can be seen that compared to the Reference Case, there is an increase in traffic flow in the Silvertown area with the Scheme in operation and also small increases south of the River Thames on the approach to the tunnels (as a result of the reduction in congestion). There is a reduction in flow through the Blackwall Tunnel as some traffic switches to the Silvertown Tunnel.

7.3.46 Figure 7-22 shows a similar pattern in the average IP hour, however there are more significant reductions in flows on the main routes including the A2, A102, A12 and A13 as a result of the deterrence effect of the charge. There is a small increase in flow through the Rotherhithe Tunnel as a result of traffic re-routeing, although the tunnel is operating within capacity during this period.

7.3.47 In the PM peak hour, Figure 7-23 shows an increase in actual flows on the main routes to and from the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels as a result of the reduction in congestion and the release of formerly queuing traffic. There is little change shown elsewhere on the network.

7.3.48 Larger versions of these plots are available in Appendix I.

Page 257 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-21: Change in actual flow (PCU/hr) with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case, AM peak hour, 2021)

Figure 7-22: Change in actual flow (PCU/hr) with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case, IP average hour, 2021)

Figure 7-23: Change in actual flow (PCU/hr) with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case, PM peak hour, 2021)

Page 258 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.49 Figure 7-24 and Figure 7-25 show the change in Volume to Capacity Ratio (VCR) comparing the 2021 Reference Case with the Assessed Case in the AM and PM peak hours.

7.3.50 The change plots clearly indicate the benefit of the Silvertown Tunnel in increasing capacity on the approaches to the tunnels. In the AM peak hour, VCR reductions are evident on the A102 approaching the southern portal, and at the A102/A13 East India Dock Road junction – the left-turn slip onto the A13 westbound is a key link that is identified as reducing from over 80% in the Reference Case to under 80% in the Assessed Case.

7.3.51 These plots also clearly indicate that, in general, there is little impact on the wider road network that results in a change in VCR thresholds. The exception to this can be seen at the Rotherhithe Tunnel in the AM peak where the VCR increases from under 80% to over 80%. This change is unlikely to cause any operational issues at the Rotherhithe Tunnel as the 100% threshold is not projected to be exceeded.

Page 259 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-24: VCR change with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case v Reference Case, AM peak hour, 2021)

Figure 7-25: VCR change with Silvertown Tunnel (Assessed Case v Reference Case, PM peak hour, 2021)

Page 260 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.52 In the PM peak hour, VCRs reduce on links approaching the northern portal, notably on the A12 and at the A102/A13 junction. The PM peak hour results also indicate that the release of formerly queued southbound traffic leads to an increase in VCRs on the A102 and the A2.

7.3.53 Figure 7-26 to Figure 7-28 show the changes in junction delay between the 2021 Reference Case and the Assessed Case in all three modelled time periods. These are measured in passenger car unit hours (PCU-hours) that take into account both delay at the junction and the flow of traffic arriving at each junction.

7.3.54 The junction delay plots for all three time periods indicate a reduction in delay on the approaches to the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels. With the Silvertown Tunnel in operation, delays on the Blackwall Tunnel approach reduce. In the AM peak the northbound approach on the A102 shows the greatest change in delay with a reduction of over 200 PCU-hours. This release of formerly queuing traffic allows traffic to move more freely on the network serving the tunnels; and while it creates increases in delay on other parts of the network, these increases in delay are minor (only exceeding 10 PCU-hours at 8 junctions across the entire network in the AM peak) when compared to the reduction in delay at the Blackwall Tunnel.

7.3.55 The IP plot shows little change in junction delay across the network when the Scheme is introduced. However there are significant changes on the Blackwall Tunnel southbound approach with multiple reductions of over 10 PCU-hours at the A13/A12 Junction.

7.3.56 The PM peak further accentuates the reduction in junction delay at the A13/A12 junction and the southbound approach to Blackwall Tunnel with multiple junctions showing a reduction of over 200 PCU-hours. This freeing up of the network allows a build up of delay at other points on the network including along the A102 and A11; but the increases in delay are minor when compared to the decreases shown at the Blackwall Tunnel crossing.

7.3.57 The reduction in junction delay is most significant on the immediate approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel in the northbound direction in the AM peak and the southbound direction in the PM peak, which correlates with when delay is highest at junctions in the Reference Case.

Page 261 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-26: Change in junction delay with Silvertown Tunnel (Reference Case Vs Assessed Case, AM peak hour, 2021)

Figure 7-27: Change in junction delay with Silvertown Tunnel (Reference Case vs Assessed Case, IP average hour, 2021)

Figure 7-28: Change in junction delay with Silvertown Tunnel (Reference Case vs Assessed Case, PM peak hour, 2021)

Page 262 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.58 The analysis described above indicates that the most significant improvements in network performance as a result of the Scheme occur on the road network located in the vicinity of the new tunnel i.e. within the borough boundaries of Greenwich (primarily due to improvements on the A102 northbound approach) and Tower Hamlets (due to improvements at a number of junctions, notably the A12/A13 East India Dock Road junction).

7.3.59 However, as indicated in Figure 7-9 and Figure 7-10, cross-river trips between a wide range of origins and destinations beyond these two boroughs are expected with the Scheme in operation, which would benefit from the improvements in network performance it secures.

7.3.60 Figure 7-29 illustrates the spread of these benefits for all trip origins by borough (including journeys that do not cross the River Thames) in each modelled time period, indicating the change in total travel time with the Assessed Case 2021 when compared with the Reference Case 2021 for the three host boroughs, Barking & Dagenham and Bexley.

Figure 7-29: Change in travel time (PCU-hours) for all trips originating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case)

100

0 AM IP PM -100 Greenwich -200 Tower Hamlets -300 Newham -400 Barking & Dagenham -500 Bexley

Change in PCU hours PCU in Change -600 -700

7.3.61 The figure shows that in the Assessed Case, in the PM peak hour, a significant reduction in travel time occurs for all trips originating in both Tower Hamlets (-540 PCU-hours) and Newham (-480 PCU-hours). This is primarily due to a reduction in queuing on the southbound approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel. In the AM peak, the most significant reduction in travel time occurs for trips originating in Greenwich (-350 PCU-hours). This is primarily due to the reduction in queuing forecast on the A102 northbound. A small reduction is also evident for trips originating in Bexley (-60 PCU-hours) for the same reason.

Page 263 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.3.62 Figure 7-30 provides equivalent data to that in Figure 7-29 but for all trips with a destination in the same boroughs. The graph shows that the largest reductions in travel time in the AM peak hour occur for trips with a destination in Tower Hamlets (-270 PCU-hours) and Newham (-100 PCU- hours). This is primarily due to improvements on the A102. Similar improvements on the A102 also result in travel time reductions of over 100 PCU-hours each for trips with destinations in these boroughs in the PM peak hour. Trips with a destination in Greenwich (-630 PCU-hours) benefit the most in the PM peak hour due to improvements north of the River Thames. This also generates a reduction in travel time for trips terminating in Bexley (- 120 PCU-hours).

Figure 7-30: Change in travel time (PCU-hours) for all trips terminating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case)

100

0

AM IP PM -100 Greenwich -200 Tower Hamlets -300 Newham -400 Barking & Dagenham -500 Bexley

Change in PCU hours PCU in Change -600 -700

7.3.63 The changes in total travel time described above are related to the volume of trips travelling to and from these boroughs via the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels – the largest total reductions in travel time are evident for trips to/from Greenwich, Tower Hamlets and Newham in part because these boroughs account for the largest proportions of trip origins and destinations involving a cross-river movement via the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor.

7.3.64 Changes in average speed enabled by the reduction in congestion and queuing, and a consequential network performance that is closer to ‘free- flow’ conditions, provides a proxy measure for travel time reduction per trip.

7.3.65 Figure 7-31 and Figure 7-32 show changes in average speed in all time periods for all trips with an origin and destination in each borough respectively in the Assessed Case when compared with the Reference Case. The figures show a similar pattern to those showing overall travel time changes. In terms of trip origins, the greatest increase in average speed in

Page 264 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

the AM peak hour occurs in Greenwich, while trips from Tower Hamlets and Newham are the largest beneficiaries in the PM peak hour. In terms of trip destinations, the greatest beneficiaries in the AM peak hour are Tower Hamlets and Newham while Greenwich benefits the most in the PM peak hour.

Figure 7-31: Change in average speed (kph) for all trips originating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case)

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Greenwich

0.8 Tower Hamlets 0.6 Newham (kph) 0.4 Barking & Dagenham 0.2 Bexley 0.0

Change in average speed average in Change -0.2 AM IP PM -0.4

Figure 7-32: Change in average speed (kph) for all trips terminating by borough (2021 Assessed Case – 2021 Reference Case)

1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 Greenwich

0.8 Tower Hamlets 0.6 Newham (kph) 0.4 Barking & Dagenham 0.2 Bexley 0.0

Change in average average in speedChange -0.2 AM IP PM -0.4

7.3.66 The figures also highlight some of the minor negative impacts of the Scheme resulting from the release of queued traffic in the Reference Case. In the AM peak hour, minor reductions in average speed are evident for trips originating in Tower Hamlets and Newham and trips with a destination in Barking & Dagenham, as more cross-river traffic is released on to the network to the north of the River Thames. Similarly in the PM peak, speed

Page 265 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

reduces for trips with an origin in Greenwich and Bexley as cross-river traffic is released south of the river in the Assessed Case.

7.3.67 These minor negative impacts on some journeys that do not cross the river are significantly outweighed, however, by the time saving benefits for cross- river traffic in all time periods.

7.3.68 At the points where the new approach roads for the Silvertown Tunnel tie-in with the existing road network, the Scheme does have a significant adverse traffic impact on local junctions and highway links. The tie-ins have been designed to current design standards taking into account the expected level of demand. On the north side, the Tidal Basin Roundabout would be modified to create a new signal-controlled roundabout able to accommodate flows from all connecting links while on the south side, the A102 would be widened to create new slip-road links to the Silvertown Tunnel and a flyover would be built to take southbound traffic exiting the Blackwall Tunnel. The tie-in designs also take into account the development plans for the surrounding areas. Further details of the planned tie-in arrangements can be found in the General Arrangement Plans (Document Reference: 2.2)

7.4 Longer-term road network impacts by time period

7.4.1 Table 7-8 shows the difference between the 2031 Reference Case and the Assessed Case in the modelled simulation area, across all time periods, for three metrics; total travel time (measured in PCU hours), average speed (measured in kph) and the queuing at the end of the modelled period (measured in PCUs).

Table 7-8: 2031 Reference Case and Assessed Case RXHAM simulation area outputs Metric 2031 2031 Difference Reference Assessed Case Case AM peak Travel time (PCU-hours) 130,758 130,384 -374 Average speed (kph) 31.0 31.2 +0.2 Queue at the end of the hour 19,806 19,432 -374 (PCUs) IP Travel time (PCU-hours) 100,326 100,072 -254 Average speed (kph) 35.0 35.1 +0.1 Queue at the end of the hour 5,103 5,163 +60 (PCUs) PM peak Travel time (PCU-hours) 139,909 138,858 -1,051 Average speed (kph) 29.8 30.2 +0.4 Queue at the end of the hour 23,978 22,276 -1,702 (PCUs)

Page 266 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.4.2 The table illustrates the benefits of the Scheme in 2031, particularly in the PM peak when there is a reduction in overall travel time of almost 1,100 PCU hours and a reduction in queued demand of 1,700 PCUs. The impact on average speed remains minimal, with the greatest change being an increase of about 1.5% (0.4kph) in the PM peak.

7.4.3 The AM peak also sees notable reductions in overall travel time and queued demand, although to a lesser extent than the PM peak. As with the 2021 Assessed Case outputs, there is a very marginal increase in queued traffic in the model at the end of the average IP hour (of around 1%, or 60 PCUs). This is from a much lower base level.

7.4.4 Table 7-9 shows the difference between Reference Case and Assessed Case in 2041 across the modelled simulation area, across all time periods, for the same three metrics.

Table 7-9: 2041 Reference Case and Assessed Case RXHAM simulation area outputs Metric 2041 2041 Difference Reference Assessed Case Case AM peak Travel time (PCU-hours) 140,597 140,469 -128 Average speed (kph) 29.7 29.8 +0.1 Queue at the end of the hour 25,968 25,612 -356 (PCUs) IP Travel time (PCU-hours) 108,400 108,295 -105 Average speed (kph) 33.9 33.9 0 Queue at the end of the hour 7,622 7,602 -20 (PCUs) PM peak Travel time (PCU-hours) 151,001 150,249 -752 Average speed (kph) 28.4 28.7 +0.3 Queue at the end of the hour 31,246 29,876 -1,370 (PCUs)

7.4.5 The benefits of the Scheme are apparent for 2041, particularly in the PM peak in terms of overall travel time and queued demand across the modelled area. Positive changes for all three metrics are also seen in the AM peak, and to a lesser extent than the PM peak, while change in the average IP hour is minimal.

7.4.6 Overall, the benefits of the Scheme are less pronounced in the longer-term than they are in the earlier years after opening. This is largely a consequence of forecast future growth in highway demand (as set out in Chapter 5) and the road network operating closer to capacity, which will

Page 267 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

serve to increase travel time and queued demand, and reduce average speeds, across the ESR.

7.5 Benefits of the Scheme in different scenarios

7.5.1 A wide range of sensitivity tests have been undertaken to model the impact of the Scheme in different scenarios, and summary results for all these tests are provided in the Traffic Forecasting Report – Sensitivity Testing (Document Reference: 7.9) included with the DCO application. In this section, the results of three sensitivity tests are summarised:

 Low growth 2021;

 High growth 2021; and

 2031 with additional crossings provided at Gallions Reach and Belvedere (which are under consideration by TfL as part of the wider TfL east London river crossings programme).

7.5.2 The low and high growth tests have been reported in the TA to demonstrate the traffic effects of the Scheme (including the flexibility of the user charge as a demand management tool) in different planning scenarios. As described in section 5.2 in Chapter 5, the Reference Case and Assessed Case model projections are based on population and employment growth forecasts for London developed by the GLA. These forecasts represent a point within a range of plausible planning scenarios developed by the GLA for each future year, and the low and high growth tests project the traffic effects of the Scheme across this range.

7.5.3 Much of the future population and employment growth in London is expected to occur within 38 Opportunity Areas (OA) and seven Areas of Intensification (AI). The Reference Case and Assessed Case population and employment forecasts described in section 5.2 do not assume that the planning targets within each OA and AI are fully achieved. In contrast, the high growth scenario represents the full delivery of homes and job growth aspirations across every area by 2041, factored down using a compound growth function to reflect a partial build out in 2021.

7.5.4 The low growth scenario was based on an assumption that planning targets are either delayed or not achieved, and was developed to broadly mirror the high growth scenario at borough level (for example, if there is an additional 5% growth for a borough in the high growth scenario when compared with the Reference Case, then -5% growth was applied in the low growth scenario). This adjustment was applied for all positive growth figures in the high growth scenario.

Page 268 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.5.5 Wherever negative growth was forecast in the high growth scenario when compared with the Reference Case (which occurs for employment at some boroughs generally located in outer London), the adjustment was not applied and Reference Case figures were used. As a result, the overall reduction in jobs in London in the low growth scenario when compared with the Reference Case is greater than the increase in the high growth scenario.

7.5.6 The test with additional crossings has been reported because the Scheme is part of a wider east London river crossings programme being developed by TfL. The results of this test therefore provide an illustrative example of the traffic effects of the Scheme in the context of this programme. It should be noted however that proposals for new river crossings to the east of Silvertown (including the aforementioned crossings) were outside the scope of the assessment of the Scheme itself, as they are not committed at this stage.

7.5.7 In each case, Scheme impacts are compared with the corresponding ‘do minimum’ scenario without the Scheme in operation. High and low growth are reported for 2021 to facilitate comparison with the 2021 Assessed Case impacts, which are the focus of the analysis in this chapter. In contrast, the impact on the Assessed Case of additional crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere has been assessed in 2031 since these schemes would be delivered at a later date than the Silvertown Tunnel if they are progressed.

7.5.8 In the high growth test, the Scheme impacts are assessed in a scenario where a higher user charge is levied at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels than is assumed in the Assessed Case to control demand at the two tunnels on the basis that background traffic volumes are higher than anticipated. Similarly, a low charge scenario is tested for the same purposes but on the basis that background traffic volumes are lower than anticipated.

7.5.9 The planning assumptions underpinning the high and low growth forecast scenarios are set out in the Traffic Forecasting Report – Sensitivity Testing (Document Reference: 7.9)

Low Growth

7.5.10 Lower traffic volumes than those forecast in the Assessed Case could occur in the opening year for a number of reasons, including a lower than expected rate of population and employment growth in London as a whole (and in the ESR particularly) and reductions in the expected level of car ownership and use.

Page 269 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.5.11 The impact of the Scheme was, accordingly, tested in a ‘low growth’ scenario that involved the following amendments to underlying planning assumptions when compared to the 2021 Reference Case:

 the population forecast for the GLA area is reduced by 232,000 (2.5%) from the 2021 Reference Case forecast of 9,203,000; and

 the employment forecast for the GLA area is reduced by 197,000 (3.8%) from the Reference Case forecast of 5,224,000.

7.5.12 The ‘low charge’ scenario that was tested for this growth forecast also included a 20% decrease in peak user charges and a 10% decrease in off- peak user charges when compared with the Assessed Case charges summarised in Table 1-1 in Chapter 1. The charge was adjusted in this way to broadly replicate Assessed Case road network conditions on the approaches to the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the low growth scenario.

7.5.13 Figure 7-33 and Figure 7-34 below indicate the forecast change in demand flow at each ESR river crossing in the AM peak hour northbound and the PM peak hour southbound, the two peak directions, in the low growth scenario. The graphs demonstrate the potential that lowering the charge has in this scenario to attract more traffic back to the Blackwall/Silvertown corridor in the Assessed Case to take advantage of the increase in capacity provided by the new tunnel.

7.5.14 In the AM peak hour northbound with the user charge maintained, demand flow decreases from 3,700 in the Reference Case to 3,400 in the Assessed Case; but when the user charge is lowered it returns to 3,700. In the PM peak southbound the same pattern is evident but the impact of the additional capacity and lower charge has the additional benefit of drawing traffic away from the Dartford Crossing, which is heavily congested in the 2021 Reference Case in this time period.

Page 270 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-33: Change in demand flow (2021 AM peak hour northbound)

S232 - Ref Case Low Growth S214 - Assessed Case Low Growth S239 - Assessed Case Low Growth Low Charges

7,000

6,000

5,000

6,160 6,109

4,000 6,019

3,000

3,745

3,668

2,000

3,417

1,000

829 809 820 222 225 222

1,136 1,232 1,157

Demand Flows(PCUs/hr) 0 Tower Bridge Rotherhithe BW Tunnel + Woolwich Dartford Tunnel ST Tunnel Ferry Crossing

Figure 7-34: Change in demand flow (2021 PM peak hour southbound)

S232 - Ref Case Low Growth S214 - Assessed Case Low Growth S239 - Assessed Case Low Growth Low Charges

8,000

7,000

6,000

7,457

7,144 7,086

5,000

4,000 5,102

3,000 5,011

4,730

2,000

1,000

981 966 951 262 228 224

1,074 1,054 1,008

0 Demand Flows(PCUs/hr) Tower Bridge Rotherhithe BW Tunnel + Woolwich Dartford Tunnel ST Tunnel Ferry Crossing

7.5.15 Network performance across the wider study area in the low growth scenario is summarised in Figure 7-35 to Figure 7-37. For each metric (travel time, average speed, queuing) in each time period, the Scheme delivers benefits in the Assessed Case when compared with the Reference Case, and those benefits are marginally enhanced by lowering the user charge in the Assessed Case.

7.5.16 When compared with the Reference Case, total travel time in the wider study area in the PM peak hour reduces by around 1,300 PCU-hours in the Assessed Case and 1,400 in the Assessed Case with a lower charge. Queued traffic at the end of the modelled hour also reduces by 1,500 vehicles and 1,600 respectively.

Page 271 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-35: Impact on travel time in wider study area (PCU-hours, 2021)

122,000

121,000

120,000 119,000 S232 - Ref Case Low Growth

118,000

S214 - Assessed Case Low 117,000 Growth 116,000

121,351 S239 - Assessed Case Low

120,065

119,919

115,000 Growth Low Charges

114,000 TravelTime (PCU Hours)

113,000

115,567

115,229 115,226 112,000 AM PM

Figure 7-36: Impact on average speed in wider study area (kph, 2021)

33.4

33.2

33.0 S232 - Ref Case Low

32.8 Growth

32.6 S214 - Assessed Case Low

Growth

33.2 32.4 33.1

33.0 S239 - Assessed Case Low

32.9 32.8

32.2

Ave. Ave. Speed (km/hr) Growth Low Charges

32.0 32.3 31.8 AM PM

Figure 7-37: Impact on queuing in wider study area (PCUs, 2021)

16,000

14,000

12,000

S232 - Ref Case Low

10,000 Growth

8,000

S214 - Assessed Case Low

Growth

6,000 13,508

Period Period (PCUs) S239 - Assessed Case Low

12,045

11,895

10,954 10,787 4,000 10,696 Growth Low Charges

Queue at of End Modelled 2,000

0 AM PM

Page 272 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

High growth

7.5.17 Higher traffic volumes than those forecast in the Assessed Case could also occur in the opening year for the opposite reasons to those described in paragraph 7.5.10. A ‘high growth’ scenario was consequently tested involving the following amendments to underlying planning assumptions when compared to the 2021 Reference Case:

 the population forecast for the GLA area is increased by 232,000 (2.5%) from the Reference Case forecast of 9,203,000; and

 the employment forecast for the GLA area is increased by 184,000 (3.5%) from the Reference Case forecast of 5,224,000.

7.5.18 The ‘high charge’ scenario that was tested for this growth forecast included a 20% increase in peak charges and a 10% increase in off-peak charges when compared with the Assessed Case charges summarised in Table 1-1 in Chapter 1. As with the low growth scenario, the charge was adjusted to broadly replicate Assessed Case road network conditions on the approaches to the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels in the high growth scenario.

7.5.19 Figure 7-38 and Figure 7-39 indicate the change in demand flow forecast in the high growth scenario in the AM peak hour northbound and the PM peak hour southbound respectively.

Figure 7-38: Change in demand flow (2021 AM peak hour northbound)

S192 - Ref Case High Growth S193 - Assessed Case High Growth S235 - Assessed Case High Growth High Charges

7,000

6,000

5,000

6,398

6,352 6,323

4,000

3,000

4,127 4,034

2,000 3,787

1,000

873 841 839 250 239 242

1,280 1,270 1,310 Demand Flows(PCUs/hr) 0 Tower Bridge Rotherhithe BW Tunnel + Woolwich Ferry Dartford Tunnel ST Tunnel Crossing

Page 273 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-39: Change in demand flow (2021 PM peak southbound)

S192 - Ref Case High Growth S193 - Assessed Case High Growth S235 - Assessed Case High Growth High Charges

8,000

7,000

6,000

7,591

7,271

7,231

5,000

4,000

5,538 5,331

3,000 5,080

2,000

1,000

282 232 236

1,046 1,012 1,030 1,212 1,143 1,157 0 Demand Flows(PCUs/hr) Tower Bridge Rotherhithe BW Tunnel + Woolwich Ferry Dartford Tunnel ST Tunnel Crossing

7.5.20 The figures indicate the effect of the Assessed Case with an increased user charge in reducing demand for the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels (down to under 3,800 in the AM peak hour northbound and under 5,100 in the PM peak hour southbound) when compared with both the Reference Case and the Assessed Case. There is a marginal increase in demand at the Rotherhithe Tunnel, the Woolwich Ferry and the Dartford Crossing in both peak directions as traffic re-assigns to these crossings.

7.5.21 Figure 7-40 to Figure 7-42 summarises the change in network performance across the wider study area in the high growth scenario. In both time periods with the Scheme in place there are clear improvements in all three metrics when compared to the Reference Case, notably in the PM peak.

Figure 7-40: Impact on travel time in wider study area (PCU-hours, 2021)

134,000

132,000

130,000 S192 - Reference Case High Growth 128,000

S193 - Assessed Case High

126,000 Growth

S235 - Assessed Case High

131,813

124,000 Growth High Charges

130,267 130,253

TravelTime (PCU Hours) 122,000

125,688

125,223 125,173 120,000 AM PM

Page 274 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-41: Impact on average speed in wider study area (kph, 2021)

31.8

31.6

31.4 S192 - Reference Case

31.2 High Growth

31.0 S193 - Assessed Case High 31.7

31.7 Growth

30.8 31.5

S235 - Assessed Case High

31.2 31.2

30.6

Ave. Ave. Speed (km/hr) Growth High Charges

30.4 30.7 30.2 AM PM

Figure 7-42: Impact on queuing in wider study area (PCUs, 2021)

18,500 18,000 17,500

17,000 S192 - Reference Case

16,500 High Growth

16,000 S193 - Assessed Case High

Growth

15,500 18,134

Period Period (PCUs) S235 - Assessed Case High

15,000

16,681 Growth High Charges

14,500 16,508

15,749

Queue at of End Modelled 15,261 14,000 15,245 13,500 AM PM

7.5.22 In contrast to the low growth scenario however, the figures indicate a very marginal decrease in performance compared to the Assessed Case when a higher user charge is levied at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels. This occurs because the benefits of the higher charge in controlling demand and improving network performance on the approaches to the two tunnels are off-set elsewhere as traffic re-assigns to already congested sections of the network to avoid paying the charge.

7.5.23 This effect is illustrated in Figure 7-43, which shows the forecast change in travel time on road links and junctions located in different boroughs in the two scenarios with the Scheme in place when compared with the Reference Case.

Page 275 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.5.24 The figure indicates that in the scenario with the higher user charge, the travel time savings are generally more significant in the host boroughs, but lower further afield in Lewisham and Southwark. The change across the wider study area is, however, negligible and in both scenarios network performance is improved when compared with the Reference Case.

Figure 7-43: Change in travel time (PCU-hours) compared to 2021 Reference Case

2021 High Growth (Assessed Case charge)

2021 High Growth (High charge)

7.5.25 The impact of the user charge in the high growth scenario highlights the importance of the status of the Scheme in the context of TfL’s wider east London river crossings programme. The results of the tests described in this section indicate that the Scheme clearly delivers network performance benefits when compared with the Reference Case in both the high and low growth scenarios.

Page 276 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.5.26 However, in the high growth scenario the impact of controlling demand on the Blackwall/Silvertown crossing corridor is more apparent elsewhere due to increasing levels of congestion across the network. It is an indication that as London continues to grow the need to provide further additional cross- river capacity for both PT and private vehicle users may become more pressing.

Additional crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere

7.5.27 The final sensitivity test involved adding assumed crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere to the Assessed Case in 2031. TfL is developing plans for both crossings as a means of improving connectivity and supporting growth further to the east of the Silvertown Tunnel, and while these schemes are not yet committed or consented it is envisaged that delivery of these two crossings could follow within a few years of opening of the Scheme.

7.5.28 Assessed Case user charges at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels were also assumed to be in place at Gallions Reach while at Belvedere, user charges were assumed to be equivalent to those at the Dartford Crossing given its relative proximity to Belvedere.

7.5.29 Network performance across the wider study area with these additional crossings in operation is summarised in Figure 7-44 to Figure 7-46. For each metric in each time period, the Scheme delivers benefits in the Assessed Case when compared with the Reference Case, and those benefits are enhanced further by introducing new crossings at Gallions Reach and Belvedere in addition to the Silvertown Tunnel.

7.5.30 For example when compared with the Reference Case, total travel time in the wider study area in the PM peak hour reduces by about 1,100 PCU- hours in the Assessed Case and 2,200 in the Assessed Case with the additional crossings. Queued traffic at the end of the modelled hour also reduces by 1,700 and 2,800 PCUs respectively.

Page 277 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-44: Impact on travel time in wider study area (PCU-hours, 2031)

142,000

140,000

138,000 S3 - 2031 Reference Case

136,000

134,000

S153 - 2031 Assessed Case

132,000 139,909

130,000 138,858

137,753 S211 - 2031 Assessed Case 128,000 plus Gallions Reach &

TravelTime (PCU Hours) Belvedere

126,000

130,758

130,384 130,179 124,000 AM PM

Figure 7-45: Impact on average speed in wider study area (kph, 2031)

31.5

31.0 S3 - 2031 Reference Case

30.5 S153 - 2031 Assessed Case 31.3 30.0 31.0 31.2 30.5 S211 - 2031 Assessed Case

Ave. Ave. Speed (km/hr) 30.2 29.5 plus Gallions Reach & 29.8 Belvedere

29.0 AM PM

Figure 7-46: Impact on queuing in wider study area (PCUs, 2031)

30,000

25,000

S3 - 2031 Reference Case

20,000

S153 - 2031 Assessed Case

15,000

10,000 23,978

Period Period (PCUs) 22,276

21,152 S211 - 2031 Assessed Case

19,806 19,432 18,596 plus Gallions Reach & 5,000

Queue at of End Modelled Belvedere

0 AM PM

Page 278 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.5.31 However, the introduction of these additional crossings would likely have a more significant impact on trip distribution and travel patterns across the wider ESR than the Silvertown Tunnel alone. The latter effectively provides more highway capacity on a river crossing corridor that is served by the existing Blackwall Tunnel with a common approach on the A102 to the south of the River Thames.

7.5.32 In contrast, the Gallions Reach and Belvedere schemes would add two new river crossings over a 20km stretch of river between the Blackwall Tunnel and the Dartford Crossing. The only existing highway crossing over this stretch of river at present is the Woolwich Ferry, which is insignificant in terms of the provision of strategic cross-river highway capacity (with a two- way effective capacity of around 400 PCUs/hour, compared with 6,900 PCUs/hour provided at the Blackwall Tunnel and 12,700 PCUs/hour at the Dartford Crossing).

7.5.33 As a result, TfL is investigating the likely impacts of these additional crossings as part of a separate programme of works, which is exploring the optimum configuration and functional characteristics of schemes at Gallions Reach and Belvedere in the context of the additional capacity provided by the Silvertown Tunnel.

7.6 Wider area monitoring and mitigation of highway impacts

7.6.1 One of the principal beneficial effects of the Scheme is a significant improvement in the efficiency of traffic movement on the A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach corridor, with a small decrease in levels of demand on this corridor. This largely reflects the fact that the Scheme includes embedded mitigation by way of management of traffic impacts in the form of the user charge that acts to control traffic volumes including the suppression of induced traffic.

7.6.2 Aside from the benefits to the A102 the implementation of the Scheme with user charges is expected to have only minimal impacts on junction delays in the 2021 modelled year. This is because none of the changes are likely to have a material impact on journey times.

7.6.3 As the local and wider road network will change between now and the Scheme opening year, TfL acknowledges that the need for, and the most appropriate type of, mitigations at junctions and elsewhere on the network, may emerge closer to (or after) the time of Scheme opening. Although committed changes to the road (and transport) networks have been taken account of in the Assessed Case, other (as yet uncommitted) changes to the road network are likely to be undertaken in the period between the

Page 279 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

publication of this strategy and the Scheme opening. These changes will come about as a result of as yet uncommitted land use developments and local highway schemes. An example of such a change is Cycle Superhighway 4 which is proposed to run along the A206 corridor and is in development by TfL, together with the relevant boroughs and other stakeholders.

7.6.4 Accordingly, TfL is not proposing specific junction mitigation works in the DCO application. Instead, TfL proposes to assess the traffic impacts on the wider network closer to the opening date of the Scheme to determine whether any consequential mitigation measures are required at that stage; and if so, will undertake those works. Following the opening of the Tunnel, TfL would then monitor the wider network to accurately identify the scale and location of any adverse impacts attributable to the Scheme in operation and would implement any mitigation necessary in connection with those impacts. This approach to be adopted as regards to the mitigation of Scheme effects is set out in the Monitoring Strategy and the TIMS.

7.6.5 TfL has a duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 to ensure the effective management of the road network (‘Network Management Duty’) in London; and, in accordance with this duty, will include the commitments outlined above to monitor and mitigate, where reasonably required, any adverse traffic or traffic related impacts of the Scheme, in the DCO application itself (see mitigation summary in Appendix C).

7.6.6 TfL would commence the pre-Scheme monitoring process and carry out local junction modelling three years in advance of Scheme opening. TfL would identify the locations for monitoring in liaison with the relevant boroughs in advance of the commencement of the monitoring programme. This strategy would ensure that relevant pre-Scheme data is collected to enable the identification of Scheme related traffic and traffic related impacts.

7.6.7 Following the opening of the Silvertown Tunnel, monitoring data will be collected on an annual basis for a period of three years. At the end of this three year post-Scheme opening monitoring period, the monitoring programme will be reviewed by TfL with the aim of establishing whether the monitoring period should be extended by up to two additional years. This review will be carried out in consultation with the Silvertown Tunnel Implementation Group (STIG).

7.6.8 The Monitoring Strategy and Traffic Impact Mitigation Strategy will be set out in the DCO as a requirement providing assurance to the boroughs and other stakeholders of TfL’s commitment to deliver necessary and appropriate mitigation with regard to Scheme traffic and traffic related effects.

Page 280 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.6.9 TfL has carried out an ‘example’ assessment based on the Assessed Case impact and this can be found in Appendix C. This appendix includes a specific section that addresses the potential traffic and traffic-related impacts of the Scheme on Tunnel Avenue, and the implications for the Scheme in operation of major events at The O2 and the proposed new IKEA development on Bugsby’s Way.

7.6.10 As part of the Scheme, Tunnel Avenue would be opened up as a through- route for traffic travelling between the northern end of the Peninsula and Blackwall Lane via the removal of the bus gate currently located adjacent to the Boord Street footbridge. This is likely to result in an increase in traffic movements on Tunnel Avenue as it would provide an alternative north-south connection to Millennium Way on the Peninsula. However a preliminary assessment carried out by TfL indicates that these increases are not expected to be significant, and overall traffic movements are expected to remain well within available capacity, both on Tunnel Avenue and at its junction with Blackwall Lane with the Scheme in operation.

7.7 Resilience and incident management

7.7.1 As outlined in Chapter 4 and in Appendix D, the cross-river highway network in the ESR suffers from poor reliability and resilience to incidents causing traffic disruption. This is in a large part due to the relative scarcity of existing river crossings, their high level of demand and their susceptibility to traffic incidents and closures.

7.7.2 Through reducing delay and congestion, the Scheme would significantly improve the day-to-day reliability of the network particularly for users of the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels. The resilience of the network to disruption would be considerably improved in two main ways.

7.7.3 First, the Scheme would reduce the number of over-height vehicle incidents at the Blackwall Tunnel, which currently account for a significant proportion of all incidents and closures. The Scheme would provide an adjacent alternative route to the Blackwall Tunnel with full dimensional clearance. This alternative route, supported by clear signage to direct over-height vehicles to use the Silvertown Tunnel, could reduce the number of unplanned closures at the Blackwall Tunnel caused by over-height vehicles by around 80%.

7.7.4 Secondly, the Silvertown Tunnel would provide the ability to quickly divert traffic to an adjacent, high capacity crossing in the event of an incident and closure at the Blackwall Tunnel. A diversion via the Silvertown Tunnel compares favourably with the current situation whereby in the event of an incident or closure at the Blackwall Tunnel, users either have to wait until the

Page 281 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

incident has been cleared or can seek an alternative crossing of the river via lengthy diversions to other crossings that are currently operating at or close to capacity, causing considerable additional delay to users of the adjacent road network.

7.7.5 In addition to these day-to-day benefits, the Scheme would provide greater flexibility in asset management and provide opportunities for reducing the traffic-related impacts of maintenance closures at the Blackwall Tunnel. In the event of a planned maintenance closure of the Blackwall Tunnel traffic, including bus route 108, could be diverted via the Silvertown Tunnel.

7.7.6 The Scheme would also significantly enhance the resilience of the adjacent road network in the event of a long-term closure of the Blackwall Tunnel that could, for example, be caused by a major incident. Further detail on the benefits that the Scheme would have for the reliability and resilience of the road network in the ESR is provided in Appendix D.

7.8 Road safety

7.8.1 An analysis of future road accident levels with the Scheme in operation has been undertaken using the COBA-LT methodology, which uses accident records, forecast traffic flows (derived from RXHAM) and road types to calculate accident rates. As traffic demand for the crossing in the Assessed Case is forecast to reduce overall, the analysis has shown that the Scheme would have a marginally positive impact on accident levels (equating to a reduction of 233 accidents over a 60 year period, or a reduction of 0.15% compared to the Reference Case). Further details of this assessment are contained in the Economic Assessment Report (Document Reference: 7.8).

7.8.2 The current design for the Silvertown Tunnel and the proposed tie-in arrangements linking it to the road network on either side of the River Thames have been subject to a full Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. As part of this process a number of safety issues were identified and recommendations made for maximising the road safety for users of the Scheme. Further Road Safety Audits would be undertaken as the detailed design of the Scheme proceeds post-consent.

7.9 Public transport network

7.9.1 The most important impact of the Scheme on PT would be the opportunities the Silvertown Tunnel would create to introduce additional cross-river bus services to improve PT links between south-east and east London, notably with the growing employment areas in the Royal Docks and Canary Wharf and with the significant development expected on the Greenwich Peninsula.

Page 282 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

The Silvertown Tunnel is designed to accommodate double-deck buses, thus providing operational flexibility enabling bus routes to be extended across the River Thames, as well as greater bus capacity.

7.9.2 One lane in each bore of the Silvertown Tunnel would be reserved for buses and HGVs, which would further enhance the reliability of bus services and reduce bus journey times. New and extended cross-river bus routes (amounting to around 40 buses per hour per direction) could be provided, which would considerably improve PT accessibility in the areas served.

7.9.3 The typical lead time for London Buses to implement bus service changes is around two years. Therefore, since the Silvertown Tunnel has an assumed opening date of 2022/23, any proposals for the bus network in this TA can only be indicative and for the purpose of assessing operational feasibility. However, the Silvertown Tunnel Implementation Group (comprising representatives from local boroughs) would have a role in reviewing and making recommendations with regard to the cross-river bus network when the detailed bus route planning process begins before the opening of the tunnel.

7.9.4 The proposed modifications to the layout of the road network serving the southern tunnel portal would facilitate bus movements between both tunnels and the North Greenwich bus station. The Scheme modifications are as follows:

 Blackwall Tunnel southbound – there would be a bus-only slip road after the tunnel portal enabling buses to exit to Millennium Way;

 Blackwall Tunnel northbound – there would be a bus-only slip road from the northern section of Tunnel Avenue onto the tunnel approach enabling buses to access the tunnel without passing through Blackwall Lane; and

 Silvertown tunnel northbound – there would be a bus-only slip road from Millennium Way directly onto the tunnel approach.

7.9.5 Development of the bus network would also provide affordable journey options for people on lower incomes, thereby mitigating some adverse impacts of the proposed user charge as bus passengers would not be required to pay the charge or any supplement to cross the river over and above a standard fares. The bus-only access roads could also be used by commuter coaches where operators sought to provide services to the Greenwich Peninsula.

7.9.6 An indicative cross-river bus network utilising the Silvertown Tunnel has been developed based on an analysis of existing service provision, expected

Page 283 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

land use and transport network changes, that was the subject of feedback received during public consultation. The network consists of two new services and enhancements to four existing services (predominantly cross- river extensions). These indicative services are shown in Figure 7-47.

Figure 7-47: Indicative Silvertown Tunnel cross-river bus network (Assessed Case)

7.9.7 The assumed changes associated with the indicative bus services illustrated in Figure 7-47 are shown in Table 7-10.

Page 284 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Table 7-10: Indicative cross-river bus network service details

Route Existing Future freq Summary of changes freq (buses (buses per per hour) hour)

108 (Lewisham Town 6 7.5 Minor change in southbound Centre/Stratford Bus direction at North Station) Greenwich due to new road layout

129 (Greenwich Town 5 10 Extension from North Centre/North Greenwich to Beckton – Greenwich Station) stopping pattern for other services on route assumed

309 (London Chest 5 5 Extension from Canning Hospital/Stephenson Town to North Greenwich – St) stopping pattern for other services on route assumed

104A (Manor 6 6 New route (covers part of Park/Stratford) existing 104) including extension to North Greenwich – stopping pattern for other services on route assumed

Grove Park – Canary ~ 4 Stopping pattern for other Wharf services on route assumed

Eltham – Beckton ~ 5 Stopping pattern for other services on route assumed

7.9.8 These indicative enhancements may be supportable by a number of other schemes being developed independently of the Silvertown Tunnel scheme through TfL’s Bus Priority Delivery Portfolio. These schemes, which are not part of the DCO application, are summarised below:

Road – extension of westbound bus lane from Plumstead station towards Woolwich (at concept design stage);

 North Greenwich – study on Pilot Busway undertaken to identify improvements to existing alignment/operation, which will inform Masterplanning work being undertaken by developer – further bus lane schemes on Commercial Way/Bugsby’s Way and Peartree Way are at feasibility stage;

 ABP London’s Asian Business District – potential bus-only ramp linking Strait Road and Royal Albert Way (at feasibility stage); and

Page 285 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

 Royal Albert Basin – potential bus-only road east of Gallions Reach (at feasibility stage).

7.9.9 A westbound bus lane on Bugsby’s Way was implemented in January 2015 by a local developer as part of a Section 106 agreement. Further details on the development of this network and the new bus opportunities created by the Silvertown Tunnel are provided in Appendix F.

7.9.10 In addition to increasing the scope for the provision of new bus services, the Scheme would also improve resilience and road network performance in and around the Blackwall Tunnel, bringing significant benefits for existing local bus services.

7.9.11 As seen in Chapter 4, current congestion significantly disrupts the route 108, the only cross-river London bus service east of Tower Bridge. Closures of the Blackwall Tunnel can also result in the route being operated in two sections either side of the River Thames, or via a lengthy diversion over Tower Bridge, which can be closed on occasions for night-time maintenance (route 108 operates 24 hours a day).

7.9.12 With the Scheme in operation, route 108 could be diverted via the Silvertown Tunnel in the event of closures of the Blackwall Tunnel. Many other local bus routes that currently suffer delays on the surrounding road network when the Blackwall Tunnel is closed or congested would also benefit from the more reliable road network performance created by the Scheme.

7.9.13 As regards other PT services, the Scheme would not have any material impacts on the operation of the Jubilee Line, DLR or Emirates Air Line services. After completion of construction works, the tunnel portals would not have a material impact on the pedestrian and cycle access routes to nearby stations. The access routes to a possible new DLR station at Thames Wharf would remain unobstructed.

Public transport patronage

7.9.14 The indicative bus network shown in Figure 7-47 was coded in TfL’s Railplan model with the costs fed into the LoRDM Demand Model to assess the impact of new services on patronage and crowding on the PT network. When compared with the Reference Case in 2021, the Demand Model indicated that the provision of the Silvertown Tunnel and associated indicative bus network enhancements described above resulted in an overall uplift of 6,500 daily public transport trips (2,500 transferring from car and 4,000 from walking and cycling).

Page 286 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.9.15 As well as resulting in a significant number of new PT trips overall, the indicative bus network enhancements would result in a noticeable change in the distribution of PT trips across this part of the network. Figure 7-48 illustrates the forecast change in AM peak volumes on individual PT lines in 2021 when compared with the Reference Case – red indicates an increase in patronage and green indicates a reduction.

Figure 7-48: Change in AM PT transit volume – 2021 Assessed Case v Reference Case

7.9.16 The figure indicates that the indicative new bus services would reduce demand on National Rail and DLR services in the vicinity of the tunnels, which indicates a switch made for some shorter distance PT trips from rail to bus or part of a PT journey now being made by bus. A substantial number of new bus trips are likely to be trips to and from North Greenwich station to interchange with other bus services and the Jubilee line. A similar pattern was evident in the IP and PM peak.

Page 287 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.9.17 Over the course of a 12-hour period (07:00-19:00), a total of almost 19,000 cross-river bus passenger trips are forecast to be made via the Silvertown and Blackwall tunnels in 2021, with a large proportion of this total coming from people switching from rail to bus. This compares with a total of around 3,000 cross-river bus trips made via the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case, and represents a significant increase of over 500%. The forecast impacts on bus patronage by individual service were as follows:

 Patronage on route 108 would increase by approximately 25% as a result of the increase in frequency.

 Patronage on route 129 would increase approximately four-fold as a result of the extension across the River Thames and the increase in frequency.

 Patronage on route 309 would increase approximately two-fold as a result of the extension across the River Thames, although patronage is relatively low compared to other routes.

 Patronage on route 104 would increase approximately two-fold as a result of the extension across the River Thames.

 Patronage on each of the other new routes (Eltham to Beckton and Grove Park to Canary Wharf) is around 70% - 95% that of existing levels of patronage on the 108.

7.9.18 With the inclusion of scheduled coach services, the proportion of person trips made by bus or coach through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels combined is expected to increase from just over 10% in the base year to approaching 30% in 2021, as shown in Figure 7-49. This illustrates the significant beneficial impact the Scheme could have in facilitating public transport trips.

Figure 7-49: Indicative proportion of person trips by mode through the Blackwall Tunnel in 2012 compared to both Tunnels in the 2021 Assessed Case

Bus/coach Private vehicle

Base year (2012)

2021 Assessed Case

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Proportion of person trips by mode (07:00-19:00)

Page 288 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Public transport accessibility

7.9.19 The indicative new bus networks would also result in an uplift in PTALs in the areas they serve. Figure 7-50 illustrates the 2031 bus PTAL levels with the new services in place (based on the assumed coding used to generate the Railplan run described above).

Figure 7-50: Bus PTAL, Assessed Case 2031

7.9.20 Figure 7-51 illustrates the change in PTAL scores as a result of the new services when compared with the 2031 Reference Case outputs. The change plot indicates the uplift in PTAL scores63 as a result of new services. The main benefits are in the Silvertown and Beckton areas on the north side of the River Thames, and on the approaches to the North Greenwich bus

63 The PTAL methodology is outlined in paragraph 1.5.16.

Page 289 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

station to the south. The benefit of individual routes extending to Eltham and are also evident.

Figure 7-51: Change in PTAL score due to new Silvertown bus connections (2031 Reference Case v Assessed Case)

Change in PTAL score 2031 Assessed Case vs Ref Case

7.10 Walking and cycling network

7.10.1 The detailed design of the Scheme would improve access for pedestrians and cyclists, taking account of local community needs while being functional, practical and economical. The Scheme would help to create a legible street network that promotes walking and cycling, and defines spaces through public realm rather than highways. Pedestrian and cycle routes would be provided as indicated in the General Arrangement Plans (Document Reference: 2.2) for the Scheme.

Page 290 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.10.2 On the north side of the River Thames, non motorised user routes would be provided around and across the Tidal Basin Roundabout, along the new alignment of Dock Road, and connecting with existing facilities on the Lower Lea Crossing. Controlled pedestrian and cycle road crossings would be provided wherever appropriate and practicable along those routes.

7.10.3 On the south side of the river, the Boord Street footbridge would be replaced with a new pedestrian and cycle bridge aligned with Boord Street that meets all relevant TfL standards. Step free access over the A102 close to the location of the Boord Street bridge would be maintained during construction as indicated in Chapter 6.

7.10.4 TfL has also agreed to explore further and provide funding for a number of additional initiatives that would help to improve the pedestrian and cycling network, including:

 Lower Lea Crossing – in response to concerns raised by the London Borough of Newham during consultation regarding existing pedestrian and cycle provision on the Lower Lea Crossing, TfL will explore such improvements as part of a Development Infrastructure Funding (DIF) Study for the Royal Docks OAPF;

 North Woolwich Road – TfL will contribute to the continuation of the provision that is provided on Dock Road along North Woolwich Road between Dock Road and West Silvertown DLR;

 Tidal Basin Road – TfL will work with LB Newham to investigate if an improved layout can be identified for pedestrian and cyclists as part of wider improvements; and

 DLR bridge – the current footbridge over the DLR tracks from Tidal Basin Road to Victoria Dock Road connects the residential areas to the north to the EAL, but it is unsuitable for cyclists – TfL will fund improvements to this bridge in order to allow cyclists to use it more easily.

7.10.5 These improvements could be delivered via a variety of measures, for example Section 106 style agreements. The Greenwich Peninsula masterplans and the emerging masterplan for the Royal Docks area, summarised in Chapter 5, provide such delivery opportunities.

7.10.6 On the south side of the River Thames, the Greenwich Peninsula Masterplan (which received outline planning permission in December 2015 and is summarised in Figure 5-1 in Chapter 5) includes a network of pedestrian and cycling routes across the Peninsula and a pedestrian/cycling crossing of the

Page 291 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

A102 Blackwall Tunnel Approach southbound carriageway adjacent to North Greenwich station, as shown in Figure 7-52.

Figure 7-52: Greenwich Peninsula Masterplan pedestrian and cycling connections

Silvertown Tunnel portal location

New Boord Street pedestrian/cycle bridge

7.10.7 On the north side of the river, potential improvements are being considered in the Royal Docks area as part of the emerging Royal Docks & Beckton Riverside OAPF, as shown in Figure 7-53. This includes a walking route along the River Thames, a new bridge over the River Lea providing a more direct pedestrian/cycle route between the Docks and the Isle of Dogs, and the upgrade of routes between the Docks and the river to high quality walking/cycling links.

Page 292 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-53: Indicative walking and cycling improvements in the Royal Docks64

Silvertown Tunnel portal location

Potential River Emirates Lea bridge Air Line

Potential riverside walk

Potential upgraded pedestrian/cycle connections

7.10.8 The Design and Access Statement (Document Reference: 7.3) provides an illustrative example of how pedestrian and cycling improvements could be achieved in the vicinity of the tunnel portals. For example, Figure 7-54 shows an illustrative network in the vicinity of the portal on the south side of the River Thames.

64 Royal Docks & Beckton Riverside OAPF, Working Draft, March 2016.

Page 293 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-54: Illustrative pedestrian and cycle links in the vicinity of the southern tunnel portal

7.10.9 The pedestrian and cycling routes that are affected during construction, namely Edmund Halley Way and Tunnel Avenue, would be re-instated. The Boord Street foot and cycle bridge shown is based on an assumption of a 5m wide span and 3m wide steps and ramps.

7.10.10 Illustrative walking and cycling links in the vicinity of the northern portal of the Silvertown Tunnel are shown in Figure 7-55.

Figure 7-55: Illustrative pedestrian and cycle links in the vicinity of the northern tunnel portal

Page 294 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.10.11 The plan indicates a continuation of the existing two-way off road cycle way segregated from pedestrians on the southern side of the Lower Lea Crossing, linking the existing provision to Tidal Basin Roundabout. At the roundabout itself, a two-way off road cycle way is illustrated, segregated from pedestrians on the northern and western sides of the junction connecting the Lower Lea Crossing to Tidal Basin Road and Dock Road. Shared pedestrian and cycling space is shown on the desire line through the centre of the roundabout, and a two-way off road cycle way segregated from pedestrians is provided on the east side of Dock Road.

7.10.12 The exact design of pedestrian and cycling facilities in the vicinity of the Tidal Basin Roundabout would be confirmed as the detailed design progresses and when more information about the development of the surrounding area and associated cycling infrastructure is known. The current provision would be enhanced with appropriate crossing facilities provided in line with current good practice.

7.10.13 TfL is also proposing to produce a future EAL fares strategy document in consultation with the host boroughs, which would be published ahead of the opening of the Silvertown Tunnel. The objective of this strategy would be to set out fare options for the EAL, and there are a number of possible options that could be considered including discounts on existing fares or annual passes for regular users. This strategy would be supported by further analysis of the needs of existing and potential EAL users, with a view to bringing forward additional measures where appropriate to ensure the EAL is fulfilling its role as a local crossing.

7.10.14 As the setting of fares for the EAL is a Mayoral decision, the final decision will be made by the future Mayor of London. However, the EAL fares strategy will be used to inform that decision. The EAL fares strategy is not part of the Scheme, but the proposed improvements to pedestrian and cycle access across the Tidal Basin Roundabout, described above, are designed to improve access to the EAL and enhance the role of the EAL as a local crossing.

7.11 Access to labour market and jobs

Public Transport

7.11.1 Figure 7-56 and Figure 7-57 show the difference in job accessibility by PT (jobs located within a 75 minute generalised cost) comparing the 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case scenarios in the AM and PM peak three-hour periods respectively. A 75 minute generalised cost threshold was used for PT instead of 45 minutes (used to assess car journey times) since it

Page 295 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

includes waiting and interchange time, which is weighted greater than actual time in WebTAG. Therefore, a 75 minute generalised cost is broadly equivalent to a 45 minute journey time by PT for many journeys.

7.11.2 As shown in Figure 7-56, improvements north of the River Thames during the AM peak period are evident due to the new bus routes reducing the generalised cost between zones within Newham. Similar improvements arise during the PM peak period.

Page 296 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-56: Change in job accessibility by PT (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost – AM peak period (07:00-10:00)

Figure 7-57: Change in job accessibility by PT (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost – PM peak period (16:00-19:00)

Page 297 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Private vehicles

7.11.3 A principal objective of the Scheme is to provide improved cross-river road links to support business and services.

7.11.4 Figure 7-58 and Figure 7-59 show the difference in job connectivity by car (e.g. jobs located within a 45 minute journey time) expected between the 2021 Reference Case and Assessed Case scenarios during the AM and PM peak hours respectively.

7.11.5 Figure 7-58 shows the change in access to jobs in the AM peak hour. With the reduction in queues on the northbound approach to the Blackwall Tunnel, it can be seen that the greatest increases in connectivity occur south of the River Thames in Greenwich, Lewisham, Bexley and Bromley. Significant proportions of Greenwich, Lewisham and Bexley are estimated to see over 200,000 additional potential jobs made accessible within a 45 minute journey time.

7.11.6 Journey to work times in the AM peak are expected to be adversely affected in the immediate vicinity of the northern portal of the Silvertown Tunnel due to the increased throughput of traffic in the Silvertown area; however, the reduction in accessible jobs within Newham is expected to be some 2% with the Scheme in the Assessed Case compared with the Reference Case. However, the number of accessible jobs during the AM peak period in Greenwich and Lewisham in the Assessed Case are expected to increase by 21% and 9% respectively.

7.11.7 Figure 7-59 shows the change in access to jobs in the PM peak hour. The greatest increases in connectivity to employment occur south of the River Thames, in Greenwich, Lewisham, Bexley and Bromley. However, in this time period improvements in the number of jobs accessible from Tower Hamlets and Newham are also delivered in the Assessed Case when compared to the Reference Case.

Page 298 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-58: Change in job accessibility by Car (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on journey time – AM peak hour

Figure 7-59: Change in job accessibility by Car (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on journey time – PM peak hour

Page 299 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.11.8 Connectivity by car has been assessed based on changes in the generalised cost of a journey. The assessment of the generalised cost of car trips takes into consideration the travel time and vehicle operating costs, network reliability benefits associated with the Scheme and the Assessed Case user charge. Parking costs were not included as these were assumed to be constant in both the Reference Case and the Assessed Case. Costs were converted to time in minutes using a Value of Time (VoT) factor related to journey purpose and mode.

7.11.9 A 70 minute generalised cost threshold was used to assess connectivity by car, which was broadly equivalent to a 45 minute journey time plus the average cost of the user charge in generalised minutes (weighted by journey purpose) during peak times in the peak direction.

7.11.10 Since the VoT is relatively low for car-based commuters, the user charge increases the proportion of journeys with a generalised cost of over 70 minutes when compared to the Reference Case, and subsequently results in lower levels of connectivity to jobs by car for commuters in the Assessed Case.

7.11.11 The generalised cost comparison between the Reference Case and Assessed Case for commuter car trips is shown in Figure 7-60 and Figure 7-61.

Page 300 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-60: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Commuters – AM peak hour

Figure 7-61: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Commuters – PM peak hour

Page 301 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.11.12 VoT is higher for business trips compared with car commuter trips. In this regard, the Scheme results in connectivity improvements in terms of business journeys with a generalised cost of less than 70 minutes when compared to the Reference Case. The comparison between the Reference Case and Assessed Case for business car trips is shown in Figure 7-62 and Figure 7-63 for the AM peak hour and PM peak hour respectively.

7.11.13 In summary, during the AM peak hour car business users living in south-east London have access to a greater number of jobs (and therefore business opportunities) because of the generalised cost savings attributable to the Scheme. During the PM peak, connectivity to jobs for business users from both north and south of the River Thames is improved because of improved generalised costs.

Figure 7-62: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Business – AM peak hour

Page 302 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

Figure 7-63: Change in job accessibility (2021 Reference Case v Assessed Case) based on generalised cost for Car Business – PM peak-hour

Freight

7.11.14 The current river crossing restrictions and constraints place considerable limitations on freight vehicle types that are able to use the Blackwall Tunnel crossing. The Silvertown Tunnel would address these limitations by providing a river crossing that is available to most vehicle types, including HGVs over 4m in height.

7.11.15 Information received from freight operators and industry representatives has revealed their assessment that each minute of delay caused by congestion costs operators £1; so a 20 minute delay for example adds £20 of cost to freight operators for each vehicle trip.

7.11.16 Some freight operators currently appear to absorb the delays and costs at the Blackwall Tunnel, probably as a result of there being no viable alternative route. One major freight operator, however, reported avoiding the tunnel entirely, indicating the use of diversions to other crossings.

Page 303 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.11.17 The cost of diverted journeys is estimated by industry representatives as being approximately 33p per km65. Therefore, freight traffic diverted from the Blackwall Tunnel to the Dartford Crossing faces additional fuel costs in the region of £12.50 per trip (on the basis of freight traffic diverting via the A2 to the south of the River Thames). This leads to additional costs for businesses locally and nationally in avoiding using the Blackwall Tunnel, and extended delivery times for both businesses and consumers.

7.11.18 As a consequence of the Scheme reducing congestion and improving journey time reliability, businesses would have more certainty over their route planning, more control over limiting their costs, and would be able to pursue potential commercial opportunities more effectively.

7.11.19 The Silvertown Tunnel Business Survey 2013-201566 indicated that just over half of all businesses in east London reported that their business would be more likely to operate cross-river if journey times were made more reliable, and nearly a third of businesses from sectors that typically use goods vehicles (such as those in manufacturing or distribution) said the Scheme would increase their customer base even taking into consideration the user charge, while only 4% disagreed.

7.12 Key points

7.12.1 The combination of additional cross-river highway capacity provided by the Silvertown Tunnel, the imposition of the proposed user charge, and the potential provision of improved cross-river bus services results in the overall impact of the Scheme being a net reduction in daily traffic demand on the highway network, including cross-river demand, in the ESR.

7.12.2 In the 2021 Assessed Case, demand to use the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels also reduces during peak periods when compared with use of the Blackwall Tunnel crossing alone in the Reference Case. However, actual traffic flows through both tunnels in the Assessed Case are forecast to be higher than through the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case.

7.12.3 This reflects the fact that, unlike in the Reference Case, traffic flows with the Scheme in operation match demand in all periods of the day (i.e. traffic flows are within crossing capacity in all periods). As a result, congestion and delay on the approaches to the tunnels are significantly reduced. The Scheme is

65 Source: Freight Transport Authority estimate, based on average operating costs for a 44 tonne articulated HGV. 66 Further details of this survey are reported in the Business Case Regeneration and Development Impact Assessment (Document Reference 7.8).

Page 304 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

therefore capable of increasing the throughput of vehicles through the crossing corridor at the busiest times without causing an overall increase in traffic, through a combination of the provision of new road capacity and demand management. Overall the user charge acts as an effective mechanism for suppressing induced traffic.

7.12.4 The ability to use the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels without encountering significant delay and congestion means that drivers paying the user charge are more likely to travel at the time of their choosing, rather than earlier or later in order to avoid the worst of the traffic. With the Scheme, the peak traffic flow periods - which are currently very extended - are likely to contract at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels, so that the distribution of trips across peak periods comes more into line with those on other major routes in London.

7.12.5 The choice of which tunnel to use to cross the River Thames would be largely dependent on the users' origin or destination north of the river, as the tunnels would share a common approach on the A102 south of the river. The Blackwall Tunnel would remain a strategic cross-river highway link with the Scheme in place, and is expected to accommodate the majority of traffic through the corridor due to its existing connections to strategic routes such as the A12 and the A13. The Silvertown Tunnel would provide optimum road access to the Royal Docks area (including the Enterprise Zone), parts of the City of London, and the Isle of Dogs including Canary Wharf.

7.12.6 The complementary function of each tunnel, serving both traffic using strategic routes north of the River Thames and trips with origins or destinations in areas in the vicinity of the northern portal, results in the overall distribution of all cross-river trips on the corridor not changing significantly from current observed patterns. Many trips travelling to and from areas such as Canary Wharf and the Royal Docks would make a minor change to their route to use the Silvertown Tunnel in the Assessed Case as against the Blackwall Tunnel in the Reference Case.

7.12.7 Consequently, the mean average and profile of trip lengths through the Blackwall/Silvertown crossing corridor is very similar in both the 2021 Reference and Assessed Cases. Average AM peak hour northbound trip length reduces marginally while PM peak hour southbound trip length increases marginally.

7.12.8 The most pronounced transport impacts of the Scheme in operation are on road network performance and would generally be seen at the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels and on their approach roads. In particular, noticeable reductions in Volume to Capacity Ratios (VCR) and junction delays are

Page 305 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

shown on the approaches to the Blackwall Tunnel on both sides of the River Thames.

7.12.9 With the Scheme in operation journey times through the Blackwall Tunnel in the peak direction in peak periods would be reduced by up to 20 minutes, leading to improved cross-river connectivity for residents and businesses in the ESR. As well as significantly improving journey times and the day-to-day reliability of the road network, the Scheme would considerably enhance network resilience to traffic incidents (and reduce consequential network disruption) by reducing the number of over-height vehicle incidents and the adverse impacts of incidents generally at the Blackwall Tunnel on traffic flows. The Scheme would also significantly enhance the resilience of the network in the event of a long-term closure of either tunnel, for example, due to a major incident such as a fire or toxic spillage.

7.12.10 Changes in road network performance elsewhere on the network and at other crossings in east London are minimal across all three modelled time periods with the Scheme in operation, indicating that the pattern of traffic using these crossings would not be significantly affected by the Scheme.

7.12.11 Where increases in traffic flows at other crossings are forecast, these are small relative to total flows. Similarly, where increases in traffic flows are forecast at junctions across the wider network, the impacts are generally minimal and, based on modelling undertaken to-date, could be effectively mitigated.

7.12.12 TfL recognises that traffic demand across London will evolve between the DCO application and Scheme implementation, meaning that the road network may look materially different in six to eight years' time when compared with the Reference Case, which only includes planned interventions and formally committed developments in line with WebTAG guidance. Committing to junction-specific mitigations is therefore not appropriate at this stage and may in fact conflict with the objectives of subsequent projects and programmes.

7.12.13 Instead, it is proposed that junctions across an extensive area of the road network around the Scheme would be monitored, and mitigations would be implemented under existing powers where appropriate based on assessments of actual traffic impacts closer to Scheme opening. Further details on this approach are provided in the Monitoring Strategy (Document Reference 7.6) and the Traffic Impacts Mitigation Strategy (TIMS) (Document Reference 7.7).

Page 306 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

7.12.14 A major benefit of the Scheme is the opportunity it provides to significantly enhance the bus network. Through reducing delay and providing a full-height tunnel (as opposed to the Blackwall Tunnel northbound bore, which has a 4m height restriction) with a designated lane for buses and HGVs, new and extended cross-river bus routes, amounting to around forty buses per hour in each direction, could be provided that would considerably improve PT accessibility in the areas served either side of the river. In the 2021 Assessed Case almost 30% of trips made through the Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels would be made via bus or coach, compared to just over 10% today.

7.12.15 The detailed design of the Scheme would improve access for pedestrians and cyclists, taking account of local community needs while being functional, practical and economical. It would help to create a legible street network that promotes walking and cycling, and defines spaces through public realm rather than highways. On the north side of the River Thames, the General Arrangement Plans (Document Reference 2.2) for the Scheme indicate the provision of non motorised user routes in the vicinity of the Tidal Basin Roundabout. To the south of the river, the Boord Street pedestrian and cycle bridge would be replaced with a new bridge aligned with Boord Street that meets all relevant TfL standards. Step free access over the A102 close to the location of the existing Boord Street footbridge would be maintained during the construction and operation of the Scheme.

7.12.16 TfL has also agreed with the host boroughs to explore further and provide funding for a number of additional initiatives that would help to improve the pedestrian and cycling network. These improvements would be delivered via a variety of measures, for example Section 106 style agreements. TfL is also proposing to produce a future EAL fares strategy document in consultation with the host boroughs, which would be published ahead of the opening of the tunnel. This strategy is not part of the Scheme and the final decision on EAL fares will be made by the future Mayor of London, but the proposed Scheme improvements to pedestrian and cycle access across the Tidal Basin Roundabout would be designed to improve access to the EAL and enhance the role of the EAL as a local crossing.

7.12.17 Access to the labour market and jobs would, on the whole, be significantly improved with the Scheme. Accessibility to jobs by PT would improve as a result of the enhanced bus network made possible by the Scheme and the journey time and reliability benefits it would bring for bus users. Accessibility by private vehicle would also improve significantly in terms of journey times, with residents south of the River Thames estimated to find over 200,000 additional potential jobs accessible within a 45 minute journey time in the AM

Page 307 of 308 Silvertown Tunnel Preliminary Transport Assessment Document Reference: 6.5

peak. And while the introduction of the user charge would result in the cross- river accessibility for car commuters being negatively affected in terms of generalised cost, car-based business trips would generally see a significant improvement in accessibility due to the higher values of time for these trips. Businesses and freight users would benefit overall from the improvements provided by the Scheme.

Page 308 of 308